Did COVID cause ‘excess deaths?’
Background Information: COVID-19 is a recently-labeled illness presumably caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2. The illness is considered contagious, i.e., assuming that the virus spreads from person to person directly or indirectly. It is believed that COVID-19 caused the pandemic resulting in a large number of deaths.
This article reflects an exercise in summarizing the data in seeking a potential trend from COVID-19 deaths to guide addressing the pandemic issue.
Data and results:
The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA) provides annual mortality statistics for the USA. The provisional data for 2020 is available now as well – links to the data sources are provided in the reference section below.
As seen in Table 1, there is an increase of 451,679 (16.1%) deaths for 2020 over the annual average number of the past four years. In absolute terms, these death counts represent an increase of 0.14%, i.e., from 0.86% normal death or attrition rate (based on average of previous years) to 1.0% for the year 2020.
In another tabulation, the CDC also provides the number of COVID-19 deaths by age group, shown in Table 2. The total number of deaths for COVID-19 is reported as 347,131. The three highest cohorts are in the elderly population, e.g., 111,475 (age 85 and above), 95,848 (age 75-84), and 73,856 (age 65-74) with a combined total of 281,179 for aged 65 and above (i.e., 81% of the total COVID-19 deaths).
Discussion:
In general, the excess deaths are considered as COVID-19 deaths. As COVID-19 deaths do not reflect a defined and specific diagnosis or disease, it would be safe to assume that excess deaths are most likely reflections of a positive PCR test. There is a strong possibility that death counts for the year 2020 will similarly be distributed among the ten leading causes of death (comorbidity) in the USA.
It is important to note that, as stated above, an increase of 0.14% in death numbers is being labeled a pandemic. Perhaps, a reconsideration of the pandemic definition is warranted.
It appears almost certain that illness or pandemic is not caused by the virus (SARS-CoV-2) as commonly presumed. The reasons being: (1) the test (PCR) often used to monitor the disease/pandemic has no relevance or scientific credibility to detect this virus or its associated illness [1], (2) there has been no evidence provided to establish the existence of the virus [2].
So then, how would one explain the higher number of deaths during the last year? Possibly, they result from the poorly thought-out advice by the scientists and experts to the political leadership. In particular, the lockdowns with stay-at-home advisories or orders and suggested unhealthy lifestyle choices may have caused the higher number of deaths. For example:
Isolation and lockdowns:
Logic dictates that isolation and its associated stress (fear and scare of virus infection) would push people over the edge to fall into the sickness/death group, particularly vulnerable people in the higher age group with or without pre-existing illnesses. This may explain the significantly higher deaths in the aged population. As noted above, 80% of the excess deaths are in this group of seniors.
Stay-at-home advisories or orders:
Assuming, as per scientists’ and experts’ opinions, that pandemic is a virus-based illness, by default, advisory should be for boosting the immunity. The stay-at-home advisories and curfews should be considered counter-intuitive, unproductive, and restrictive for developing immunity to fight the virus. It is quite possible that the negative impact of the stay-at-home policy, with lower immunity, may have led to overall higher general infection rates and possibly a larger number of deaths.
Cancellation of elective surgeries and diagnoses:
There is always a possibility that delays in such “elective” diagnoses and treatments can lead to disastrous results, including deaths if not taken care of in time. With the expectation of a higher number of “pandemic patients,” most hospitals restricted their services to the bare minimum. Think about it: would it not push patients toward deaths, particularly the elderly with pre-existing conditions, who could not convince hospitals to schedule necessary emergencies and other medical attention?
Misdiagnosis and/or mistreatment:
It is a well-known fact that once the PCR test results come back as positive, the treatment becomes almost no-treatment (i.e., quarantine or isolation). Even prophylactic treatments with well-known drugs (with high safety and efficacy profiles) are practically prohibited or banned. Many medical practitioners are forbidden to use their professional expertise and judgments in prescribing appropriate medications for their patients. Apparently, at the advice of certain scientists and “experts,” state authorities banned the use of potentially relevant drugs [3]. Such policy decisions may have caused an increase in deaths, at least to some degree.
Technical/scientific weaknesses and confusion:
It is not clear how certain scientists and experts concluded that a pandemic exists and is caused by the virus (SARS-CoV-2). No one has isolated the virus, characterized it, or seen it [4,5]. Claims were made initially that this novel coronavirus is potentially 5 to 10 times more contagious and lethal than the common flu virus, without the availability of any supporting experimental data. Even the test used, at the time, to detect the virus reportedly had serious technical issues [6]. What caused a presumption that people are falling sick at pandemic levels because of the virus remains an open question.
It certainly appears to be a colossal failure of medical science and the corresponding regulatory management of the situation. There is a strong possibility of misdiagnosis, which obviously can lead to numerous unwarranted deaths. It is hoped that someone will take responsibility for this medical mishap to avoid such a repeat in the future.
