Sayer Ji interviews Joy M. Fritz on the CDC Controversies with Covid Death Statistics Reporting

hi everyone sayer here and i'm just really honored to be speaking with joy uh fritz whose work i was exposed to um through her having a background as a death recording clerk and helping um to shed light on some of the questions that have come up around the way covades have been um coded and certified in terms of death certificates and one of your presentations joy really opened my eyes to a lot of uncertainties around what what actually you know that death certification process involves um

whether it's really grounded in science or you know is it open to interpretation and opinion and i was recently pretty flabbergasted to find that it's very clearly um it's a medical opinion of the physician if it's a physician who's uh you know doing this kind of coding and i would just love to get more insight from you because in this moment there's so much fear around new cases and covet death statistics and a lot of question over what does it mean for example that recently the

cdc um published an update on their provisional death count uh stating that only six percent of those deaths that were you know sort of uh calculated were a result solely of covet 19 being listed as the underlying cause of death and so there's been a lot of question even the president retweeted uh somebody's um twit tweet about it and then he got censored on twitter which was pretty shocking and so it so helps to have someone who actually knows about how this works and uh again

i'm just really happy to have your time so um yeah i would love for you to shed some light anything that comes to mind i'm just ready to learn myself well thank you sarah i really appreciate just having a chance to actually meet face to face even the uh via zoom and um i have appreciated the research like i mentioned before on green men info was one of the first resources that really gave me not just their of kind of you know some of the debate

that was going on around you know health and infectious disease and everything but thoroughly cited and i just appreciated that so much about green red info i mean you can't find that in mainstream media which is ironic because they're supposed to be unbiased and actually direct source journalism and and they don't even cite their studies that they talk about and you guys are just so careful about citing everything and um really offering the argument as you know as it progresses and not just being inflammatory so

i've really appreciated what you guys have you know given to me and gifted to me in my research with trying to find the truth in health data and um health decision making so i really appreciate you guys and it's an honor to spend some time and chat about this so um yeah and i did i came out took an initially a few years ago to just share my observations on trying to make a decision for our my own family about the flu shot and realizing as

i was looking to try and find out how many deaths the flu shot causes versus how many deaths the flu causes but the data wasn't even there to really make that decision and it wasn't there because i was creating it i mean i was a death recording clerk and i understood exactly why that information wasn't there for me to find so i actually started there about two years ago and kind of offered a little expose on how death certificate recording would not help people make that

decision um because of the inherent flaws and biases that are already in death recording and um and then now covet has kind of exacerbated that you know that annoyance that i have with people looking to and scientists and experts looking at our mortality statistics as they're provided by the death recording process which i was a part of for six years and trying to use that as some kind of scientific bludgeoner to make their point either way and it's just not um it's it's a broken system

from the very beginning where we try and get information about the death um which is what i did i was a mortuary personnel death reporting clerk that would when a death happen would reach out to the doctor and ask you know send them a worksheet have them fill it out and the process starts and then you um send you type that in i was certified in the electronic death registration system in california and you you know input the information you send it to the local vital

records registrar's office and then the government gets a say in what whether that those doctors that those causes that the doctor provided is allowed to be put in the way that they put it on the death certificate and so then the government gets to say you know yes or no or approve it or reject it and send it back and ask more questions so there's this whole process that goes back and forth between you know these vital records registrars information grants like me the doctor or

the coroner and there's just this whole run around and meanwhile the family is waiting to be able to have services so it's a really pressurized situation very time sensitive it's no place for a careful scientific investigation so we're just when we do death certificates we are not there's not really a for vast majority of people you're not getting a thorough scientific unbiased investigation of what caused your loved one's death that's not what you get on a death certificate you get at whoever the attending physician was

at the hospital or your primary care or your hospice doctor and their medical opinion as it is as it conforms to the vital records registrars you know you know their their book of what's allowed and or the coroner if the coroner is involved which is very unusual but um if they are involved then they get a say but even the coroner has to capitulate to the vital records registers so when i found out that this nvss the national vital statistics system sent out this memo um

for guidance guidance back in march it was the end of march it was like one of the last days of march i think yes and they were explaining how to how death certificates were coveted ought to be done i really looked at that and saw that there were some problems some very problematic things happening then and then they instituted a system of manipulation then and i kind of went over that in the video and i explained um probably too long i went like my facebook video

is like an hour and a half long and then i tried to shorten it down on my youtube video it's like 20 minutes but you know it's a long x boring explanation of why this this memo together with how we do death certificates not just from my perspective but with all this documentation how we do just certificates is not it's not appropriate it's manipulative of scientif of what anything that's left of the scientific process of death reporting and um and it's just it's not going to

help us actually understand what caused these deaths um and now we're seeing people trying to find the truth in death data and i think that's why that that article went viral um about the six percent versus the 94 on the cdc's you know information it went viral because people are so it's not making sense to them and there's so many stories coming out of you know deaths being called coba deaths that don't that they didn't have any real evidence for it being a coba death like

you know and and there's so many stories you'll find of people saying you know my loved one they said it was a cove of death but i know what it was it was this this and this and it wasn't it wasn't a cove death um so we're seeing all of that and we're we're needing a more logical explanation and some some actual unbiased numbers and so i think people were really hungry for unbiased numbers so they're like oh look the cdc is adjusting things and they're

