Briard’s presentation at Johns Hopkins University


One of our correspondents was kind enough to send me what he says is an unmodified video of Professor Briard's presentation on COVID-19 deaths.  pl

This entry was posted in Health Care. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Briard’s presentation at Johns Hopkins University

  1. O.B. says:

    It was a lovely presentation. The one thing that is annoying is that it is not clear whether the two time periods that were compared – regarding the mortality peaks in the around-Winter periods of 2018 and 2020 – started both in the same week of each respective year, or not.
    Now, the good news is that thanks to the good fo’ks at Dominion, as they expand their range of work, we can expect much less people kicking the bucket in future years; we might go into negative numbers; and that every week, not just a sudden spike, like the one it happened a week ago.
    The bad news is that hogs now think that we smell and look funny.

  2. O.B. says:

    Err.. a month ago, I mean.

  3. Eric Newhill says:

    First time I’ve seen the video. Thank you to whoever provided the link.
    IMO, Briard has done a good job and has done it using the CDC’s own data. She even shows us how to access the same data she used within the CDC site. I don’t immediately find and flaws in her analysis. It is simple and to the point and makes perfect sense. It agrees with other analyses I know of.
    I’ll reiterate that the CDC covid excess death page graph and data does not agree with other sources of data within the CDC site, such as that utilized by Briard. It’s out there on its own, inexplicably. Also, that it is really years of life lost that counts; not raw death counts. Briard kind of alludes to that. Also, comparing year to year deaths, if you must, should be done as an *age adjusted* rate per 100K. Boomers are entering an age bracket that increasing brings them closer to the end of their expected life span (truly sorry for the reminder, bu unavoidable). So we will continue to see an increase in the raw number of deaths each year for the next ten years or so on that basis alone.
    There is a lot I would like to share with this committee regarding covid and deaths that would build upon or augment Briard’s presentation. I’m trying to think of a way to do that.
    Insurance companies have a lot of relevant robust data and solid analysis; an excellent source that has not been present at all in the covid debates.

  4. Fred says:

    I think congratulations are in order.
    To the Democratic party, for ensuring that Black Americans remain in dependence on government handouts:
    “Black businesses experienced the most acute decline, with a 41 percent drop. Latinx business owners fell by 32 percent and Asian business owners dropped by 26 percent. “‘
    The “virus” did not issue a single executive order declaring businesses non-essential and forbidding them to operate. That was done by politicians. 15 days to slow the spread, day 265 and counting.
    Why do the democrats still require this? I believe it can best be explained by the acronym BFYTW. I don’t think it will end well.

  5. JohninMK says:

    Just watched it all the way through. Fascinating. Some very unwanted statistics in there, all straight from the CDC website as Excell uploads. Some take aways:
    – for the period examined, Mar to Sept 2020 the total number of Covid labelled deaths was 198,000 whilst the total number from all causes, inc Covid, was 1,780,000
    – for the period of Covid deaths examined in detail,the proportion of deaths in every age group barely changed Only 13% of deaths under 54, 87% over 55, 54% over 75
    – the highest weekly peak of deaths of all causes in 2020 was 11,000 higher in April than in the same week in 2018
    – when Covid deaths peaked deaths from all other causes fell, such falls did not occur in any other year since 2014, and exceeded heart attacks, which dropped, the biggest killer in the US
    – the number of children’s deaths this year are lower than in the last 5 flu seasons.

