And that's why we have the cancel culture.......

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Thanks, I was having trouble finding any decent links.

Honesly. This is what I hate about our economy. We never let the truth out and we are always worrying and scaring the citizens. We can not fix a problem with lies. With lies, we only make the problem bigger.

So very true

Here’s a portion of it:

?? Did you read? Let's see if I can explain this a different way for you. Numbers of deaths have not gone up in the year over year average. The rate of deaths by age group has remained unchanged. More people than normal are not dying. COVID hasn't increased mortality over typical average mortality. If you look at mortality numbers without knowing we are in a pandemic, you wouldn't now we were in this "deadly" pandemic. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

has that been proved anywhere else? if its a valid claim, many scientists agreed on it. i know what you meant, but was it only just a fox claim?

I didn't get it off fox, I got it from the Jerusalem Post. Others have posted links here.

evidence that is credible is what you lack.

Google it. oh whoops, ggooooogggllle pulled it down. Check the links posted by others. Just because your stupid, doesn't mean it isn't true.

you mean the fake news links?

https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/11/fact-check-covid19-deaths-not-overblown-johns-hopkins-student-paper-not-censored.html

check leadstories main page. It's bullshit stories.

it's debunking of stories

Wow, your article itself shows that the other article was censored and fails to show flaws. Here's your sources citation: https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

Is it censorship to correct errors? This is a question I mean in general. Does the author of the paper stand-by it still?

No error was corrected so complex question fallacy, they removed it from sight because they didn't like how it was used by their own admission.

You're right that no errors were corrected, but it was removed because they believed that the whole premise was false, and that the paper misunderstood the data. But I'll grant you that in favor of not censoring they should have just left it there, but in my opinion they should have followed it up with an article explaining why they believe the conclusion was false, and how they interpret their data. Cheers.

The thing is neither the data nor the premise was actually disputed, but they ignored what the paper actually said and used a non-contradiction to beg the question and cited how it was being used to justify removing it.