going through their data but the we misunderstood what that data was actually saying so um and i kind of clarified that recently yeah if i could um add that that um guidance that was released um through the as a national uh vital statistics system is that right that was um really mind-blowing to me too and that's how i found your work because when i looked at it i was shocked to find that they didn't require testing or any confirmation that the person they're saying is dead

from covid actually um i mean meaning suspicion was all that was needed and that was the language they used and i thought that was diametrically opposed to what i thought happened um on on the end of someone who is in your position and so so clearly you you helped elaborate on how that's actually not the case and um yeah that's what led me to your work so it's yeah very helpful to hear you explain this in greater detail yeah well and um specifically on that um

the six percent but versus the 94 percent the problem there um is that what and i kind of went over this in my post on my public page on facebook but um what's interesting about people looking at that and saying oh look on death certificates there was only six percent of them said covet 19 only so that means only six percent of the deaths happen because of covid and i want to clarify that if i can so what's um a death certificate the code the way

that they defined comorbidities and how they organize their data in that you know if you click on that provisional data and what they defined as comorbidities was literally it wasn't a underlying condition which is another it's in that that's another phrase that would be more appropriate i think when we're talking about people with diabetes or alzheimer's or you know a history of stroke or you know these different things that can really lead to a decline in health and make you vulnerable to any infection covered one

of them but any infection and um so that was would be like we should probably call that underlying condition and not co-morbidity because medically speaking a comorbidity is just something that is together with and you know that sickness so a comorbidity with cobin would be a respiratory failure of some kind you know or respiratory distress sepsis can happen with any infection with most infections but you know covet is one of them that can cause sepsis um so these are coat they're together with the sickness and

that's what co-morbidity means and so the cdc was very being very um they weren't really explaining what co-morbidity meant and so it's a very broad category of just meaning sickness together with and and one of the things that would always be on i mean almost always be on death certificates is the doctor is supposed to kind of line up the timeline of you know the most immediate thing that happened which would normally be like cardiac arrest or respiratory failure and that would be on the first

line of part one and then under that is something that happened a little farther away maybe a couple of days before that their kidneys started failing right so then they write kidney failure on line two and then line three or four would be what caused all of this right so was it chronic kidney disease was it an infection was it you know just a decline in health from stroke what is it that led to their decline that caused their death and so in that place they

would put something like coba 19 mrsa um you know alzheimer's disease stroke things like that so it's whatever is listed on the last line in um in part one of death certificates that's what's reported in our mortality statistics and what's considered what causes death did you have a question about that yeah because there's an example um that i can actually share um which they show okay this is based on the guidance from the world health organization and nvss that according to the new emergency icd code

u07.2 where no virus is is proven to be present but only suspicion that they can put down suspected covid19 as the underlying cause of death and that that will then be reported through the cdc as a covet 19 death so that was the part that was really shocking to me to see that you know all that had to happen and i understand that for a physician uh writing this up it's a medical opinion anyway so you know yes they use their intuition they look at symptoms

and and then they also clarify that because coronavirus is a huge family of over 100 viruses that if there's any um suspicion it's coronavirus related they should always mark it as covid19 so that was another thing that was like really like they're acknowledging that there's no real way to prove it's one it's the strain coveted 19 but they should always code it as covid19 to reduce confusion so i i just wanted to ask you is this is this unusual um or is this um what usually

happens i think that it would be um you know it's it's i think on a common sense level and i think that this should hit doctors wrong that if you have someone with pneumonia that you write down what strain of influenza or coronavirus or rhinovirus or you know whatever is causing that that you would actually pick a strain randomly and it's not randomly there are you know they they obviously we were in a pandemic right now or you know we're learning about this new virus and

so it's a belief that they have right now that it's likely to be coveted right so and i think that it is we have to step back and realize that mortality statistics are very much just a historical um reflection of the medical beliefs at the time especially if you don't have laboratory data to back it up they're going to go with whatever the popular medical belief is so as long as we are creating and public health officials are creating a a belief in the medical community

about something then it is going there are going to be more code 19 you know um death things written on death certificates and the doctor has the right to write whatever they want they have to back it up in court if that legal document is taken to court and they have to show some kind of proof um but it really isn't and i think this is a serious misunderstanding both on in the academic community and in the um you know civilian community is that we think

that mortality statistics are facts that there are the scientific facts of death and they're not the only scientific fact of death is that that person's name died at that time at that place but the cause of death is not a scientific fact and it says so in the manuals the court the coroner and the physician manuals from the cdc it says that this is a medical opinion and med it even says in the manuals medical opinions change from provider to provider so there's a freedom to

have different medical opinions and i've there were so many times where i sent death certificate worksheets to multiple doctors for the same patient because we were rushing and we were trying to find any doctor that would sign the death certificate and you know as long as you attended over the patient the past six months you're allowed to sign so we would send it to a bunch of different doctors to see who could get back to us the quickest because the family wanted to have the service

right away and i would get worksheets faxed back to me from you know the kidney specialists the cardiologist and the primary care physician and they all had different causes of death on them wow so they're allowed to have differences in opinion of what was the primary cause of death um and that's why i think that this was it overstepped their role and bss overstepped their role by telling doctors that you know if the person tested for covet or if there was a suspected they suspected had

coping that that should be the underlying cause of death or would mo more likely than not be that that's an overstepping of their jurisdiction to tell the doctor what the probability is when we didn't even know the probability back in march like i'm sorry but how dare nbss start creating beliefs in the medical community about probability of what causes death for physicians that have been attending over these patients sometimes for months or years and they know that this person if any infection would have if they

