• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are Doctors Being Forced to Put COVID-19 on Death Certificates Without Evidence?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It seems as though whichever side one gets "indoctrinated" with the most will be the side one chooses to believe.
Not everything is indoctrination. Peole believe false things. They believe stupid things. They believe things despite their being 0 evidence (such as the oft repeated myth of us only using 10%of our brain, which has no basis in fact).
Claiming it all indoctrination is false. It's not indoctrination to accept this new covid is very highly contagious and just deadly enough to clog healthcare, adding confounding layers that make the outbreak more deadly than just covid.
It is indoctrination, however, as it started with false and biased claims, to call it the Chinese virus, calling it a Democrat hoax, believing personal rights (and thus endangering others) supercedes a declaration of a state of emergency, pushing and promoting untested and potentially disasterous drugs as a treatment, that is indoctrination.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I don't "buy" it. I already said I don't know. I think it's worth further investigation. I may be biased, but all of us are. I, for one, don't know who to believe. When two sides swear to be telling the truth and have contradictory stories, one of them has to be lying. Which side is lying? Or are both lying to some extent? I don't know the answers. You believe the mainstream narrative because it is what you primarily listen to. There's an entirely different narrative that many others also believe. I watched a YouTube video of a doctor pointing out inconsistencies in the mainstream narrative about the pandemic. It had thousands of "likes" and only a couple dozen "dislikes." So clearly there is another narrative than many people are subscribing to. Which one is correct? I don't have a clue. It seems as though whichever side one gets "indoctrinated" with the most will be the side one chooses to believe. These aren't claims that I can verify, as I have no personal experience of any of it. As a result, for most people, beliefs about the disease are not established based on verifiable fact, they're established on the basis of faith.
Yes I trust most mainstream news on Covid-19 because: (i) I'm not a jerk with an agenda, (ii) I can generally read and understand a science paper, even when it is not chemistry, and (iii) the "narrative" as you call it, stacks up totally. Also (iv) I have the benefit of being able to compare news about this virus from different countries, including the UK outbreak, which I am at the very centre of, as a Londoner. (I've even had the virus myself: I'm still feeling its after-effects.)

If you allege "inconsistencies" about this "narrative", you need to ask yourself whether there is really some conspiracy afoot, in which case by whom and with what motive, or whether it is more likely just the imperfection of data gathering and reporting on a new and partially understood phenomenon.

As others on this thread, some of them medically qualified, have pointed out, there is no smoking gun here to suggest anything underhand. You have offered no reason why there would be a conspiracy to inflate the Covid-19 death data by the US health authorities. I cannot think of one. So why do you raise a cooked-up notion that they are acting in bad faith? Who would mount such a conspiracy, why and how would they get the US health authorities to connive in it?

You, on the other hand, I have absolutely no doubt at all, have political reasons for wanting to deny the scale of Covid-19 deaths. You have made that abundantly clear by several of the threads you have started on this subject, on two of which you still owe me answers on a question that you seem to find too uncomfortable to face.

So frankly, based on the information available to me at present, your demand to take this seriously, as if there are two competing "narratives" of equal merit, seems to be on a par with those nutcases that think the moon landings were faked or the 9/11 troothers.:D
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Now, just to be clear, before everyone gets enraged at me again for starting another controversial COVID-19 thread, I do not know if the person in the video is telling the truth or not. He may be lying, or he may not be. I tend to think he is not lying, but I can't be sure. If what he is saying is true, how much is it actually inflating the death numbers? Again, I don't know. I'm not going to be arguing with people over this, because I don't know the answers. The only thing that I will say that I hope we all agree on is: This claim should definitely be investigated, because if what he is saying is true, it is very concerning.

I smell a conspiracy of the government. If too many people have "unknown" as their cause of death it becomes a permanent document of the failure to provide enough tests.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
This clown in my representative. He is being a bit duplicitous. That video is from 4 April, early days of Covid outbreak when test kits were not available in rural areas because they were needed in the hotspots like New York and New Jersey. Dr. Jensen's district in Carver County, Minnesota is mostly rural, though it is a suburb of the Twin Cities. It has a population density of 275 per square mile.

