October 12, 2020 | Authors: Henry Ealy ∗, †, Michael McEvoy ‡§, Daniel Chong , John Nowicki , Monica Sava ¶, Sandeep Gupta ∥ ∗∗ †† ‡‡, David White , James Jordan , Daniel Simon , Paul Anderson | Science, Public Health Policy, and The LawVolume 2:4-22 | Source |
“This historical retrospective will provide a timeline summary of events to help the reader orient themselves to many aspects of the crisis previously unknown and will discuss the significance of the March 24, 2020 COVID- 19 Alert No. 2 that had a dramatic impact upon cause of death reporting numbers. Supportive data comparisons suggest the existing COVID-19 fatality data, which has been so influential upon public policy, may be substantially compromised regarding accuracy and integrity, and illegal under existing federal laws. If the fatality data being presented by the CDC is illegally inflated, then all public health policies based upon them would be immediately null and void.”
“Arguing over what the most accurate COVID fatality count may be is an exercise in futility without intimate knowledge of case history and accompanying certificates of death, and it is the exact reason we entrust these determinations to the skill of our licensed professionals. With the inclusion of probable fatalities and significant changes made to how certificates of death are recorded exclusively for COVID-19 , scientific objectivity demands that we acknowledge the data presented is inaccurate.
Federal agencies have a legal obligation to provide the most accurate data to the public, fellow agencies, and policy makers they are advising, and they have a responsibility to abide by every federal law. This responsibility to collect, analyze, and publish data accurately, transparently, and with unquestionable integrity increases exponentially during a national crisis.
It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis.
Further federal investigation is justified by the magnitude of the crisis and the collateral damage generated by policies based upon projection data that was unproven and never peer reviewed. If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC’s perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined.”
US “leadership” followed the WHO-China Joint Mission, instead of the Constitution:
“1. In the face of a previously unknown virus, China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. The strategy that underpinned this containment effort was initially a national approach that promoted universal temperature monitoring, masking, and hand washing.”
“Members & Method of Work
The Joint Mission consisted of 25 national and international experts from China, Germany, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, Russia, Singapore, the United States of America and the World Health Organization (WHO). The Joint Mission was headed by Dr Bruce Aylward of WHO and Dr Wannian Liang of the People’s Republic of China. The full list of members and their affiliations is available in Annex A. The Joint Mission was implemented over a 9-day period from 16-24 February 2020. The schedule of work is available in Annex B.”