would have gotten any infection they would have died but now npbs is telling them if they test for co for cobit or you think they were exposed to coping now that's the only cause of death that's their underlying cause of death and that takes away the freedom of the the physician to actually have a medical opinion that is his own or her own and i think that was that's kind of where the manipulation happened happened yeah if i could add it's amazing verbatim you're stating what

i found on the cdc's website and review today which is their guidance for certifying deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 april the 16th they did an hour-long presentation i watched the entire thing today at minute 13 it said no such thing as an objective medical cause of death um they say there is no such thing it's all opinion and then they say it minute 19 13 seconds that uh covert deaths um are assumed um they're asked to make an opinion if they think or believe it's

the cause so there's there's no um you know there's no pretending that this is anything but an opinion based on the present beliefs and thinking of the time which of course with the mainstream media blasting a trillion times over that kovit is killing all these people we're all you know shuttered in our homes um and then let's see they said same thing you said suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability so yeah everything you're saying is right from the cdc's own guidance

on how to um code this and again [Music] they cite probability when word they were instructing you know physicians to put covid more often than not as the underlying cause of death back in march you know end of march and april when we didn't have probabilities yet we didn't really we didn't have good data that's why they locked down because we didn't understand the disease fully yet and so for them to create a belief about probabilities before we have the data on probabilities is proof itself

that this is that they're manipulating medical beliefs to go a certain way and that and data and now we have mortality data that has been influenced by the nbss opinion back in march about this and now we have data that the doctors think is scientific because it's mortality statistics and so now they're they actually think that they have scientific fact to and that increases their idea that that you know cases of the elderly with pneumonia are going to be covered because now they're they they have

what they think is scientific facts in mortality statistics backing that up but that was actually created by an assumption of probability and not the actual reality of probability in the first place so it's just perpetuating its own cycle of you know um a belief system based on assumptions and not actually unbiased data well thank you for that because um you know given i didn't know the story about how you got into helping people understand this side of how this all works was with um trying to

figure out like the flu vaccine and you know probabilities around that and one thing that i'm concerned about i'd love to know your opinion on this is you know given that the early trials on the covid vaccines which are of course experimental in part also because they're rna based vaccines which have never been approved for human use previously the reactions they induce are often fever and chills which are listed at the cdc as one of the primary symptoms of covid infection so i'm concerned that when

they do release the vaccines into the public a lot of the symptoms will be identical to what they're saying are covered and then they'll identify it as a second wave i'm wondering if you have any opinion on that because i think that's something that um at least i'm concerned about well um so one of my um my nerdy hobbies is i love reading the disease uh surveillance manuals for different infectious diseases i find them i just they're good reading and then you actually can find the

the research that the cdc fight like finally find it not just on the main page but like how do you justify that truth claim or that truth claim and then they actually have the you know the things cited and you can actually go and look and be like oh well you you didn't you cherry picked from that study to try and make that point that's kind of a long shot so i love reading the disease surveillance manuals it just gives a lot of context to historical

context and it helps you see things from a provider's perspective and how because they literally give instructions on you know this is what we know about the disease this is you know the treatments this is your diagnostic criteria so it really helps you understand things from the medical perspective as well and um one of the ones that was shocking to me was diphtheria when i was reading about the diphtheria you know disease and what it said in the diagnostic criteria to rule out diphtheria is to

find out if the patient had a diphtheria shot so you're literally ruling out something that they could have just based on their history of having a shot or not so you're assuming that they're not part of the population that didn't respond you know we have you know you know primary and secondary vaccine failure that causes you know people to not respond some people don't respond to the vaccine so maybe they didn't get their antibodies up for it or whatever and so they didn't get protection and

maybe they do have diphtheria but the doctor's going to say you don't have diphtheria i can rule out diphtheria just based on your history of receiving the dtap vaccine or the tdap vaccine and so that's problematic when you look at what could happen with covid right which is that if you get the shot and the diagnosed with cobit even if you get coveted or this could be a possibility as far as diagnostic criteria goes is that the doctor's now gonna rule out because of their belief

in the vaccine just even though there's not a lot of good data and this is a rushed vaccine and it's very experimental in a lot of ways um we the doctors are going to think vaccine equals prevention so you can't have covet even though you have all these coveted symptoms rule out covid done let's test for other things just based on your history of receiving a vaccine so we already see that that's happened with other infectious diseases that the diagnosis gets changed just because of the

medical providers belief and not because of laboratory testing and things like that so i think that that's pretty that's something to look out for in the medical communities belief system as it develops once the vaccine comes out whether they're going to be basing it on whether they're going to be sending out the person for testing or not purely based on their history of you know vaccine uptake great well thank you for that so i guess one of the things that still is a question that i

would love for you to give us some reflection on is when it comes to the cdc's updating of their provisional death count and their statement around six percent of those um you know who died from covet was solely written as coven on the death certificate what what does that mean ultimately is do you have an interpretation as a death recording clerk it means a few very different things to me reading that it means the doctor was either very lazy um and there's there's a few there's

quite a few of those where the doctors just they're lazy they don't have time whatever and so they're just gonna or they're beaten down that was another kind of doctor that i i had to deal with a lot where they got so many causes they would give a really good death certificate of this happened there was a fall there was this and then the the health department come back and said you can't say there was a fall otherwise that's a coroner's case and the doctor like

