The Earth Party



Cooking the Numbers


Quick note:

If you don't feel like reading text right now, and would rather just listen to some audio, this video sums up much of what's on this page.

This is a Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor, by courtesy, of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.

Otherwise, on with our presentation!


To put it bluntly, governments and media are cooking the numbers to make the situation seem a lot scarier than it actually is. 


Sorry if that offends you, but it's true.  And you're about to see a list of the ways.

Let's go through the current narrative, point by point, and talk about the plot holes.


Ready?  Here we go.

Perhaps the biggest "number cooking" is in the subject of the fatality rate.

The Official "Fatality Rate"

Does NOT Make Sense.

Government and media

are inflating it,

through statistical accounting tricks.

The generally accepted "official" fatality rate for the virus is somewhere between 1% and 5%.

That rate is based on bad science. 

Very, very bad science.

In fact, it might be something other than science altogether.  We'll get into what that might be, a bit later in this presentation.


The real rate is actually much less - somewhere around 0.1% - maybe even less.  It might be lower than the flu.


To see how the number has been manipulated, we have to look at the equation that calculates the rate.

It's a simple division:  raw number of fatalities divided by raw number of cases.

It looks like this:

Let's briefly go back to math class :)

Apologies if this sounds condescending, but some readers might need some refreshers in math terminology.  So let's have a quick review:

When you have a fraction, what is the top number called?

It's called the numerator.  If your fraction is 3/4, the numerator is 3.

And what's the bottom number called?

The denominator.  In 3/4, the denominator is 4.

And what is the result called?

The quotient.  In 3/4, the quotient is 0.75

Numerator, divided by denominator, equals quotient.

Got it?


Now let's say you were trying to manipulate a quotient, to be higher or lower.  There are two ways you can do it:

-by manipulating the numerator

-by manipulating the denominator

(or both, obviously)

Let's say you want to make your quotient higher.  To inflate it.

How would you do it?

-by inflating the numerator

-by deflating the denominator

(or, even better, both!)

So if you wanted to inflate a statistic - like... perhaps... for instance... the fatality rate from a virus - you would seek ways to both inflate the numerator, and also to deflate the denominator.

By making the number up top bigger, or by making the number on the bottom smaller, you can make the end result bigger. 

And that is exactly what governments and the corporate media are doing.


Let's start with the denominator.  The number of cases.  The amount of people who have the virus.

This, of course, depends on testing.  Only if a person tests positive, can they be included in the caseload statistics.

And in order to test positive, they need a test.

And tests have been in short supply.

Very short supply.  They've been making a stink of it, non-stop, since January.  They've been screaming, "We don't have enough tests!"  And "Won't somebody please get us some tests, now!?"

In fact, it became a political football, with politicians casting around blame for "whose fault it is" that we can't get enough testing kits made, quickly enough.

So this ought to tell you something.

Not a lot of people are being tested.

The denominator of the fraction is being suppressed.

If somebody actually dies, it's a fairly un-ignorable event.  It's going to get reported, and included in the statistics.

But what if someone just... gets a little bit sick, and then quickly recovers?

What if someone doesn't even get sick at all, even though they did get infected?

They won't be included in the statistics.

So while virtually every fatality is being counted, and the numerator is certainly including every data point it could possibly include, the denominator is not getting that same input.  The denominator is lost in the wilderness.  Massive data points are missing from it.  It's extremely suppressed.

How extremely?  Well, at one point, the leaders of the U.S. pandemic response team (like Dr. Fauci) were casually tossing around figures like "10 times", in reference to how many un-tested infections there were for each confirmed (tested) infection.  In other words, for every positive tested case, there are 10 cases that go untested, unrecorded, and possibly even unnoticed, even by the patient - i.e. asymptomatic.

And they told us this with the intention of frightening us, by making it seem like there are "so many infected people running around, and it's so dangerous out there!"  But if you actually think about it... it should not make you more afraid - it should make you LESS afraid!

Because if there are ten times more cases of the virus then what we've been able to officially confirm and include, then it also means:


the denominator is missing out

on 9/10ths of its data input.


It's being reported as only one tenth of its real, actual size. 

That means the quotient - the fatality rate of the novel coronavirus - is being reported as ten times higher than what it really, actually is!

Get it? 

Holy smokes, Batman!

