Covid: "But the NUMBERS Say There's a Pandemic!"

Updated: May 6, 2021

Note: For the complete "Table of Contents" of objections to the pandemic being a psyop (psychological operation) following the shock-doctrine playbook, and a full explanation of how and why it was deployed, and what its architects are seeking from it, and how to defeat them, visit our main page on covid.

Objection #2:

"But the statistics say there's a pandemic!

________ cases in this state.

________ cases in that state.

_____ fatalities in this country.

_____ fatalities in that country.

Numbers don't lie.

It's a pandemic!"


When the average person hears about a virus, the way most of us assess its dangerousness is by comparing it to other viruses that we already know about.

If someone says, “a virus exists, and 1000 people died from it last year", this doesn’t really tell us much. Not by itself.

It only takes on meaning when it’s put into the context of comparison to other viruses. For instance, the number of deaths attributed to the flu is in the tens of thousands per year in the USA, and half a million per year globally. So compared to that, 1000 is not cause for panic.

Only through comparison can we get any sort of context to assess what the number means, in terms of “reality on the ground” and “what it actually means for us.” When you hear the "covid" numbers - such as the "25 million cases" number, or the "500,000 deaths" number, you assess the gravity of these numbers by comparing them to the numbers from already-existing viruses, mainly the flu. The flu’s toll in an average year is about 50,000 in the USA, so in comparison to that, "500,000" (from "covid") does sound important. It’s ten times as much!

"Exactly! So what's the your argument?"

Here's the problem.

Scientific Consistency

One of the foundations of Science is consistency of measurement methods. It is unscientific to compare two numbers that were measured differently. You cannot, for instance, measure one road in miles, and another in kilometers, and then conclude that the latter is a longer road because the number value is bigger.


And if the roads are curvy, you also can't measure one with a yardstick, and the other with rope or tape that curves, and then compare the numbers.


You have to be consistent in your measuring methods, or else it's unscientific.

"Right. And?"

This means:

You can't use statistics to prove a virus is more dangerous and severe than other viruses if you're compiling those statistics differently from how you do it for all other viruses.

You cant use case numbers to prove a virus is more contagious than other viruses if you're counting the cases differently from how you count them for all other viruses.

You can't use fatality numbers to prove a virus is more deadly than other viruses if you're counting the fatalities differently from the way you count them for all other viruses.

To do so is unscientific.

And yet that is exactly what's happening.

The numbers you see on your TV, and in the newspapers, are designed to mislead you via comparison to your already-existing assumptions about the prevalence and severity of other viruses. With numbers that are "larger" than those of previous viruses, you're expected to think that this one is "worse."

The problem is, the "covid" numbers are compiled differently from the way numbers are compiled for other viruses.

It is unscientific and illogical to compare "covid" statistics to those of other viruses, and unscientific to draw conclusions about covid's virulence or severity based on them.

Your threat-assessment of "covid" is based on an emotionally potent, but deeply unscientific methodology.

"What you're saying makes sense... IF they're really counting differently. How are they doing so?"

Clownish Epidemiology

Everything about the way our leading "scientific" bodies are counting "covid" numbers violates the most basic principles of epidemiology.

They're counting cases differently because they're deploying armies of testers to fan out across the world and test hundreds of millions of people. They've obviously never done anything even remotely similar to this, for any other virus. You can't detect something if you're not testing for it. Obviously. And they've never tested with this intensity before.

And they're counting fatalities differently by including everyone who dies of any cause or any disease, as a "covid death," as long as covid (or even just a trace remnant of it) was present in their system at the time of death (or, sometimes, at any point in the person's life).

If a person dies of any cause - be it a heart attack, cancer, kidney failure, or anything else on the long list of chronic diseases - or even accidents, such as traffic or work-related injuries - and that person tested positive for covid at any time prior to dying - then that person is counted in the covid fatality count.

It doesn't matter how much of a role covid played in their death.

It doesn't matter whether covid played any role in their death at all.

It doesn't matter whether they were even sick from it. An asymptomatic carrier of covid, (or even an asymptomatic former carrier of covid), who dies of any cause, is counted in the covid fatality number - even though they were not sick with covid.

No distinction is being made between dying from covid and dying with covid.

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.

With is being treated as equal to From, for statistical counting purposes.

This is blatantly unscientific, but doctors and scientists around the world have been manipulated into complying with this scheme, through emotional panic, herd mentality, censorship, and threats of professional consequences, such as grant withholding, firing, loss of accreditation, institutional ostracism and ridicule, and revocation of licensure.

The governments of the world have taken the stance that "anything goes" during an emergency, and that if there's an "emergency", then we (the government) can do absolutely anything we want, regardless of whether it's scientific or not, and everyone (including doctors and scientists) has to accept what we do, follow along, obey orders, and shut their mouths.

"Do you have proof that they're counting the stats this way?"

Here: "LOL, the New York Post? That's a rag." How about Minnesota Public Radio? ​"Meh. I don't trust those sources." ​ How about video? ​ Here's Deborah Birx, the head of the U.S. Coronavirus Taskforce, admitting it:

It's not a "theory" if the people doing it admit that they're doing it.