He refers to a seven page document from the Minnesota Health Department. Actually, that department did not issue such a document, but linked to the CDC document which is indeed seven pages long. Here is the document to read for yourself if you really want to know what the guidance was at the time:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf

It looks like there is a gross misunderstanding of this document. Here is how I think this is being misread.

First, death certificates have two parts for reporting deaths. Part 1 is for reporting the immediate cause of death. Part 2 is for reporting underlying causes of death (UCOD). In some cases Covid is the underlying cause of death. In others it is the immediate cause of death. Errors are sometimes made about what line Covid should be reported on. The CDC is trying to straighten this out. From the document:

Common problems
Common problems in cause-of-death certification include:
1. reporting intermediate causes as the UCOD (i.e., on the lowest line used in Part I),
2. lack of specificity, and
3. illogical sequences.
Intermediate causes are those conditions that typically have multiple possible underlying etiologies and thus, a UCOD must be specified on a line below in Part I. For example, pneumonia is an intermediate cause of death since it can be caused by a variety of infectious agents or by inhaling a liquid or chemical.
Pneumonia is important to report in a cause-of-death statement but, generally, it is not the UCOD. The cause of pneumonia, such as COVID–19, needs to be stated on the lowest line used in Part I.

Additionally, the reported UCOD should be specific enough to be useful for public health and research purposes. For example, a “viral infection” can be a UCOD, but it is not specific. A more specific UCOD in this instance could be “COVID–19.” All causal sequences reported in Part I should be logical in terms of time and pathology. For example, reporting “COVID–19” due to “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” in Part I would be an illogical sequence as COPD cannot cause an infection, although it may increase susceptibility to or exacerbate an infection. In this instance, COVID–19 would be reported in Part I as the UCOD and the COPD in Part II. While there can be reasonable differences in medical opinion concerning a sequence that led to a particular death, the causes should always be provided in a logical sequence from the immediate cause on line a. back to the UCOD on the lowest line used in Part I."

"In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible. "
Also, please notice that the last page of the CDC letter gives an example of an 86 year old woman who died and later it was determined that a member of her household had COVID. This is the same story that Jensen is referring too, but he doesn't tell you the entire story: This could not be his patient because his practice is in Carver County, Minnesota which has had 27 cases and NO DEATHS to date.

ArcGIS Dashboards

Scenario III: An 86-year-old female with an unconfirmed case of COVID–19 An 86-year-old female passed away at home. Her husband reported that she was nonambulatory after suffering an ischemic stroke 3 years ago. He stated that 5 days prior, she developed a high fever and severe cough after being exposed to an ill family member who subsequently was diagnosed with COVID–19. Despite his urging, she refused to go to the hospital, even when her breathing became more labored and temperature escalated. She was unresponsive that morning and her husband phoned emergency medical services (EMS). Upon EMS arrival, the patient was pulseless and apneic. Her husband stated that he and his wife had advanced directives and that she was not to be resuscitated. After consulting with medical command, she was pronounced dead and the coroner was notified. Comment: Although no testing was done, the coroner determined that the likely UCOD was COVID–19 given the patient’s symptoms and exposure to an infected individual. Therefore, COVID–19 was reported on the lowest line used in Part I. Her ischemic stroke was considered a factor that contributed to her death but was not a part of the direct causal sequence in Part I, so it was reported in Part II.​

Now, WHERE IS THE CONSPIRACY?
You bring up some good points, but I want to point out that in the video he never claims that the 86 yr old woman was his patient, he was just referring to the case as an example.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
You bring up some good points, but I want to point out that in the video he never claims that the 86 yr old woman was his patient, he was just referring to the case as an example.

He doesn't make it clear whether the examples was his case or a scenario. One is left with the impression she was his patient.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I can certainly see complications caused by covid as a contributing factor. That would be an honest assessment rather than just saying the virus killed them out right.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I smell a conspiracy of the government. If too many people have "unknown" as their cause of death it becomes a permanent document of the failure to provide enough tests.