  6. English Outsider says:

    Eric – found on an English website. You can never tell on the internet whether the commenters are genuine or not, but as for as one could judge from previous comments this one is –
    “Many parts of Germany are doing their best to catch up. In my East German province, Covid is now creating a real mess, fully comparable to other European hotspots.
    Capacity of local hospiltals is at their limits, thus patients are transported elsewhere. The death rate among old people is very high and still growing. Saxonia had only only lightly affected bey the outbreak last spring. As a result the population as well as the admsintration (how very democratic!) did not take the issue seriously this time and also didn’t use the summer to prepare… stupid to the bone, as we humans are.
    And, what I believe is essentail: This time, the adminstrative reactions to growing infenctions, despite the much better control due to much more testing, were delayed. Not least, due to the unpopularity of the available measures.
    Now, we are in a situation, where positively tested but asymptomtic care personal continues to work in our district capital Görlitz, the beautiful city at the Neisse river (border Poland-Germany). This is legal, as long they use some enhanced protective gear. All due to the tremendious lack of care personal…
    The testing capablities are further enhanced, but in the meanwhile the health administration and its ‘light brigade’ is completely overwhelmed with contact tracing (via phone) even though they get massive help from volunteers from all other branches of the district administration and even by the army (a current german ‘soldier’ on the phone, does this idea comes closer to a joke or a nightmare?).
    But even in this situation rules are less strict then in spring and there are still braindead anti-anything protesters around in the public.
    With the intention to support the preparation of our district for the next outbreak I tried to volunteer in February, but was stopped by my superiors due to the alleged ‘importance’ of my regular work (which is largely bs, as its rarely urgent, with a long term focuse on times scales of months or even years). In the meanwhile, I pretty much lost the basic trust in the adminsitration’s capability to organise effective, legally decent anti-Covid measures.
    Apart from that, my personality is not particularly suited to interrogate dozends of people via the phone in 8 hour shifts and then order them into quarantine based on questionable knowlegde and fishy legal grounds (Germany has in fact a quite liberal law in these respect)! My most capable and intelligent collegue volunteered recently, but then complained bitterly about the bad training she had received and warned me to join. In the moment I therefore refraine from taking part in the ongoing Christmass ‘Corona-Volkssturm’ in the lovely uplands of Lusatia, Eastern Saxony. I try to behave responsible in all other respects…
    Intended or not, we are practically decimating the population with an age of 70+ years in the moment. One could think that this is unappropriate. In any case, the responsibility is very basically ours.
    The current high infection numbers will not go back, before people behave more responsible. I wonder if that will happen before Christmass.”

    The thing is, I wrote in to the Colonel’s site a while back saying that the Germans had handled the virus better than we in England had. I had direct personal (anecdotal) knowledge of that as well as from the media reports and figures. I was impressed. Now this, and I’m hearing personal reports from other parts of Germany saying things are worsening there too.
    I know you are up on the figures in the United States and wonder if you’ve been looking at the figures over here in Europe. Is there a fair comparison? Or are circumstances in the States – population spread, different treatments etc – so different that the comparison is valueless.
    Just one question about Dr Briand’s fascinating webinar that Colonel Lang has put up. To what extent must we take into account the reduction in Covid deaths due to control measures so far? Do these figures show that the control measures are to an extent working or do they show that those measures are useless?

  7. Deap says:

    There was a loaded line: ….”The current high infection numbers will not go back, before people behave more responsible.”
    Tell us exactly ..” what is behave more responsible” and please back it up with evidence, Ms Deutschland. Danke.
    Let’s try – isolate the vulnerable; not the healthy. Isolate the 00.01% who might have serious complications. This is no longer the Zombie Apocalypse, if it ever was. Except in media covid porn.

  8. Walrus says:

    We had a second outbreak in March that costs us 700+ dead, mainly in nuring homes where it spread like wildfire.
    We went into lockdown for Melbourne city (which is bigger than LA), the rest of country Victoria wasn’t locked down…
    Almost no winter flu season since the prevention behaviors work on colds and flu too.
    We now have gone 30 days with no cases and life is getting mostly back to normal. Businesses are very very busy and are hiring again.
    The virus is real. The Pandemic is real. Lock-downs work. Masks work. Contact tracing works. Quarantine works.
    However if you want to make a political issue out of all that, then feel free……
    we are going to run an International tennis tournament in January and the Australian Grand Prix in March. That will no doubt generate cases, but we think contact tracing can now deal with it,

  9. Fred says:

    “Boomers are entering an age bracket that increasing brings them closer to the end of their expected life span …. we will continue to see an increase in the raw number of deaths each year for the next ten years or so on that basis alone.”
    That’s very true, and been brought up before. (It will undoubtably have to be mentioned again). In addition the Boomers are trying desperately to maintain their political and cultural power. The last thing they are willing to do is face their natural mortality.