"Meh! Dr. Birx is an airhead! A floozy! She always sounds like she's stoned! I don't respect her." ​ OK. How about state health departments? ​ "From red Bubba-states like Mississippi? LOL." ​ How about deep blue states, like... Illinois? ​

Here's Ngozi Ezike, the head of the Illinois Department of Public Health, admitting it:

"Well of course the USA is being dumb, but MY country would never do something like this. WE believe in SCIENCE."

Nope. Every country is doing it. Well, every country except Tanzania and Belarus.

Here's England:

See? They're really doing it.

"Ok, I see. They are. But are you really sure it's "unscientific"?

I mean, if people are dying with covid in their systems, then it's totally possible that covid played a role in their demise."

Even if they were asymptomatic, and died of a completely unrelated cause?

"Well... I don't know really. I'm not a medical professional, so I'm not qualified to decide whether this method is scientifically sound or not. How should we even know, if we're not experts in the field?"

There's a very simple answer to that. If it were scientifically sound, then we would have already counted this way, for other viruses.

If this was scientifically sound, it would already be the standard practice in epidemiology.

But it's not. And never has been. It's entirely unprecedented. This is not epidemiology. It's panic-driven pseudoscience.

"Maybe they're counting differently because this is a PANDEMIC, and they need to be extra careful to pick up every case."

But the altered counting methods are precisely what's being used to convince you that it's a pandemic in the first place!

Would it be seen as a "pandemic" at all, if not for the altered counting methods?

You're retroactively rationalizing altered counting methods because of the alleged seriousness of the situation, when those altered counting methods are what's making the situation look so serious in the first place.

That is not logical, captain.

"True. Kinda funny how that works.

But wait: How do we know they haven't counted this way before? Maybe they've always counted this way. Maybe they counted this way for every other virus.

How do we know they didn't?"

Do they do this with colds?

If someone had a cold when they died, do the doctors say they died of a cold? And list that on the death certificate? And collect all the "common cold death" numbers from all the hospitals in the state, country, and world, and compile them into a giant number? And display it on the news every night?

If they did, there'd be multiple "pandemics" every year.

"But those aren't monster plagues!"

Neither is covid. You're just assuming it is, and using that as your founding philosophical premise, and referencing all debate arguments back to that initial assumption. But you have no reason to. Because such a premise has not been established in fact yet. The whole thing we're doing here is debunking it. Why do you think theres a plague? Because of precisely the fraudulent epidemiology we are exposing right now!

"But do millions of people regularly die from... err... excuse me - "with" - the common cold?"

Yes. Everyone has the common cold. Including me and you. Right now. And at all times.

Everyone has a virome.

All of us have viruses at all times, even though we're not sick.

Many species of them.

Including colds and flus.

These cold and flu viruses live symbiotically with us, and don't make us sick because a (healthy) immune system keeps their numbers in check.

But they're still there.

Not in large enough numbers to cause sickness. But they're there.

And that means a PCR test (the type of test used for testing covid - the type that has been used to produce the huge covid case numbers around the world) would be able to detect their presence, if applied to them.

If a PCR test were designed to detect a particular strain of the common cold, millions and millions of people would test positive for it, even though they're not sick. And millions more would test positive for each of the other strains of colds. Because those viruses are in everyone, all the time. If you test for them, you will find them.

"But we don't have millions and millions of cases of those..."

Because we never had a testing army for them!

What if we had?

What if we had created a testing army, millions of people strong, and fanned them out across the country, into every corner of the world, performing hundreds of millions of tests, for the common cold, just like we did for covid?

You'd have over a hundred million positives. Just like with covid.

Never mind "what" you're positive for, and whether it actually *matters.* Never mind that. The point is, you would detect something. There would be tests that say "positive." And there would be a quantity of such "positives."

A number of cases.

And if the TV networks and major newspapers wanted to, they could display that number.

They could display it at the beginning of every newscast, and on the front page of every paper.

If they wanted to.

With a big number appearing every day, the perception (and official classification) of a pandemic could be created.

And then that big number could be exploited to retroactively justify the strange new "testing army" and intense media attention.

Even if nothing is actually happening "on the ground," the numbers can tell a story of a monster plague spreading across the world like wildfire.

And then that "story" could rationalize its own telling.

"But what if people weren't dying from it? Very few people die of the common cold. How could it be a pandemic, if everybody gets it but almost nobody dies from it?"

Severity doesn't matter. Not to the W.H.O. at least.

The W.H.O. changed its definition of pandemic to exclude severity, just before 2020. Only the spread matters now, for the definition. Not severity, just how quickly it spreads. By the W.H.O.'s own definition, our hypothetical "Cold with a Marketing Campaign" would meet the definition of "pandemic," and be classed as a pandemic. Because even though it wouldn't be severe (common colds aren't), it would show a large number of cases, and therefore meet the definition of a pandemic.

By the W.H.O.'s new definition, which they created just for covid, every cold is a pandemic, and the only reason we aren't freaking out over each and every one of them is because we don't have case numbers for them - because there is no army of testers fanning out to test for them. If there was such an army, testing for a common cold, they would find case numbers, and the W.H.O. would classify it as a pandemic.

This applies to each and every common cold virus out there. And each and every endogenous virus that isn't even linked to disease. This is literally how it works.