Yep.  And this means:


If the figure they're giving us for the fatality rate is 1% - 5%, then the real figure is actually 0.1% - 0.5%...  Which is roughly the same as the seasonal flu.

And that's only extrapolating from the casual comments made by people like Dr. Fauci - i.e. the casual figure of "10 untested cases for every tested case."

Those aren't scientific numbers, of course.

What does actual science say?


The actual science says the ratio could be much higher than 10 - in other words, there are more than 10 untested cases for every tested case.

Why?  Because, according to the W.H.O., 2% - 3% of the entire world population has already been infected (and most didn't even realize they had it).

That's 156 million to 234 million people.  Already infected.  With most not noticing it.


That WHO estimate was announced on April 20th.  Let's check the "official case count" from CNN for April 20th:

2.4 million cases, CNN says.

How badly is CNN under-counting cases, according to this W.H.O. study??


Let's divide 156 million by 2.4 million.

That's 65 times.


And for 234 million?


That's 98 times!


That means that the real case-count is 65-98 times greater than the officially reported case-count.

65-98 times!

Where are we getting this figure?  Here:

Don't just read the title.  Read the article.  The article says the opposite of what the title says.  (A standard trick in sensationalist journalism).


The text of the article says that  2% - 3% of the entire world population has antibodies!  That's not "a few."  That's 65-98 times the official case count!

Which means that the real denominator is not 10 times more than the officially reported one - it's 65-98 times more.

Which of course means that the quotient - the fatality rate for COVID19 - is 65-98 times lower than the official figure.

Goodness gracious.

Need more evidence?

Check these out:

Netherlands:  The Dutch National Institute for Health conducted an antibody study and showed 3% of their 17 million population likely has had the virus.

Sweden:  A random sampling of 100 people at a blood bank showed at least 11% had antibodies.

Note: You'll need Google Translate for that.


Italy:  A random sampling at a blood bank showed 40 out of 60 people had antibodies.  That's 67%!

Boston - Massachusetts General Hospital conducted a test of 200 passersby in one area and found a 3rd had antibodies.

Also in Boston- a Homeless shelter tested all 397 people and a 146 tested positive for the virus. None showed any symptoms thus far.

In Finland - The actual number of people infected with the new coronavirus may be dozens of times higher than the number of laboratory-confirmed infections, reports the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).

These articles support the thesis that the denominator is greatly suppressed, and therefore, the quotient (the death rate) is greatly inflated.

Also:  Notice how these articles are trying to spin these findings as scary, because it means there are "so many cases out there" - and conveniently forgetting to explain how it means that the death rate is lower (because of the deflated denominator).

Is this a simple failure of logic on their part?  Or is it perhaps on purpose?  Do they perhaps want you to be afraid - even if that level of fear is unwarranted?


(Yes.  Yes they do.  We explore this topic in

Part 3: Manipulating Emotions).

Anyway, the point is, mainstream official publications are confirming what we're saying here.

We don't need to use "unofficial" sources.


We don't need to rely on any "conspiracy websites."


We don't need any sources besides the official ones.


We can use the same sources as everyone else.  We can use the WHO, the CDC, Fauci, Birx, and all them.  We have enough information already, from the official sources - and all we have to do is connect it.


The fatality rate is much, much lower

than they've reported.

And we've just proved it.

And this is after just one type of number-cooking!  There are waaaay more!

Like, for instance, the fact that they're restricting testing to only those cases that are the most severe - the most likely to result in fatality.  They say, "If you're not sick enough to go to the hospital, you don't need a test."


So they're skewing their tests specifically toward those people who have the highest probability of severe symptoms and fatality.  Does that sound "scientific" to you?


It's kind of like conducting a political poll on the issue of "gun control"... while standing in the parking lot of of a gun store.


The complete opposite of scientific.

Get it?

Still don't believe us because we're just a random website on the internet?  Ok.  Here's a doctor (Dr. Jay Bhattacharya) talking about this idea:

And if you're short on time, here's briefer article of a Stanford Professor saying the same thing:

(Not a "random schmuck with a Facebook page" - a Stanford Professor!)

OK, now here's a pretty picture you can look at while you breathe easier than you've breathed in weeks:

Now let's talk about the numerator.  The number on the top of the fraction.

How many people have actually died from the novel coronavirus?

If your government gives you a statistic, and says "X number of people have died from it so far", what does that number actually mean?