Well it would have to be a conspiracy of ALL governments, state, local, and federal.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I can certainly see complications caused by covid as a contributing factor. That would be an honest assessment rather than just saying the virus killed them out right.

Read the CDC guidance I linked. Causal links, immediate and underlying causes of death.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
By the way, @Hubert Farnsworth, you might be interested to know that Mr. Trump's administration is privately projecting deaths from COVID-19 will double by June 1, according to a report in the New York Times. And you might be pleased to know the Administration is publicly advocating for opening the economy despite its private projections.

Conveniently ignoring my initial post I see. C'mon, you're better than that
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
It is possible to train oneself to be resistant to indoctrination using just this rule - never believe anything without sufficient justification, only believe to the extent supported by the evidence (possible, likely, very likely, as close to certain as possible), and revise that estimate as new evidence becomes available making the belief more or less certain.

Do that and only that, and you can't be indoctrinated. All opinions will be yours, not the opinions of others downloaded into a passive mind.

You said earlier that you were very concerned by this. I asked you why, and you chose to not answer. I asked you if you thought this was sinister, and you were silent. I gave you a rational reason for putting COVID on certain death certificates, and you were mute.

This is a non-issue.

I didn't choose not to answer. See post #10 for my concerns. Is the criteria for putting COVID on a death certificate consistent with that of other diseases, or is the "probable cause" used more liberally with COVID? I've got a strong suspicion that the latter is true.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
That pretty much sums up the OP. I only wish that we RFers were not so damnably fond of non-issues. This thread threatens to go on forever now. I'm out of here.

And how do you know it's a non-issue? Because you choose to disbelieve the claims of the doctor in the video? How about the numerous comments on the Internet about people who state that their loved ones who died of cancer or heart disease had "COVID-19" listed on their death certificates? Are they all liars too? I don't know if they are or not. I want to know how YOU think you do know. Cuz I've got a strong hunch you most certainly don't know either.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
I didn't choose not to answer. See post #10 for my concerns. Is the criteria for putting COVID on a death certificate consistent with that of other diseases, or is the "probable cause" used more liberally with COVID? I've got a strong suspicion that the latter is true.

If you would take the time to read the CDC guidance, the only time you would put 'presumed' on the death certificate is if tests are not available AND 'the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty. In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely.'
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
If you would take the time to read the CDC guidance, the only time you would put 'presumed' on the death certificate is if tests are not available AND 'the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty. In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgement in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely.'

OK, and is that the same criteria as other diseases?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
And how do you know it's a non-issue? Because you choose to disbelieve the claims of the doctor in the video? How about the numerous comments on the Internet about people who state that their loved ones who died of cancer or heart disease had "COVID-19" listed on their death certificates? Are they all liars too? I don't know if they are or not. I want to know how YOU think you do know. Cuz I've got a strong hunch you most certainly don't know either.

Again, if you would take the time to read the CDC document you would see that there are TWO death causes on certificates: underlying and immediate. In the case of cancer patients undergoing chemo and/or radiation, their immune systems are not as effective and so they are more vulnerable to Covid taking hold and killing them. If they had the Covid symptoms then the immediate cause of death could be Covid and the underlying cause would be cancer. BOTH would be on the death certificate. At any rate, the CDC said there needs to be a causal link between them.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
OK, and is that the same criteria as other diseases?

There was this during the MERS outbreak in 2015: "A probable case is a PUI with absent or inconclusive laboratory results for MERS-CoV infection who is a close contact3 of a laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV case. Examples of laboratory results that may be considered inconclusive include a positive test on a single PCR target, a positive test with an assay that has limited performance data available, or a negative test on an inadequate specimen."

MERS Guidance for Healthcare Professionals
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I didn't choose not to answer.

Yes, you did.

See post #10 for my concerns.

That comment doesn't address my comment.

Is the criteria for putting COVID on a death certificate consistent with that of other diseases, or is the "probable cause" used more liberally with COVID?

I answered that as well.

What is your purpose here if you choose to post that OP, and then not respond to a post from a person who can explain to you how death certificates are filled out, then claim that you did respond when you didn't?
 
Last edited:
Top