CDC not inflating COVID-19 death toll
Comorbidity data cited, incorrectly interpreted
As the U.S. approaches a dark milestone in the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories about the counting of deaths from the coronavirus are reemerging.
An October report that claims the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is exaggerating the death count from the virus – now at more than 485,000 – by a factor of more than 16 got new traction on several websites in February. The report in “Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law,” led by a man who has spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, relies on a debunked claim that the way the CDC requires comorbidity to be reported on death certificates means many deaths are incorrectly attributed to the virus.
A key piece of the report asks whether a change in the guidance the CDC provided in 2020 on filling out death certificates would have changed the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19.
Fact checks already have debunked claims that the CDC was exaggerating death statistics after it released new data last summer on comorbidity, defined by the CDC as the existence of more than one disease or condition in a person at the same time. The CDC’s data on comorbidity at the time was incorrectly interpreted by those who claimed it showed COVID-19 was not the cause of death in the 94% of cases in which more than one cause also was listed.
Comorbidities can be chronic conditions a person can live with, such as diabetes or arthritis. While those conditions could contribute to a person’s death, their existence doesn’t mean COVID-19 wasn’t the cause of death.
Six in 10 U.S. adults have a chronic disease, according to the CDC, and four in 10 have more than one.
Experts, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and the World Health Organization, have said that COVID-19 deaths likely are undercounted.
CDC spokeswoman Jasmine Reed wrote in an email that the number of COVID-19 deaths would not be substantially different under previous guidance issued in 2003. Both the old and new guidelines put “an emphasis on the importance of reporting a logical causal sequence ... beginning with the immediate cause and working back to the underlying cause (the disease or injury that initiates the chain of events leading to death),” she said.
In most cases, the sequence “has multiple links” in the chain of events that lead to death, she said. Comorbidities often are reported on death certificates as complications related to the underlying cause of death or as contributing factors.
Publication linked to anti-vaccine movement
While online posts about the report say it was a peer-reviewed study, the journal in which it was published, “Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law,” did not show up in rankings designed to measure how often journals are cited or used.
That publication’s website lists James Lyons-Weiler as its editor. LyonsWeiler is the chief executive of the publication’s parent, the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, which has ties to the anti-vaccine movement.
Lyons-Weiler pushed false information about adverse effects from Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine in a PA Medical Freedom news conference in 2020, according to PolitiFact.
The report also cites other groups involved in the anti-vaccine movement, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense, for which several of the study’s 10 authors have written a report. Kennedy recently was banned from Instagram for promoting misinformation about vaccines, according to The Associated Press.
The background of the report’s 10 authors includes a naturopathic physician and a chemical engineer with a focus on climate, among others.
In most cases, the sequence “has multiple links” in the events leading to death.
Our rating: False
The claim that the CDC inflated COVID-19 deaths by more than 1,600% is FALSE, based on research. Previous fact checks have debunked a claim that the CDC was exaggerating death statistics after it released new data about comorbidity in 2020. The report cited by several online outlets has several links to the anti-vaccine movement, and the publication that printed it did not show up in rankings of journals.