How did they decide whom to count in it?

What are the criteria for determining whether someone should be included in the fatality count?

"Well that's easy, chief!  There are two criteria!


Number one: They got the virus, and tested positive for it.  And number two: they died.


Simple, see!"

Wait a minute.  Does that mean that if someone dies from something unrelated to the virus, but still had the virus when they died (of the unrelated thing), they will still get counted in the fatality count?

"Well yes, they would be counted, but come on!  If a person died with the virus, the virus obviously contributed to it!"

What if they fell off a building?

What if they were in a road accident?

What if someone shot them with a gun?

What if one of those things happens, and they also test positive for the virus?  Should they be counted in the statistics?

"Well... they shouldn't."

But they will.

"But there's not a lot of people who die from those freak occurrences, so it wouldn't inflate the numerator THAAAT much... but there ARE a lot of people who had chronic health problems, who then get "pushed over the edge" by the virus."

And should they count in the statistic?

"Why shouldn't they?"

If a cancer patient has already been written off as "terminal", and the doctors don't expect them to last more than a few more weeks or months, and then they get coronavirus and die, should that be included in the fatality statistics, as if the coronavirus was the thing that killed them?

If a person's arteries are already 90% blocked by plaque, and they're a heart attack waiting to happen, and the coronavirus is the "straw that breaks the camel's back", should this be counted statistically as the same as a totally healthy person catching it and being stricken down by it?

If a person lives in a region with severe air pollution, where tens of thousands of people are already dying each year from lung problems from that pollution, and they also now have coronavirus, can their lung failure be rightfully blamed on the virus, when the pollution got them 99% of the way there before the virus even showed up? 

"Are you saying those people shouldn't count in the statistics?  Are you saying their lives are less precious?  Are you saying they DON'T MATTER?"

Of course they matter, but do you know what portion of the total coronavirus fatalities they account for?

Do you even have a guess?

Think of the number they show you on your TV each day.  The fatality count.  The "ticker."

Does that number make any distinction between these different categories of fatalities?


Does it have a breakdown of fatalities by type, and by the degree to which the coronavirus contributed to them?

Of course not.  There is no distinction displayed.  It's just that one number.  No further breakdown.  No further investigation.


And your news anchors will make:


-no attempt to explain this difference,

-no attempt to inquire about this difference,

-and no acknowledgement that this difference even exists.


No distinction is being made between

dying WITH coronavirus

vs. dying FROM it.


In fact, if you watch corporate news, this right now might be the very first time you became aware of this difference!

Isn't this fishy?

It gets fishier.

In Lombardy (northern Italy), one of the major "outbreak" centers, there is horrific air pollution.  It's been that way for decades.  Northern Italy is a major industrial region, with very lax pollution controls.  It has even been compared to that of central China, or "Los Angeles in the 70's."  Tens of thousands of people die from respiratory problems there... *every year.*

And that didn't stop just because a coronavirus came along.

People there are still dying from decades worth of smog and soot built up in their lungs.  None of that has changed.

But now, if they test positive for COVID19, either before or after they die, they're being included in the Italian (and global) fatality statistics, and no attempt is being made to separate the total of these cases, who died WITH the coronavirus, from those who actually died FROM it.

And this is not merely a "local error" being made by hospitals.  This is a mandatory directive coming down from governments.

In the USA, the government has required all hospitals to report all fatalities as COVID19 fatalities as long as the deceased tested positive for coronavirus in their system.

It's not even on a hospital-by-hospital basis.  It's a national requirement.

The cause-of-death does NOT have to be scientifically determined as COVID19.

No autopsy has to be performed.

No link has to be shown between the viral infection and mechanism of death.

As long as they had the virus when they died, they are required to be included in the statistics.  It's a requirement.  From on high.

"But is that really true?  Where did you hear this?"

From Dr. Birx, the Coronavirus Response Coordinator for the USA.  Dr. Fauci's sidekick.

Here she is, confirming this insane protocol:


Here's a more detailed article on it:

"Meh.  It's a conspiracy theory.  I don't trust those sources."

How about video?

Here's Dr. Birx on video admitting it:

Here's the Illinois Department of Health admitting it:

You see?  They're telling you right to your face:  COVID19 death statistics include everyone who dies with coronavirus in their system, regardless of what they actually died FROM.

