Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Marcus C Martin's avatar

i would like to believe the insurance groups don't fudge their numbers because of the gravity of the situation, but i don't believe they are not , i mean they knew in advanced they would have to answer for this, the mortality, covering for murder, and it so happens the people that run the insurance companies, and the same people that run, covid, pharma and wall street and media, banking all the criminals, And they are ALL used to playing with numbers pushing things out and around. In other words, i don't believe them for one second. In the same way i don't believe the CENSUS guy who was a democratic pollster type with clients like BIll and Melinda kill gates foundation , and the BAR association (cough) and the CDC - you can't get any worse that that to come up with all cause mortality , do you know how easy it is to program tallies that leave things out, if you really think about it and do some research you would agree with me , no one has challenged me on this so far , i have a whole lot of reasons to understand this

Expand full comment
ClearMiddle's avatar

All very interesting, but "leading epidemiologist" and "McCullough Foundation"? Watch out.

We can learn from reading reports like this, and I appreciate having them passed along through this Substack, and I appreciate the work that goes into doing that, but often the important part of an article resides in what is NOT said, what is avoided, and what serves to redirect away from the truth.

This isn't necessarily obvious at all, and in my comment yesterday about Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, "world’s leading oncologist" I had completely forgotten this name and who he is! Look him up, if you don't know (owner of the Los Angeles Times among other things -- thanks to @Kitten for jogging my memory). The author of that article only said "a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs", which hardly serves to scratch the surface.

Returning to the present article, all this data about excess deaths, which itself is questionable, serves to distract away from the fact that we are all sinners in need of a savior. No amount of pursuit of the "truth about the data" can ever save us. It's all a diversion that would keep us focused upon things that don't matter, a focus that can lead to death if that's where we settle. Is this a second meaning in the words "leading epidemiologist", or "leading epidemiologist"?

Keep that in mind as you read, and consider whether there might be something else for you to focus upon, a focus that leads to life.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts