The Covid death toll resumes

The Covid death toll resumes


norman lebrecht

July 11, 2020

After a four-week lull in our weekly reporting, the grim toll resumed this week:

95 Brazil composer Tanio Mendonca, 52

96 Broadway musical star Nick Cordero, 41

97 Blues musician Wade Hickam, 67

98 Music student Carsyn Davis, 17


99 Egyptian actress Ragaa El-Gedawy, 81

100 Bossa Nova star Dulce Nunes, 90

101 James Harrison, piano professor at Hunter College in Manhattan, 84

102 Ex-Broadway star Chris Trousdale, 34


  • DJ says:

    sleepers -awake-dept:

    Senator And Former Minnesota Family Doctor Of The Year
    Being Investigated
    For Questioning Covid Death Certificates

    By Vic Bishop

    A highly respected doctor and current Minnesota State Senator has been speaking out about his concern over the validity of Covid death certificates, and as a result, is now being investigated by the Board of Medical Practice in Minnesota.

    Scott Jensen, Republican Senator from District 47 in the Twin Cities of Minnesota has a long history of health service and in 2016 was the recipient of the Minnesota Family Physician of the Year Award.

    The Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians (MAFP) has selected Scott Jensen, M.D., of Watertown, MN, as the 2016 Family Physician of the Year. This award is presented annually to a family physician who represents the highest ideals of the specialty of family medicine, including caring, comprehensive medical service, community involvement and service as a role model…

    Dr. Jensen has been a practicing family physician for more than 32 years. In 2001, he opened Catalyst Medical Clinic in Watertown. He is praised for his tireless commitment to his patients and the community. [Source]

    In a heart-felt Facebook video post, Jensen expresses his concern over being targeted for essentially doing his job, which is looking at data and information and making informed choices based on his experience and wisdom. Apparently, however, his statements have enraged the cancel mobs, and an anonymous complaint was filed against him.

    What are his alleged crimes or malfeasances that could result in him losing his license, job and livelihood?

    Specifically, the investigation makes two allegations against him, both of them related to public statements about Covid-19.

    Firstly, he is being targeted for comparing numbers of Covid-19 cases to the typical number of flu cases that Minnesota has each year. Something which Jensen notes has been done numerous times by Tony Fauci and many other public health officials.

    Additionally, he has been speaking out about the issue of Covid death certificates, expressing concern that people who did not die of Covid are being counted as Covid deaths, a practice which falsely inflates mortality rates and irresponsibly contributes to the climate of fear around the disease.

    Jensen notes:

    In terms of the death certificates, on April 3rd I got an email fro the Department of Health that said very clearly that we should report Covid-19 on death certificates if it is assumed to have caused or contributed. Well, that’s not how we do death certificates.

    The official ICD-10 coding for April 1st, 2020 through September 30th, 2020, during the timeframe in question says this:
    If the provider documents suspected, possible, probable, or inconclusive Covid-19, do not assign. Use 07.1, which is Covid-19 disease.
    It says, assign a code explaining the reason for the encounter, such as fever, or cough, or shortness of breath.

    I’ve got the Department of Health in Illinois, where one of the directors says that just because we put Covid-10 down on the death certificate as cause of death, that doesn’t mean that the patient died of Covid-19. She said that.
    ~Dr. Scott Jensen

    By bringing attention to this matter,
    Jensen prompted the Department of Health to issue two subsequent clarifications, indicating that they wold not list non-confirmed cases as Covid-19.

    In other words, Jensen was not spreading misinformation about death certificates, he was in fact right to express concern, but nevertheless, he is being investigated and is at risk of losing his career.

    In Jensen’s recent video he goes on to quote statements by Fauci and other officials that are nearly identical to some of the things he is being investigated for, making the case that he is being targeted and singled out by someone.

    And that’s a big part of the issue here. In cancel culture, we never get to know who our accusers are. Anonymous statements can be made by anyone with or without a political agenda, and the result is typically devastating for good people.