fine take out the fall and just put in this and so then they would go back and the health department said no no you have you can't put in that word and you have to put this so the doctor would waste so much time going back and forth and the family would get upset because now their services have to be moved because the doctor didn't cooperate or they didn't give the causes that they wanted and so the doctors get beaten down over this process of back

and forth so they'll get very i call it i'm being a little mean because i'm calling it lazy but it's also just beaten down you just you're just beaten down by the system and you're like i know how the system works all they want is this underlying cause that's all i'm gonna write i'm not going to actually give like the timeline of what happened i'm not going to give comorbidities they don't even care about that they just want the underlying cause the record will be approved

it'll be off my desk so to me there's a very kind of mundane reason for cobia 19 being the only thing written on a death certificate um because of that population of doctors they just they don't have the time they just want the death certificate off their desk um so kind of that that's but also i think that there there could be in that group the the deaths that occurred that were were um they didn't have symptoms leading up to their death that were in line

with cobit and they did post-mortem testing which is like why why are we doing post-mortem testing for copa19 and not for every other infectious disease yeah like our elderly have been dying and this is something that really upsets me because i i saw people talk about hospices and nursing homes that are having seven or eight of their people die of cobit in two weeks and i'm kind of back here like we had people i would get like that i would get calls from you know for

five or six new cases from the same nursing home in a matter of a week and we're not the only mortuary in town so there was more people dying in these nursing homes than even i received nobody cared nobody tested them for infectious diseases or looked at their medical records and said why did you know seven or eight or nine elderly die in the same nursing home in the same two weeks nobody cared before nobody tested cases post-mortem right and all of a sudden now we're

testing cases post-mortem that's like well it's really nice that you guys care now about what's killing the elderly but that doesn't make that data equivalent to you know it doesn't actually help us form true beliefs about what infections have been and what things have been killing our elderly in clusters before because that was happening before so um and i'm sorry i forgot because i that always bothers that that we're being we all of a sudden care about our elderly and what's killing them now and these

infections when they've been dying from infections constantly before and nobody cared but what was your original question i i'm not off track you're good that was helpful i guess what i i'd like to do is it's almost like a thought experiment because like there are a number of causes of pneumonia we know of many of them are classified as infectious and then there's chemical induced pneumonia like symptoms and healthcare acquired pneumonia and how do we discern between healthcare acquired pneumonia and pneumonia yeah like so because

we know that with covet 19 tests there have been a lot of false positives in florida actually there were 400 plus laboratories that reported 100 percent um positive on their tests so we know that not all the tests have been accurate but even in the absence of a positive you know pcr covet test all they still need is suspicion so they never even really needed confirmation or laboratory validation but so if someone has pneumonia um that's going to be listed as another cause right not a

comorbidity that's part one would it be part one part one that would be kind of like their progression of symptoms basically from the primary cause right or the underlying cause yeah like so for example they may have had a history of copd and heart disease related to a lifetime of smoking cigarettes and over time because of the regenerative capacity of the body to heal tissue at some point those stem cells just can't function any longer and the body does succumb to a lifelong of life lifelong

um culmination effect of of toxicity etc or just age because that's you know the majority of those who died of cobalt 19 were older so it's just amazing to me to think that none of that is accounted for in that everyone who died with those sorts of indicators of pre-existing conditions were just written off as being killed by covet 19 which of course would justify the mask wearing the social distancing the shutting down of businesses the staying away from each other but it doesn't seem to

make much medical sense to me um based on especially the fact that they haven't identified a virus and differentiated it from the virum which has trillions of viruses so the whole thing really kind of gets confusing and or seems like some kind of conspiracy ultimately against the truth which is that there's no way you can prove that covet 19 caused anyone to die so i mean that may be going to down too far down the rabbit hole but that's what came to mind when you were

talking about that well and let me just offer something from the last time that they decided this is the report of the panel to evaluate the us standard death certificates this is basically the group that comes together or is supposed to come together every 13 to 15 years and see you know how are we should we change anything about the way that we're recording deaths um you know is there any more boxes we should put on there or anything like that um and this the last

time they met was in 2003 which is more than 13 years ago so they're behind a little bit but they said i was specifically looking for you know i would love to have checked off more information about the medical record on the death certificate so we can get contextual information and that would i think help create more accurate you know public health beliefs but um so i was kind of looking for you know where when did they make that decision and you're literally looking at like

a transcript when you read this it's like 300 pages it's a transcript of the meeting and it's the nerdy scenery stuff i love page 139 of this they talk about risk factors on a death certificate and they and they go over some ques some possible things they could add to a death certificate like did alcohol use contribute to death right maybe smoking contribute to that um was there a history of substance abuse did the death result from a prescription medication problem um was contagious disease present

at time of death that's one of the questions the bullet points their decision was no no don't add that as a possibility because it's just a risk factor and we want the the death certificate to just be about causes of death not to be about prevalence data but they've just turned coven 19 mortality data into prevalence data who is not playing it with the presence of copin 19 in their body or suspicion of it or whatever so they're turning that data into prevalence data for cobit