Conclusion:
As per the CDC database, 451,679 (16.1%) excess deaths are observed for 2020, representing a 0.14% increase in the expected annual death numbers. Out of these excess deaths, 347,131 are marked as COVID-19 deaths. Higher death numbers may not have been due to the virus’s presence (SARS-CoV-2).
They may be because of poorly thought-out advice by the scientists and experts to the political leaders, based on invalid test methods leading to misdiagnosis and mistreatments. It is recommended that scientifically invalid PCR testing be stopped immediately for chasing the non-existent virus and, by extension, the pandemic-associated death numbers.
Table 1: Death counts for 2016 – 2020 (source, CDC/USA)
Table 2: COVID-19 death counts with distribution among the different age-group population (the year 2020, source, CDC/USA)
*Total death counts are slightly higher than reported in Table 1, as these numbers include counts for the first two weeks of January 2021.
Data Source and References:
2020
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
2018
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm
2016
COVID-19 Death Counts by Sex, Age, and State (https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Death-Counts-by-Sex-Age-and-S/9bhg-hcku)
Population Counts (USA)
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2010-2019/state/totals/nst-est2019-01.xlsx
Other References:
[1] http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3557
[2] http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3613
[3] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6935a4.htm
[4] http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3548
[5] http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3533
[6] https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/05/905484/why-the-cdc-botched-its-coronavirus-testing/
About the author: Saeed A. Qureshi, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Saeed gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
itsmeagain
| #
Sweden is interesting
(as they didn’t have a lockdown like we had in Europe)
https://softwaredevelopmentperestroika.wordpress.com/2021/01/15/final-report-on-swedish-mortality-2020-anno-covid/
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Itsmeagain:
Thanks for sharing the link/article, in support of my view. It is quite likely that data from other countries will provide a similar conclusion.
Reply
Chris
| #
Thanks Dr Qureshi. I was telling my brother the same things that you said here. When he asked me what I think that they all have I told him that since the symptoms are the most common symptoms they can point to anything from the common cold to cancer. So it is illogical to try to claim that everyone has the same thing. It depends upon the person. But they are not taking lung cultures or biopsies. Normal testing isn’t being done. I also pointed out that hospital acquired pneumonia is very common and probably accounts for many of the hospital cases.
My wife said that there was an article that says that they are seeing an increase in antibiotic resistant pneumonia and fungal pneumonia. Some doctors maybe trying to do things right.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Chris:
Thanks for your feedback and for supporting my view.
Reply
Tom O
| #
My first question regarding this article is what constitutes an excess death? Are they just the number of deaths above an average number or an anticipated number? Where there more or less Flu and pneumonia deaths this year compared to the past? If so, why would that happen?
Humans are social animals. I would think that being forced to be non-social would be a depressant, both mentally and physically. The sight of the human face has always been a huge part of social nature, and this year we have seen the depressing ugliness of facial coverings. I wonder how greatly this actually affects the will to survive.
I am, by nature, a loner, a hermit, but I have found the lack of smiles, especially on the faces of excited children, among the most depressing experiences I can remember. The body reflects the mind. I have to work extra hard to keep up my energy and desire in this depressing, smile-less society I have been saddled with for too long. Am I the only such person?
Reply
very old white guy
| #
56 million people died in 2019 from all causes. 56 million people died in 2020 from all causes.
Reply
Bert Schwitters
| #
The origin of the problem is (overlooked) in the first line of this article: “COVID-19 is a recently-labeled illness presumably caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2.” There is no new “disease” called “COVID-19.” The disease is, quite broadly defined as “serious acute respiratory syndrom,” which is a definition of a category of various respiratory symptoms. The Mayo Clinic defines SARS as: “SARS usually begins with flu-like signs and symptoms — fever, chills, muscle aches, headache and occasionally diarrhea. After about a week, signs and symptoms include: Fever of 100.5 F (38 C) or higher; Dry cough; Shortness of breath.” Pneumonia may be added to the list. The COVID-19 virus is a risk factor in the development of human disease. It is not the disease. Cholesterol is commonly (though erroneously) understood as a risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease. Yet, there is no disease category called “cholesterol.” Neither is there a disease category called “free radicals,” which are commonly understood as a risk factor in the development if a variety of degenerative diseases. Defining a disease by using the definition of its risk factor is a serious category mistake. When something is what it is, it is what it is and not something else.
Reply
JaKo
| #
While I hate to oppose friendly sources I must set a few mentioned ratios straight:
Year TotDeaths pM Y2Y Incr
2018 2,839,205 327 n/a
2019 2,854,838 329 -0.1%
2020 3,297,212 331 14.8%
14.8 % is not mere 0.14% as mentioned in this article and therefore the term “pandemic” has ramification.
