Thank you - after reading there are some good points and interesting data
I have a hard time though reconciling this:
View attachment 289552
with this
View attachment 289553
which does
not look like the crude number of deaths from all causes is staying the same. I think we are going see it spike pretty high now above the orange post thanksgiving through December/Jan.
There are a couple of reasons an article can be pulled;
Site owners can pull it because it contains incorrect data and assumptions that they don't want people to see
Site owners can pull it because it contains correct data and assumptions that they don't want people to see
The author themselves can request a pull if they realize they made a mistake somewhere (I've done that myself a few times) or for further refinement to reflect challenges brought up during peer review with the intention of republishing
In this case, the author of the study was
Genevieve Briand | Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Programs
(but we don't actually have the study? we just have an article about the study)
And the article that was pulled ABOUT the study was
View attachment 289555
by Yanni GU
So here, what it looks like to me is that the student run newsletter published an article by a student Yanni Gu where they talked with Genevieve Briand Phd (economics professor) about data Ms Briand had complied and it's interpretations. Then, the editor of the student run newsletter decided to unpublish it. Could be for any variety of reasons - Editorial decision, maybe Ms. Briand felt she was misquoted or requested a pull or something more nefarious (Deep State has the boyfriend of the student newsletter editor tied up and has made it clear they don't want the Truth(tm) exposed)
Best way to know might be to contact Ms. Briand, Yanni Gu or the editor of the newsletter who would have made the pulling decision. But I'm not sure that retracting an article on a student newsletter qualifies as "John Hopkins University put out their take" on Covid deaths, and then decided it was too controversial for public consumption.
What (I suspect) happened was that the editor looked at the part that I highlighted which Yanni Gu would have written (
their opinions about Briand's data/view) and said the same thing I said: "I can't reconcile what you've said with the actual situation." Possibly Briand said the same thing "what you've said is my view does not correctly capture my view" and then one or both of them decided to pull the article about Briand's data from the student newsletter.