Here is a gallery of over THREE HUNDRED testimonies of individual people who say that their friend or relative was listed as "dying of Covid" when they died of something else entirely.

Oh, and just in case you want to hear another "side" of this (and you should always seek out more than one side!), here is the article about this issue:

Like many "Factcheck" articles, it starts out by calling the claim a "wild conspiracy theory", but then goes on to schizophrenically confirm the claim, as you read the text, without acknowledging that it's confirming it!

For instance, this article says:

"The CDC advises that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definitive diagnosis cannot be made … but it is suspected or likely … it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”

One hypothetical example cited by the CDC is an 86-year-old woman dying after exhibiting symptoms such as a high fever, severe cough, and difficulty breathing, “after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with COVID-19.” The CDC says that “probable COVID-19” may be listed as the underlying cause of death — a deduction made “given the patient’s symptoms and exposure to an infected individual.”

So yea.  Confirming the very idea it just called a "conspiracy theory" a few paragraphs earlier.


It also goes on to say:

“In the normal course, autopsies would then determine whether the person died of the effects of the COVID virus, whether the person had a brain tumor or brain hemorrhage for example that might be unrelated to it and what the relative significance of both the infection and the pre-existing disease is,” he said. Even if the number of autopsies being conducted are low because of concerns of infection, he said, “then you will include in those numbers some people who did have a pre-existing condition that would have caused death anyway, but that’s probably a small number.”

Likewise, Marc Lipsitch, a professor of epidemiology at Harvard University, told us in an email: “There are going to be some people who die of something else, happen to have COVID and get tested, and get counted as COVID deaths but would die anyway.


You see, the dumb article confirms, in its text, the claim it denied in its introduction.  Typical.

But guess what?  That's just the tip of the iceberg.

It gets even crazier.

In a recent development, they've gone even further into insanity.  Hospitals have been ordered to record a death as coming from COVID19 any time a deceased patient had contact with someone who had the virus - even if the deceased never actually tested positive themselves!


Update: Youtube has censored and deleted this video in the time since we posted it here.  It was a video of a nurse at a hospital in Brooklyn saying the doctors "diagnosed" her with COVID19 *without testing her.  She holds up a patient report, which says:
Symptoms:  Fever
Diagnosis:  COVID19
She then goes on to insist, over and over again, that no one tested her.

We're going to leave the shell of the video up, to draw attention to the censorship going on, which is the most intense censorship campaign ever conducted since the dawn of the internet.

To read more about this censorship, see
Part 1: The 9/11 of Medical Fascism.


"LOL, that's a conspiracy theory.  I don't believe some random person on some Youtube video."

How about the CDC (Centers for Disease Control)?

Here's the link.

Right there, it's telling you they don't even have to test positive - they don't even have to be tested - in order for COVID-19 to be listed as the cause of death, if they die.

Your government is admitting this to you, right to your face!


"Oh but come on!  If they were coughing, if they had a temperature, if they couldn't breathe, it's obvious what disease they had!"

Is it really?

The "novel coronavirus"  is not the only virus that causes those symptoms.

Can you think of any others?

"Ohhhh no.  No you don't.  Don't you dare say this is the seasonal flu!  I'm warning you!"

Well, what about the fact that...

The flu was especially bad this year, yet nobody's mentioning it anymore.


The flu still exists.  It didn't drop off the face of the Earth.


It didn't stop existing when COVID came along.  The flu didn't say, "alright COVID, you got this, i'ma peace out."


If the flu still exists, where is it?  What is it doing?  How many of the people getting sick are actually flu victims?

A ton, according to CNN:


Let's look at what we have:

1. The worst *flu* season in decades...


2. Counting every death from flu-like respiratory symptoms as "Covid-19" WITHOUT testing them...



I mean, come on.  This is obvious.

A huge portion of the "death toll" from COVID19 is actually the seasonal flu.

What portion?

Well, have a look at this article from the New York Times:

Yes, you're reading that correctly.  In just one data "adjustment", they increased the fatality count for the ENTIRE COUNTRY... 17 percent!!!




The New York Times just admitted it!  Right there!

Are you seeing this?  Are you processing the implications of this?

And it's not just in the USA.

They're doing the same thing in

And in Germany...

And in the UK...

They're doing the same thing everywhere.


And it's increasing the so-called "fatality count"... massively.  It's nowhere near what they're telling you on the TV.  It's probably less than the seasonal flu.