19 but they specifically said back in 2003 that we are they were asked can we turn this can we get some more prevalence data off of it on to death records so we can get more a better understanding of risk factors for people they said no they said currently only significant conditions contributing to death are collected these risk factors do not have to relate to the cause of death in previous discussion of risk factors the subgroup agreed that it was important that there be a direct

connection between the conditions and risk factors and the cause of death so it's not that there was a suspicion that there was copen 19 there or that the person tested positive that shouldn't actually matter the direct connection to death ought to matter in the mind of people that that decide what goes on our death certificate so meaning like if someone was asymptomatic for example there was a false positive test etc um that would be an example where you know it it would it would sort of

bring the attention more to the causes that would be more obvious you're saying is that is that right or um yeah so well so if you what's happening right now is there so i'm i'm actually i'm i'm i'm six weeks away from having our babies right and one of the things that i'm pregnant i'm a little i'm a little chubby right now you know the third trimester plump going on but um one of the things that i've been looking into and hearing about is that their

their require a lot of hospitals are requiring testing either before you go in as a as a pregnant person with no symptoms you're requiring testing in order to be admitted to the hospital to find out if you're coveted positive or not now as a pregnant person if i go into the hospital and i have my baby and i tested positive then and i die from some complication that happened during birth or after birth or something like that they they have this test that was not indicated

for me to take in the first place that shouldn't even be on my medical record or be a consideration of my factors and that could be the doctor could depending on his belief system say well it was the covet 19 it was you know sars covet 2 that really put her in a position that she didn't recover from hemorrhaging or this or that and so he could blame it on cobia 19. that's his medical opinion he's allowed to do that but there for for there would

be no indication for me to have taken that test in the first place and i could have died and and if i just went along and died from other reasons of you know their malpractice or you know my own stuff then i would have had a more accurate death certificate i think you know according to my belief system so and what i think medically about the the connection to death the direct connection to death right yes but because we're testing everybody going into a hospital right

now we're testing people regularly that aren't indicated for it we're testing people just as a monthly or every couple monthly kind of thing maybe in nursing homes now you are giving doctors data and asking them to create and and really tempting them towards a diagnosis that is not based on symptoms it's not based on you know actual respiratory issues or you know the different gastro whatever what's going on with covid they're not actually coming to that probabilistic conclusion themselves they're being given this prompting of well

there's already this laboratory test done and they're already positive so you know depending on that doctor's beliefs that could be a covet death i think there's there's some problems with that's it's hugely helpful because you know what i'm thinking a lot about these days is is the role of hydrogenic causes of illness and death because someone who would have been you know certified as dead from covet could have been an elderly person might have been on 12 medications a typical case of polypharmacy and it's so

convenient to blame an invisible particle maybe one that wasn't evenly accurately tested or not tested at all for the death of the patient when it absolves liability culpability um you know which would otherwise be there uh and then the psychogenic aspects of being so terrified by this virus and causing all types of adverse effects because those two things combined to me might help explain what appears to be the excess deaths that the cdc has been reporting because when one points out that okay maybe kova 19

wasn't involved in the 181 000 deaths that the cdc claims it was the cause of then what is the cause of the excess deaths and that's a question that i don't know if you have any answers for but i've been suspicious of that being related to all of the you know ventilators that were maybe used out of fear that they you know were necessary when in fact they weren't and you know all the things we're kind of referring to i don't know if you have an

opinion on the excess deaths that the cdc reported right so there's actually a couple things so first um i'll talk about the just real quick on excess deaths um i actually looked into that when i was looking through the provisional data and i there's an asterisk by at um basically the expected expected number of deaths there's an asterisk and that's based on um the 2017-2018 death data right so you look down on the asterisks and it says 2000 based on 2017-2018 deaths that happened how many

happened in that year right um and so i looked at that data and then i asked the question okay you're going back three years what if we go back three years again and compare between 2017 when there's no pandemic and 2014 and 15 when there was no pandemic yes whether there was a jump in excess deaths from 2014 to 2017 and what that rate was or what that uh increase was and i forget what it was it's on my it's on my public page i posted

on my public page the mathematical equation but it was um there was something like um a hundred and eighty thousand 180 or 186 thousand excess debts from 2014 to 2017. oh wow we've currently when i did the math i think it was a month ago or so or two months ago we were at um a hundred we're projected to be at like a hund if we have a five percent increase what's in our deaths by the end of the year um we will be at 140

something thousand excess deaths if we stay at five percent increase from 2017 that means we will have 40 000 less deaths in this the 2017 to 2020 bracket than the 2014 to 2017 bracket so again context is super important you got to look at what they're talking about and not just the last three years but historically what have been our jumps have there been kind of ups and downs you know let's get some context when they say excess deaths and not just look at the past

couple of years so mathematically that's the end that's my assessment for that and the xss now ventilators and medical um uh medical involvement this is something that is very it's a huge thing that i have against death recording in general um and it it and it's because it started with me actually fighting for the doctors against the health department because the doctors i would get worksheets back that would say um that the underlying the underlying cause the last thing that was lifted was overuse of opioids

or extended use of opioids and i would try and submit that and the health department kick it back and say doctors can't can't give medication as a reason for death they're not allowed to coroner's office has to so the coroner's office has to investigate okay now what's that because it's not a natural cause so that's why not a natural cause right so and that's the big thing is that the the whole system is based on a very limited freedom of the doctors to give their medical

opinion and only natural they're only the natural causes of like their medical opinion which doctors have medical opinions that that things aside from natural causes are causing illness in their patients all the time so they should have the freedom to say overuse of opioids was really the underlying cause in this person but i had to go back and this happened to three doctors within the course of a couple of months that they gave me opioid reasons for death and i had i tried to fight it

with the health department they said no it has to be a corner case and i'm like the coroners are just all the coroners do if there's no sign of foul play or trauma is they just take pictures of the body or the l.a the los angeles corner which is the biggest porn i mean they're the most populated county in california which is the most populated state um so valet county corner they'll do a sign out corner case which is just they come and they take pictures