    Across the world, censorship of information is taking a quantum leap forward, and we are fast approaching a reality where corporations and governments have the ability to instantly silence anyone who speaks up against the mainstream narrative and paradigm.

    Jensen closes out the video with a few important questions that all Americans should ask themselves.

    Do we think it’s okay for physicians to certify death certificates that someone died of Covid-19 even if there was never a Covid-19 positive test obtained? Even if there was never a Covid-19 test done? Even if a Covid-19 test hadn’t even been considered? And maybe the worst even if, even if the family had no clue that the death certificate they received for their loved one was going to say Covid-19? ~ Senator Scott Jensen

    If this can happen to an accomplished public servant as Senator Jensen, it can happen to anyone.

    Watch Senator and Dr. Jensen’s full video:
    Distorting science in the COVID pandemic

    233 Replies
    5th July 2020

    This blog has been published in

    I’ve lost all trust in medical research – the financial muscle of Big Pharma has been busy distorting science during the pandemic

    Evidence that a cheap, over-the-counter anti-malarial drug costing £7 combats COVID-19 gets trashed. Why? Because the pharmaceutical giants want to sell you a treatment costing nearly £2,000. It’s criminal.

    A few years ago, I wrote a book called Doctoring Data. This was an attempt to help people understand the background to the tidal wave of medical information that crashes over us each and every day. Information that is often completely contradictory ‘Coffee is good for you… no, wait it’s bad for you… no, wait, it’s good for you again,’ rpt. ad nauseam.

    I also pointed out some of the tricks, games and manipulations that are used to make medications seem far more effective than they truly are, or vice-versa. This, I have to say, can be a very dispiriting world to enter. When I give talks on this subject, I often start with a few quotes.

    For example, here is Dr Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for over twenty years, writing in 2009:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

    Have things got better? No, I believe that they have got worse – if that were, indeed, possible. I was sent the following e-mail recently, about a closed door, no recording discussion, under no-disclosure Chatham House rules, in May of this year:

    “A secretly recorded meeting between the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine reveal both men bemoaning the ‘criminal’ influence big pharma has on scientific research.

    “According to Philippe Douste-Blazy, France’s former Health Minister and 2017 candidate for WHO Director, the leaked 2020 Chatham House closed-door discussion between the [editor-in-chiefs] – whose publications both retracted papers favorable to big pharma over fraudulent data.

    “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.”

    A YouTube video where this issue is discussed can be found here. It is in French, but there are English subtitles.

    The New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet are the two most influential, most highly resourced journals in the world. If they no longer have the ability to detect what is essentially fraudulent research, then… Then what? Then what indeed?

    In fact, things have generally taken a sharp turn for the worse since the COVID pandemic struck. New studies, new data, new information is arriving at breakneck speed, often with little or no effective review. What can you believe, who can you believe? Almost nothing would be the safest course of action.

    One issue that has played out over the last few months, has stripped away any remaining vestiges of my trust in medical research. It concerns the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine. You may well be aware that Donald Trump endorsed it – which presents a whole series of problems for many people.

    However, before the pandemic hit, I was recommending to my local NHS trust that we should look to stock up on hydroxychloroquine. There had been a great deal of research over the years, strongly suggesting it could inhibit the entry of viruses into cells, and that it also interfered with viral replication once inside the cell.

    This mechanism of action explains why it can help stop the malaria parasite from gaining entry into red blood cells. The science is complex, but many researchers felt there was good reason for thinking hydroxychloroquine may have some real, if not earth-shattering benefits, in COVID-19.

    This idea was further reinforced by the knowledge that it has some effects on reducing the “cytokine storm” that is considered deadly with COVID. It is prescribed in rheumatoid arthritis to reduce the immune attack on joints.

    The other reason for recommending hydroxychloroquine is that it is extremely safe. It is, for example, the most widely prescribed drug in India. Billions upon billions of doses have been prescribed. It is available over the counter in most countries. So I felt pretty comfortable in recommending that it could be tried. At worst, no harm would be done.