Here is the Great Esteemed and Unquestionable Dr. Fauci admitting it:

And a Stanford University professor of epidemiology:

And the chair of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

Here's a list of 12 prominent epidemiologists saying the same or similar things:

The common thread is that we overreacted to a virus with a fatality rate similar to that of the seasonal flu.

If you get this virus,

your chances are the same

and perhaps BETTER THAN

the seasonal fucking flu.

Here's another pretty picture.  Stare at it and let that stress out.  Deep breaths.  In and out.

Feel better?  :)


Now let's talk about the rate of spread.


How fast is it actually spreading?

We cannot know for sure whether this virus is even *spreading* at all.


This is because, although the number of reported cases is increasing exponentially, SO IS THE NUMBER OF TESTS.

It could very well be that the number of positive results is increasing... BECAUSE... the number of TESTS is increasing!

This is such a simple thing, it's tempting to say, "No way!  Our government and media can't be THAT stupid!"

It's like hiding a jewel in plain sight, right there on your shelf.  Since it's out in the open, a thief would assume it's not real - it's a fake - a piece of plastic - because "no way someone would leave a real one in plain sight like that."

That's kinda how this is.

Look.  Here's what we know:


We know that cases only get reported when there is a positive test result.

And we also know that the number of tests administered is increasing each day. 







Why isn't it obvious to everybody what's going on here?

If you wanted a real, accurate, scientific picture of caseload, you would administer a consistent number of tests each day, and you would administer them to a random sampling of people.  You would stand in the town square, and select subjects at random - just like a political pollster.

For instance, let's say the whole country does this, with a consistent number of 100,000 tests per day.  If you do this, and the number of positives increases day by day, then you can say that the virus is spreading.  That would be scientific.

But that isn't what they're doing! 

What they did was begin with a tiny number of tests - and then gradually, incrementally increase it day by day.

And then, surprise surprise, the number of cases also gradually, incrementally increased, day by day.

How did we not notice this as a sham?

It may actually be the case that the virus is not spreading - or not nearly as fast or as "exponentially" as they're claiming.  In fact, there is evidence (from Stanford University, not from a random Facebook schmuck), that the novel coronavirus has been circulating in the United States since at least as far back as November.

And in the interest of fairness, here's a scientist with a dissenting opinion:

In any case, the fact that the caseload increase can be easily attributed to the testing increase... is obvious.

It's a gaping plot-hole.

Speaking of the tests,

there's something fishy.

How did they have a test, ready to go,

for a brand-new virus,

immediately after discovering it?

How long was it between discovery and the first test?

A week?

Is that even possible?

Is there any historical precedent for such a fast development of a test?

Is there any other virus, before this one, where they were able to make a test for it a week after discovering it?

The Earth Party has reached out to several people in the appropriate fields (virology, epidemiology), and none were able to provide a historical example of this.

Are these tests even testing what they say they're testing?

Might they have been using tests they already had?  Perhaps tests for the general family of coronaviruses, and not specifically this coronavirus?

If you have an answer to this question, please send an email to

Furthermore, these tests are viral DNA magnifiers.  All they need to detect is ANY AMOUNT of virus in the sample, and they will yield a positive result.  They DO NOT test for "HOW MUCH" of a virus someone has.


Why is that important?  Because ALL of us are ALWAYS carrying around trace amounts of MANY VIRUSES.  (Especially coronaviruses!). This is NORMAL.  It only becomes problematic when those viruses multiply out of control.  The amount is what determines healthy from sick.


In other words, you're always carrying around coronaviruses in your body.  Testing for the presence of "any at all" does not give an honest picture of health vs. sickness.  Only testing the AMOUNT would do that.  And these tests do not test for the amount.


For more info:

"But this pandemic has to be real, because I see footage of it!

Hospitals overwhelmed!

Doctors and nurses crying and dying!

Rows of patients intubated!

Halls lined with bodybags!

Mass graves!

I'm seeing it all on the tele-tube, so it has to be real!"

This tactic is called outlier hyperfocus.  By focusing attention on a tiny minority of situations, the media can craft a narrative that this is "everyone", "everywhere."  They've been doing this kind of thing for decades - it's nothing new.

We'll explain it in more detail now, in:


Part 3: Manipulating Emotions.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!

To donate,

visit our Patreon Page.


Questions?  Comments?


This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now