of the outside of the body to see if there's any foul play and then they look at the person's medical record and they'll usually just pick like we'll even just come up with something they'll say like aflosclerotic heart disease like that was typical on sign out cases just it's just atherosclerotic heart disease it means you have an old heart that's it and so that would be what the coroner did even when there was other things on the medical record that they could have picked as a

natural cause they're just going to be like atherosclerotic heart disease that was their go-to so that's hugely problematic because i knew that as soon as it was out of doctor's hands we were going to get a less most likely a less accurate cause of death from the coroner because they weren't going to do a full autopsy on this this person had been attended there was a medical record they were just going to look at the medical record take some pictures of the outside of the body

and be done with the case so i would try and fight it and every single one of the doctors i had a call back and say i'm so sorry the health department's not gonna let you put that um you know i you if you want to keep it on there it'll just become a corners case the family will have to wait two weeks while the coroner gets to us on their list and their services are going to be delayed and all of these things are going

to happen if you leave it on the death certificate but you're allowed to doctors are allowed to leave it on the death certificate and we just we just report it to the corner and the coroner takes over and the coroner does death certificate but i had to kind of explain the doctors it's going to create a really big problem for the families and the coroner's likely not gonna do any kind of investigation so it's up to you what you want to do but that's the reality

and they would say all right take it off they had whatever you know they would give me like a you know a natural cause of death and now that doctor forevermore knows that they can't put medications on the death certificate and that is a that's a big deal for for scientific statistics and so the opioid crisis which was so shocking in the many that died it was much probably much more significant as as far as and that's for pharmaceutical induced um deaths generally probably yeah yeah

so doctors i think have just learned and usually if you're a doctor a primary care person that's or hospice or whatever or hospitalist to you're going to learn within a few years what you are aren't allowed to put on a death certificate and then you're just going to go you're going to go with the flow you're going to do the natural causes but that that brings up the ventilator issue right is we have even for doctors that their medical beliefs are individually crafted for themselves and

they and they do have their own independent beliefs about that that patient might have died because of medical mismanagement or whatever they wouldn't have the freedom they would know if they've done more than ten death certificates they don't have the freedom to put that on a death certificate if they wanted to and it will just become a coroner's case and the family the grieving family is going to have to pay more pitulate put natural causes on there and just move on so we have a problem

that we're not allowing doctors to actually have the full freedom of certifying a death certificate with both natural and unnatural causes of death i think that's a foundational problem that we have in death recording that we're not gonna get and and i've had situations with the coroner's office where there was a medication change with a a relatively thriving patient medication change a few days before death and the person died and the doctor said i don't know why this person died and so we tried to report

it to the coroner and said look they had a medication change the family thinks that this needs to be investigated and the doctor says they don't know why they died and the coroner says we're not it's wasn't the medicaid over the phone they were yelling at me screaming i had to talk to the lieutenant and even then he got mad at me we're trying to report a medication death and i said this is your job your job is to investigate i am supposed to report this

to you and your job is to investigate and i'm getting yelled at for wanting to report a medication death to you or a potential medication death so there's just there's problems in the system the coroner does not have time to do well look at these medication deaths vaccine injury deaths they don't have time ventilator associated hydrogenic deaths would be the same right it would have to go to the corner and it's unlikely that they would identify that as the cause right right because anything that really

adopt i mean what they basically say is is that whatever why you were given the medical intervention that's the underlying cause yeah so if you were given the medical intervention for covid it's covered that's the underlying cause of death not the ventilator not the catheter placement not the infection that happened from the catheter placement it's you know it's not the medical intervention that caused it in their way of doing protocols it's what why did you need that medication why did you need that ventilator why they

go backwards right so and it's always defaults to the natural cause of death which is completely unscientific very biased and even for doctors of good faith that would want to be more start being more accurate on you know they did have this intervention in this intervention those were risk factors that may have contributed and they want to put that down so that science has that out in the universe to look at they can't so we just have it's and that's before cobit right this is all

before copen that's just the protocols in the system it's a broken system but is in part two um for writing down comorbidities or pre-existing conditions and but you're saying that that doesn't really connect to the cause of death in part one right you just right so that doesn't it's there so researchers can get to it if you put it in part two but the same rules apply you can't put medications in part two you can't put fall like a fall you can't put everything that would

get you to the coroner's office before in part one we'll get we'll make it the coroner's office in part two too so part two still has those restrictions yeah so the mind-blowing thing you've helped me to come to correct me if i'm wrong is that when we look at mortality statistics and we look at the evidence before us it's really based on very little if any objective scientific validation because it is supposed to be the opinion of the physician or the coroner and even then they're

not really necessarily able to even always give the advice or share their perception of what is the underlying cause in the case of opioids or something else so so it's reified meaning like we think that these provisional death counts for example are like rock solid and you know health policy is now being written around those stats but when you go drill down to these death certificates it's really not the case right it's not really based on on that hard evidence we assume is there right and

i think that after reading a lot of historical literature on you know medical literature on um you know on pubmed you can kind of see the timeline of how much things are you know all like the the research timeline so you kind of click through and be like read everything um and so i love kind of getting a historical picture of things but you see this it almost doing all the research the health research i was doing before to find out about infectious disease and health