OTOH:
Authorities’ handling of this pandemic is criminal in all sense of the word! The “leader in the civilized world” (i.e. the Czech Republic) has the most loath-full response of them all as their rate of deaths is greater than that of UK, US or any other country of population over a million…
Czech this out at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
So, (if we can trust the data as presented)
We are in the midst of a real pandemic and new strains are proliferating (check out Dr. Didier Raoult’s web about sequencing of the “virus RNA” and sources of new strains — e.g. EU mink farms…)
While I can’t be certain of the validity of any data presented, I can make out basic arithmetic calculation on the information given…
You all take care, and Vitamin C with Zinc and Vitamin D3 and do exercise!
JaKo
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Jako:
I am not following your numbers and calculations (the number for 2020 is not from my table/article), I am not sure how you got the percentage (14.8%)
On the other hand, I am following your interpretation. You are mixing two sets of numbers or conclusions.
The number 14.8% (from your calculation) does not represent 0.14% (in my article) but 16.1%. It represents an increase in the number of deaths for 2020 (based on the average of death numbers of the last four years to normalize or remove yearly bias).
However, if one considers the increase in death numbers as a percentage of the population, it comes out 0.14%, i.e., (0.86 to 1.0%). Hence, my conclusion, 0.14% may not represent a pandemic.
I hope it clarifies your concern.
Thanks for your interest in my article, and I appreciate the feedback.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Dr. Qureshi,
Here are some clarifications:
Re. The numbers:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm has a “Table1” with a tab underneath called “Yearly,” just click on that and you get the total for 2021 and 2020 (and then a meaningless sum of those — Yearly?)
True, I didn’t bother bringing up the “4-year average” as it would not change my brief much.
The columns are #of Total Deaths (from all causes) Population in M(illions) and the Ratio in/de-crement from the previous year; I didn’t provide the obvious Intermediate (Deaths-per-million of population) used to calculate the ratios…
However, the 0.86% to 1.00% increase is not 0.14% as presented —
1.0% / 0.86% = 1.16, which represents 16% increase (increment in ratios isn’t a ratio, in this case — a ratio of “ratios” is that what we seek)
Re. The Czech Rep: (link to Czech Bureau of Statistics)
https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/obypz_cr and translate to English (the little Union Jack at the top doesn’t work so in Chrome or Edge right-click on an empty space in that page and chose “Translate to English”) I don’t know to what extent one could trust the data there, but these seem to represent what’s been apparent to observers = total failure by their centralized healthcare to contain the impact of a new flu wave.
I’m looking forward to discussions where we could be in full agreement!
JaKo
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Jako:
Thanks again.
First part:
I have presented numbers in two sets. Ratio (or %) comparing the increase in the number of deaths, which is coming out 16.1%. I think you agree with the number. However, in your way, you are making the same comparison from the line below, which obviously will bring the same number or ratio. There is no need for such comparison or even the line (last) Table 1.
That is not the purpose of the last line. The line shows the overall (absolute or nominal) death number considering the population numbers. The line above does not include the population factor. Let me explain it differently.
Suppose, last year, one person (out of a population of 100) died of some cause, and this year two persons died. The relative increase would 100% (doubling the death rate). However, in nominal/absolute terms, it is only an increase of 1%, i.e., 2 minus 1). This is what the last line shows in Table 1, i.e., RELATIVELY, the death numbers for the population are not so high that a pandemic should be considered o declared.
BTW, I am not reconsidering or changing the death numbers at this time. For one, it will not change the overall conclusion, and second, I am waiting for the number of deaths by ten leading causes (as CDC usually provides) and would like to compare them for 2020 with the pandemic year numbers. I will adjust the numbers accordingly.
The second part (Czech numbers): I am not sure of the intent here. If the intent is to compare with the USA data, then I would prefer that you should do that. I am not comfortable in reading the data from a language that I do not understand. I hope you do not mind doing that.
Thanks.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Dr. Qureshi,
It was my fault not to re-read the “offending portion” of your article when I thought of making my “correction.” It is also quire surprising that my responses could be so tainted by the propaganda / hysteria about this scamdemic.
OTOH it is just out of my perception scale to see ~450k excess deaths (e.g. population of the Minneapolis city) as a mere 0.14% of the US population…
I thank you for your patience in setting my sight straight!
Regarding the Czech Republic:
Their tally isn’t complete yet as the last two weeks are still missing; however, by a reasonable projection their excess mortality is in similar relative range of that of the US, namely about 14.9%, while the excess mortality in absolute terms is again around 0.148%
My point was to show how misleading are the presumed “protective measures” (from masks to lock-downs) as most of excess mortality occurred there over the last ten weeks of 2020 while under lockdown, international travel ban, universal masks mandatory even outdoor etc…
So thanks again,
JaKo
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
No problem. I am glad to know that problem (misunderstanding) is resolved.
Best
Saeed