Thread by @AlisonBlunt

1. 'The above video [] is a webinar given by Dr Genevieve Briand [advanced.jhu.edu/directory/gene…], a lecturer in advanced economics and statistics at Johns Hopkins University. In her talk, Dr Briand claims that the “Covid19 pandemic” has resulted in marked...'

2. ..'declines in other causes of death, most particularly heart disease, the usual leading cause of death in the United States.

Dr Briand reasons that deaths from other causes are being miscategorized as “Covid19”, and this is inflating the numbers and leading to misleading..'

3. ..'reporting of the “pandemic” situation.

Whether or not she is correct, there’s no denying this interpretation is possible – given the bizarrely loose definitions of “Covid death” [off-guardian.org/2020/04/05/cov…] being used around the world.

It would also explain the...'

4. ..'inexplicable lack of influenza activity [cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6…] occurring this year. statistician WM Briggs has a good write-up on this video here [wmbriggs.com/post/33680/].'

5. 'The presentation became the subject of some controversy after an article summing up Dr Briand’s work [web.archive.org/web/2020112616…] was published by the Johns Hopkin’s Newsletter, only to be pulled from publication a few days later. It was soon replaced with a statement from ...'

6. ..'the editors [jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/1…], in which they claim the article was removed because:

"[It] has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic."

Both the article’s author, Johns Hopkins neuroscience student..'

7. ..'Yanni Gu [linkedin.com/pulse/authors-…], and Dr Briand herself, objected to the article being removed.
Whilst “fact-checkers” rushed to defend the retraction [leadstories.com/hoax-alert/202…], keen to point out that a publication voluntarily choosing to pull an article out of fear ...'

8. ..'of backlash is NOT the same as censorship.

It’s vital to note here that neither the newsletter, nor the fact-checkers, are accusing Dr Briand of being dishonest or repudiating her work, they are simply claiming her conclusions are flawed. Allowing air time and ..'

9. ..'discussion of flawed conclusions is a vital part of the scientific method. Even if Briand is wrong – and we’ve seen nothing yet to show she is – there is no excuse to for trying to limit exposure or discussion of her report.'

10. 'All Dr Briand ever said was that there was likely “some misclassification” – but, apparently, the Covid narrative cannot be subject to even that minuscule level of dissent.'

Thread of, "WATCH: Covid-19 Deaths – A Look at US Data" tinyurl.com/y44noss9 @OffGuardian0