choices around them before covert even happen really prepared me to understand what's happening with covet in context the exact same thing is happening we're changing definitions we're we're you know we're they're trying to adjust what gets diagnosed you know and how we're diagnosing things and the the data is kind of it's getting manipulated like that and this happened like with rubella the rubella epidemic happened when two years before scientists wanted to know how much rubella was happening so they asked doctors to start mandatorily reporting rubella

and it says so on the mmwr you know and so they started asking physicians please start reporting rubella cases so that we can understand the prevalence of rubella so physicians reported it and all of a sudden there's a spike in case reported cases because they were asked to report it so we see this happening over and over where beliefs are changing and data gets asked for in a certain way and kind of coached and then we create these public health beliefs of probability and problems based

off of that and danger and risk and all that stuff and then you know and then it it just doesn't make sense in the end it's it's really just it when you look at mortality statistics you're really getting a snapshot of the medical how medical beliefs have kind of changed and assumptions have changed over the years and so and and how technology has changed we can actually you know we call something alzheimer's disease now because we can we can say what alzheimer's disease is or we're

able to test for diabetes now and it's not sudden there used to be a a an acceptable syndrome that you put on a destructive called sudden adult death syndrome just like sudden infant death syndrome you could doctors could set an adult death syndrome before that could have been for anything but we just we we've learned more we've also the beliefs have changed and we're in this like micro unit study of that exact historical machine of how that works right is that these public health officials are

trying to get data and so they're telling doctors to do things in certain ways so doctors are doing them and it's generating all this mortality data that now is creating a stronger belief in the medical community and enforcing a assumption before and so now we're enforcing an assumption it's becoming a a more hardened belief and that this has all happened in a year and it's happened so many times before in other infectious disease histories it's not out of the blue i mean unfortunately it's not out

of the blue and you can kind of you know look up you know kind of uh match up you know the trace paper and be like oh this is what's gonna happen kind of thing so i don't think that it's unusual in some context when you look at historic infectious disease data capture but i think it's a great wake up to say hey we have that we have data capture issues both in depth data capture but just so many different data capture issues going on safety

data capture we don't really they're not these perfect people that are making perfect scientific statements and their statistics are really kind of making that hilarious you know phrase come true like you know what is it there's lies there's damn lies and then there's like like statistics are the bottom of the food chain as far as scientific thought goes it's a wake-up call for everybody to kind of really realize that whenever you try and use any form of data that's been captured by human beings within bureaucratic

systems and things like that you're just the quality the quality belief you can really come out with is going to be a really cheap quality you're not going to get good quality beliefs from you know this kind of mush this government i'm an information grunt i i wasn't you know there was no i only thought about things because my parents taught me to think about things and i i have a background in philosophy and so i learned to think about truth claims yeah and analyze them

but that's not what the average person does the average death certificate person just wants it off their desk too they don't care they don't care what goes on a death certificate they just want it done and they don't want to get in trouble from their boss that the service got cancelled because the death certificate didn't get complete so where the mortalities statistics systems that we're creating are are just not they're not based on good quality investigation or unbiased thinking or unbiased um freedom yes yes you

know given to our medical providers and the insults that's so beautiful so wait now given we've discussed all this i still want to better understand last thing the six percent um uh statistic is it really then not what many of us thought meaning that it was sort of like an admission that there really isn't that much there it may be more an artifact like you say of the the reality of people in a rush this was the default um guidance is if the death you know

just right covert 19. so so and then the other ones the same thing applied they were just more diligent and they included the other well i think it's going to take a much deeper investigation i think that what it shows that people were looking at this story so much is that they really want the truth and they want they want better data and they want true beliefs based on really good data and but the problem with the six percent data is that it's not it's not

what we think it is um it is just co cova 19 being listed on a death certificate by itself is much more just a little case study into the bad training that physicians get on how to fill out death certificates because if you click on the the data that the cdc offers some of the comorbidities are sepsis cardiac arrest respiratory failure you know um ards things that covet could have caused and the doctor could have just put cardiac arrest you know from aords from koben so

the doctor was just filling out the timeline like more thoroughly okay and but then that's considered a comorbidity so what people really want to know is out of the death certificate data which ones had the long-term conditions so we need to be looking at everything that was a longer-term condition than the cobot diagnose that's in part two so we need alzheimer's disease chronic kidney disease cancers we need the chronic kid with a chronic condition data and that's we do need that we need to figure out

what that was but doctors also don't put that if they got their underlying cause on there they're going to get their death certificate approved so they don't have to put anything else aside from koben if they put covet on there they don't have to put anything else it's done the death certificate is done it's off their desk so if the doctor did put underlying conditions that'll be great but figuring out the percentages from death data from death certificate data we're not going to get it we

need a deep investigation of the medical records and the medical treatment of each person that died from cobit and we need independent investigators independent physician investigators looking at the medical record and understanding the context for each patient and giving a second or third opinion of what caused death and i think that really intense in that data investigation um would give us the most accurate beliefs anything off the death record data right now is just to me it's it's honestly trash that's super helpful because yeah because

i think that initially many of us were like okay here's a slip up you know they admitted what we all believe which is you know that no covet 19 isn't the sole cause of these so-called deaths but on a deeper level you've confirmed that what we believe you know is really evidence-based solid um desert certification is really not based on that much uh solidity if if any and that's through the guidance from the world health organization the nvss its um assumption or suspicion of infection was

all that's required to code someone dead from covet 19 from what what i've seen is that correct right i mean i think that the the best at the best evidence that we can argue from death certificate data that these people had underlying conditions that actually were mo more properly pre-covered death recording more properly to be said to be the underlying condition in our usual protocols before all this um is there age and that is a scientific fact right so that is one of the scientific facts