  10. Zar says:

    I agree with most of Briard’s summary. And I think it’s easy to make the case that a few hundred thousand deaths is insignificant compared to the dangers of economic shutdown or rushed vaccines. I’m even willing to believe the CDC is lying about their data. And despite all that, I’m still very tempted to say some insulting things about Briard’s honesty or intelligence.
    At the very end (40:08), Briard overreaches by a mile:
    “All this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess death. Total death number are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary.”
    To draw this conclusion, she would have to completely ignore the weekly counts provided by her own data, which say that total deaths were up 10-40% each week when comparing 2019 to 2020, between weeks 13 and 39 of each year. (And hovering around 5-10% since then.) Way over average, and 2019 isn’t an outlier.
    This isn’t information I’m taking from some fact-checker. I downloaded the same data she used and checked it myself.
    Briard’s chart at 33:36 implies that increases in COVID deaths correlated with decreases in other deaths. But Briard’s data contradicts her conclusion: comparing 2020 to 2019, non-COVID deaths went up by 8-15% over the 3-week time period she uses. If anything, that suggests some COVID deaths went undiagnosed or contributed to death by other causes.
    I guess Briard thinks that doesn’t matter. Instead, she thinks it’s important that if you compare the rise and fall of COVID and other deaths, the two figures look like they balance out if you eyeball em. But only if you subtract COVID by heart disease first. And only if you check just those three weeks. Otherwise, they don’t match.
    Maybe someone can explain this to me, but it sounded like she skipped straight from describing the chart to pleading “Don’t shoot the messenger” without explaining why she could be shot. If she’s just saying that COVID deaths ought to have been written up as death by other causes, then how does that let her ignore the rise in total deaths? If she’s saying the CDC faked its data, then why does she trust the same data to draw her other conclusions?

  11. O.B. says:

    There are so many damn fine people revealing failures in the official story, that it is hard to make a selection. Still, we must share data, so here it goes:
    On the statistics of infection and mortality: the study by Bendavid et al. (including the world’s leading questioner of the application of statistics in the verification of hypothesis, John Ioannides), published in 22th and (second version) 30th of April this year.
    On the treatment of the disease caused by Covid-19, we have what is generally mentioned as the world’s leading top epidemiologist, Didier Raoult.
    Then when have Wolfgang Wodarg, the man who has been standing up against disproportionate sociopolitical responses to pandemics in Germany, and in Europe as a whole, for a good number of years – 8, 15, could it bee even much more than that.
    Sucharit Bhakdi has had a similar prominent role in Germany this year.
    Finally, on the end of this short list, we have hubs of information, such as the Swiss Policy Research and Off-Guardian projects and web sites.

  12. Razor says:

    There is a chemical engineer here in Ireland who has been analysing the official stats and showing some remarkable analysis.His name is Ivor Cummins and Googling his name will firstly show his recent tweets. Just below the tweets is a link to his you tube channel, with regular updates and fascinating interviews with experts.
    Essentially he is saying the pandemic is over, and due to the unreliability of the PCR test, “cases” are being reported, but these are not ill or dying people, what he describes as a “casedemic”.
    Link to his channel here;

  13. Deap says:

    UK questioning the data that led to their lockdowns too:
    Algorithms now beats Al Gore as the PR hoax of the decade.

  14. Eric Newhill says:

    There is never a fair comparison between the US and Europe/UK. They always define things differently and the definition is everything.
    That said, it’s the same phenomenon. People at their actuarially expected age of death are dying.Some of them have fragments of virus DNA (or is it RNA?) in their system when they die. Their deaths are then attributed to the virus.
    Same with testing, only those testing positive rarely die if they are not at their expected year of death based on demographics, lifestyle and medical conditions.
    I don’t know what else to say.