    Then hydroxychloroquine became the centre of a worldwide storm. On one side, wearing the white hats, were the researchers who had used it early on, where it seemed to show some significant benefits. For example, Professor Didier Raoult in France:

    “A renowned research professor in France has reported successful results from a new treatment for COVID-19, with early tests suggesting it can stop the virus from being contagious in just six days.”

    Then research from Morocco:

    “Jaouad Zemmouri, a Moroccan scientist, believes that 78% of Europe’s COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented if Europe had used hydroxychloroquine… “Morocco, with a population of 36 million, [roughly one-tenth that of the U.S.] has only 10,079 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and only 214 deaths.

    “Professor Zemmourit believes that Morocco’s use of hydroxychloroquine has resulted in an 82.5% recovery rate from COVID-19 and only a 2.1% fatality rate – in those admitted to hospital.”

    Just prior to this, a study was published in the Lancet, on May 22nd stating that hydroxychloroquine actually increased deaths. It then turned out that the data used could not be verified and was most likely made up. The authors had major conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies making anti-viral drugs. In early June, the entire article was retracted by Richard Horton, the Editor.

    Then a UK study came out suggesting that hydroxychloroquine did not work at all. Discussing the results, Professor Martin Landray stated:

    “This is not a treatment for COVID-19. It doesn’t work,” Martin Landray, an Oxford University professor who is co-leading the RECOVERY trial, told reporters. “This result should change medical practice worldwide. We can now stop using a drug that is useless.”

    This study has since been heavily criticised by other researchers who state that the dose of hydroxychloroquine used was, potentially, toxic. It was also given far too late to have any positive effect. Many of the patients were already on ventilators.

    Then, yesterday, I was sent a pre-proof copy of an article about to be published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases which has found that hydroxychloroquine…

    ..“significantly” decreased the death rate of patients involved in the analysis. The study analyzed 2,541 patients hospitalized among the system’s six hospitals between March 10 and May 2 and found

    13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine died while
    26% of those who did not receive the drug died.(ref)
    When things get this messed up, I tend to look for the potential conflicts of interest. By which I mean, who stands to make money from slamming the use of hydroxychloroquine (which is a generic drug that has been around since 1934 and costs about £7 for a bottle of 60 tablets)?

    In this case it is those companies who make the hugely expensive antiviral drugs such as Gilead Sciences’ Remdesvir – which costs $2,340 (£1877) for a typical five-day course in the US. Second, the companies that are striving to get a vaccine to market. There are billions and billions of dollars at stake here.

    In this world, cheap drugs e.g., hydroxychloroquine, don’t stand much chance. Neither do cheap vitamins, such as vitamin C and vitamin D. Do they have benefits for COVID-19 sufferers? I am sure that they do. Will such benefits be dismissed in studies that have been carefully manipulated to ensure that they do not work? Of course. Remember these words:

    ‘…pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want them to conclude,” said Lancet [editor-in-chief] Richard Horton.’

    Unless and until governments and medical bodies act decisively to permanently sever the financial ties between researchers and Big Pharma, these distortions and manipulation in the pursuit of Big Profit will continue.

    Just please don’t hold your breath in anticipation.


  • Lisa says:

    Carsyn Davis’s death was completely preventable. Her parents’ actions were criminal, IMO.

    • Karl says:

      Many of these deaths are preventable. Vulnerable people should be isolating themselves. Instead they are packing themselves into bars, nightclubs, and churches.

      • Me! says:

        Vulnerable people tend to isolate not pack into bars. This one young girl was let down by everyone especially parents

    • Tom Phillips says:

      Indeed, especially given the fact that they were supposedly “medical professionals”, they should be prosecuted for murder.

  • Terrible! Are these all confirmed COVID-19 fatalities without comorbidities?

    • Me! says:

      What’s the difference they caught it and died; people with and without comorbidities die of it. It’s a long list