from death certificates is their age their place their name you know those are scientific facts so the age bracket is a really important factor from death certificates and that's something to look at on the provisional death data and to be able to say that the vast majority of kova deaths are over 65 years old vast majority and then just a huge i mean i think it's like a one-third chunk or you know one-third or one-half chunk at this point is over 75 years old our our

projected age of what is it our life expectancy is 74 in this country so you're you're literally expected to have an average life 75 years old yeah exactly and that's not about taking people's death lightly i'm talking about the numbers of and probability the mathematical probabilities that we're talking about uh are the people that are dying yes people that actually would have had they absolutely would have they would have had something they were on medication for then this happened all the time even for people that

they weren't under hospice care they were pretty they seemed pretty healthy and they just passed away at home and nobody knew why yeah we would the coroner would take the case but they would just do the thing where they take pictures of the body and they they call the the recent primary care physician find out what medication that person was on and that medication um the cause of them being on that medication hypertension or you know copd that was their cause of death simple done coroner's

done with it you know and so it's whatever you're on medication for after you're 60 years old it's whatever you're on medication for is your cause of death if they don't know what else caused it so you know that's really where we should think we should think where would the these deaths have gone before it would have gone uh bumped back to their underlying condition so and we know because of the time the age of death that's happening with coven that is a scientific fact that

these people do have comorbidities in the sense that we under civilians understand but underlying conditions medically right that would have explained their death regardless of what infection they died from or what caused dying at home for no reason before so we can absol i think that it's a legitimate hypothesis to say that based on the age of death the majority of people maybe even 94 who knows but the majority of people that died it's a legitimate hypothesis but not based on the six percent not not

based on what the causes were but based on the age if that makes sense and what you revealed about i was 2014 to 2015 you said the excess debts were something over 200 000. that that yeah huge jump in 2008 someone shared when i shared that post on my facebook thing they shared a bigger timeline of mortality um you know increases excess death um things and there was this huge jump up in like 2008 or something and i was like well what was that from like

oh well maybe it was the the economic crash and the suicides and the i was like oh that's an interesting you know thing to look at but excess deaths have been happening every year we've been having more and more excess debts do you just have to look at the brackets yeah you know if they control for the natural population growth in the united states do they at least do that or is that not even i think it's per 100 000 i think it's that kind of

that kind of excess yeah wow but that's oh my god joy this has been so helpful in providing context and um you know removing some of the hyperbole and you know the self-fulfilling prophecies that we have around this information you know just to get some facts into the conversation again so um i'd like to ask you too like where do people follow you is it through facebook is that the primary uh wait wait till i do just because i mean honestly i i think critically about

things as a hobby um so i i'm not a pro i don't i don't really mind i mean i i do have a patreon thing that a few people are really sweet and they support me get a babysitter once in a while for videos like this oh that's great but i don't i don't really push the monetization thing because for me i'm a mom and um and that's my that's my most beautiful role and i love that i'm a critical thinker i'm a philosophical thinker and

i think that it's just about i am on facebook so i i did create that public page to create some space from my private page to have civil discourse on health issues so i do have a public page on facebook it's called uh joy m fritz the untrivial pursuits i'm also asking people where else they want me right now because of all the censorship on facebook so um i kind of took a poll on that i might be on me cool or parlor these other ones

all kind of but i am on instagram and twitter um i don't really update those a bunch um i've got three kids and one more on the way and my home school and life's so beautifully full right now it's a it's an honor to kind of be part of the discussion in this historical time of the the importance of um data capture and we really as citizens need a demand for better data capture and we deserve it we deserve um accurate true beliefs um accurate true

beliefs based on good quality information and to me that's what i'm fighting for as i research health information i just want good quality information and we have so many broken systems death data is only one of them but so many broken systems where we can't we can't even form good beliefs like even one way or another because there's just not the good information there so we're forming a lot of hypotheses either way right for or against something but there's really not really good foundational beliefs so

i hope that the stuff i share on my public page is helpful to get people thinking and asking questions and i love your stuff because it gives a lot more well referenced i try and reference actually you're a good example to me i try and like always make sure i include my links to my studies i talk about um so people don't say well she's saying that but she's nobody and i'm like yeah i'm nobody but if nobody does anything nothing will ever happen so i'm

going to be a nobody that does something so yeah i enjoy it and people want to follow me there that's awesome we'll have the links to all those ways to connect with you including patreon i would highly encourage people to support your work um it's very meaningful and um yeah i just want to thank you so much for your work in fact one last thing i'll say is i got the vision that i would love for you to just produce some type of book even if

it's just a couple hundred pages with the combination between truth seeking you know the philosophy background and understanding data capture especially with you know covet as a use case that could be so enlightening to people i've seen people do these books and and put them on amazon and their best sellers because in this moment we need this help more than ever before so i would encourage you to consider that after you know you create more amazing life on this planet but thank you so much for

your time and um people are leaving social media in droves right now because they're so fed up with not being able to get good kind of you know good conversation good civil discourse good information so um so it is it's it's tempting to me to kind of like be really organized about it and really get the information explained so i appreciate that encouragement and i it might be something that god will give me the time for to do one day hope so i would love it

but either way what you've contributed even in this conversation alone has been priceless so thank you so much and uh yeah just uh wishing you the best in the transition to being a mom of another beautiful child so thank you again thank you so much and thank you for your time this is fun thank you all right bye