  15. Deap says:

    Who knew the very first epic of western literature – the Illiad – dealt with mortality, what it means to be an inherently flawed human, and the fickleness of the gods who due to their immortality never had to deal with the messy details of human mortality. Who even teaches the classics any longer?
    Agree Fred, I think we are also witnessing several generations unwilling flirtation with mortality at this present time, which generated this particular over-reaction to “covid”.
    Baby boomers facing the end of their mortal coil, regardless of how many junk science and new age totems they indulge in. And younger snowflakes who never had to face anything yet – no childhood diseases, no wars, no military draft, no unsafe paces.
    “Covid” is a spiritual crisis; not a health crisis.

  16. English Outsider says:

    Thanks Eric. I know a couple of statisticians, one of them in epidemiology. I should say that their views agree with the views you have been expressing on the Colonel’s site.
    I’d have liked it if we could have dodged such questions. I’d have liked to have seen a Mongolian style approach at the beginning. Rigorous exclusion of cases from the country. Intensive testing and tracing of cases that did get in. True isolation of infected or suspected cases. Maximum conventional public health measures, in short.
    In effect, maximum effort to prevent the dam giving. But in both your country and mine it has given. So I suppose the measures necessary to stop the dam giving aren’t those that are of much use when it has, if that makes sense.
    In any case I don’t believe serious economic damage could have been avoided. Our subjective assessment of risk is quite different from that of the statisticians so patterns of work and of consumption would have changed dramatically whatever the politicians did.
    Certainly in England what happened was what was inevitably going to happen. According to the authority I’ve referred to before, Dr North, we didn’t have the right administrative or hospital infrastructure in place, nor the right plans. That’s not something to be put right in a few weeks.
    And many of us instinctively reject the degree of interference in our private lives that rigorous infection control measures in the early stages would have entailed. Given all that we were in for it anyway with Covid. I don’t know if you agree that the damage done in the States was pretty well inevitable too, given similar circumstances and given the even greater rejection of interventions smacking of “big state” in your country. Perhaps live free or die does sometimes have to mean live free and die.

  17. Deap says:

    We can thank the British Imperial College of Medicine for first wave of global hysteria with their fake modeling – it is the Zombie Apocalypse we are all gonna die. Perhaps our real illness is holding our shared language colleagues across the pond in such high esteem.
    But the global zetigeist was ready for a plague and a plague of disinformation is what they got. The real disease tracking that has not yet been done is the transmission of disinformation – where did it start and how did it travel. Does the transmission of misinformation today follow vastly different networks than neighbors gossiping over the back fence?
    We need to learn more about this disinformation network. Or we are in for more worlds of great hurt and harm. To thine own self be true — ancient Greece philosophers. Have we rubbed that primal instinct our of our beings today?

  18. Eric Newhill says:

    I think Deap at 10:56 Dec 10th is correct.
    There was no need to inform the world about this virus in the framework of a cataclysmic plague. Rather, it could have quietly presented as report on a new flu that attacks the respiratory system of the elderly in a way that can cause higher mortality than some of the other viruses.
    Every year there is a virus that kills the elderly or otherwise compromised. Every few years there is novel virus that is a little nastier because we don’t have an immunity to it. Nursing homes are often hard hit. There is nothing special about 2020.
    I am not a conspiracy theorist by nature. I think Oswald killed Kennedy all by his own crazy self. I think some radical Muslims crashed airplanes into buildings on 9/11/01 with no support other than from other radical Muslims. Yet, I do think the covid thing is a conspiracy that was then aided and abetted by the reactions of naturally silly and fearful people in positions to influence. But those silly and fearful people got set on their course by conspirators. It was not necessary for them to be set on that course. It was done on purpose.

  19. Deap says:

    Time, data collection and perspective are now presenting “covid” in context. This means it is time to expunge the vividly implanted first and now erroneous impressions about The Great US Election Year Plague of 2020:
    Mission accomplished, now it is mop up the damage time.

  20. Deap says:

    Published in 2017, before “covid” became the 2020 Democrat’s wet dream.
    How does one die from the flu — pretty badly, but unsensationalized, since this was not an election year:

Comments are closed.