by Lisa Betz-Marquez  August 5, 2021

It’s been my hallmark to ask uncomfortable questions, and when I saw this story today on KNEB, I felt compelled to “dig deeper” and ask some questions. Let’s take a look at the obfuscation in the following paragraph, taken directly from information put out by the Wyoming Department of Health:

“A WDH review of more than 5,000 lab-confirmed and probable cases identified among Wyoming residents age 16 and older between May 1 and July 28 shows roughly 95 percent of the individuals do not report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19. During the same period, of the nearly 300 persons infected by COVID-19 who were hospitalized at the time they were interviewed by public health representatives, just under 94 percent did not report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

KNEB Radio, August 4, 2021

Let’s break it down

1.”A WDH review of more than 5,000 lab-confirmed and probable cases identified among Wyoming residents…”

“A review” …. of what? Where do these numbers come from? Was a unified survey utilized? Was this hospital reporting using the same form? Was this reporting Mandatory? Voluntary?

2. “More than 5,000”

How many more? 5,001? 5,999? Why the inaccurate number? I don’t know, but it sure sounds scary, doesn’t it? Why didn’t they report the actual number? Why did they need to add the booster phrase of “more than“?

3. “lab-confirmed and probable cases identified among Wyoming residents”

Was there 1 lab-confirmed case and 4999 probable cases? You realize this could literally be the case, and the above statement would be factual…. but the human mind fills in the gaps, usually in the worst case scenario. We don’t know the true number of lab-confirmed cases, but the use of the number 5,000 is a huge pool of nothing numbers that sure look scary.

Why not report only the lab-confirmed cases? What were the criterion used to determine “probable” cases? How many of these were the common cold, regular flu, allergies, asthma, pneumonia…? How was this probability determined and by whom?

4. “Wyoming residents age 16 and older”

This is yet another huge pool of numbers that tell us next to nothing, but it sure sounds like EVERYONE. We have no information about pre-conditions nor age, so we see ourselves potentially in this statistic, though it may literally mean a majority of people at the end of life expectancy with a pre-condition. We’ll never know though, because it’s crap data reporting.

5. “roughly 95 percent of the individuals do not report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

What is the methodology of reporting? Why so loosy goosy on the reporting? How, when, from where does this data get collected? Were the subjects even ASKED if they were vaccinated? Did subjects check a box? Were subjects given a box to check? Is it the responsibility of the person receiving the shot or of the one administering the shot? Is there a law requiring these reports? How do we KNOW it has not been reported?

These are legitimate questions, because it isn’t explained, but that phrase “do not report” raises questions that I think are legitimately leaving room for inaccuracies and what we call “CYA” or cover your ass reporting. Why not simply report the number who WERE recipients of it?

6. “During the same period, of the nearly 300 persons infected by COVID-19 who were hospitalized at the time they were interviewed by public health representatives, just under 94 percent did not report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Okay, so we can likely gather that from May 1-July 28, the number 300 applies… That’s 3 whole months, by the way, approximately 100 cases per month, but we don’t know why these folks were hospitalized, do we? Nor do we know how it was determined they were “infected with the C.”

There is an inference these folks were hospitalized due to the C infection, but we don’t know for certain. We only know they were hospitalized while interviewed, but not whether they were there for a broken leg or fighting for their lives on a ventilator. The reader’s mind assumes the latter because it doesn’t like messy question marks, so it fills in the gaps with assumption.

Brain translation: 300 people at risk of dying from the V in the hospital (or, 100 per month, if we break it down) and in the whole state of Wyoming. But we don’t actually know this, because the information is cloudy. A side note, I wonder how many people in Wyoming are dealing with cancer in that state over the course of 3 months.

Now let’s look at that pesky word “nearly” before the number of 300 persons infected who were hospitalized…. NEARLY 300. What number under 300 allows them to use the number 300? Was it 299? 275? 250? If we round up, and the number was 250, that makes a big difference, doesn’t it? Why not just report the actual number?

7. “just under 94 percent did not report being fully vaccinated against COVID-19.”

Here we go again with loosy goosy numbers reporting. Just UNDER 94 percent. What does it mean? If we look at my #6 example, they were rounding UP to a nice neat number of 300… but here, in example 7, we are not going down to a nice number like 90 percent… or rounding UP to another nice number like 95 percent. Why 94 ? Just UNDER 94…. what does this mean? Lots of margin for fudging numbers here.

8. After you read the article, ask yourself, HOW do they determine this is the “D E L T A” variety?

Here are some uncomfortable questions for all of us: Why do we read this tripe and assume facts are present when if we break down the actual language (which takes time, and the writers know most won’t bother), we discover that they are AT THE VERY LEAST, hiding truth? Why do we as individuals read this stuff, (or likely SKIM it) and accept as blind facts? Don’t tell me you don’t do this, because most people do. I do. Who put this information out? A government agency, the Wyoming Department of Health. But today, this really jumped out at me, and I had to share these thoughts.

Read every word

When you read (me too!) READ, look at the garbage words and phrases that hide the truth. LOOK for these words and let them be the red flag that truth is being hidden or puffed up for a specific purpose!

• roughly
• under
• over
• nearly
• up to
• more than
• less than
• probable
• likely
• estimated
• generally

Just for fun, let’s take a deeper dive into the numbers presented, and how they compare to estimated 2019 population statistics in Wyoming as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau: 578,759 = Estimated Total Population of Wyoming in 2019.

Given the population of the state, 5,000 “lab-confirmed” and “probable” cases in Wyoming as reported by the Wyoming Health District would represent .86 of the total population. This is not even one percent. That doesn’t sound nearly as scary as 5,000 cases, within 3 months’ time, does it? Even if you were to separate the 23.1 percent of people who are 18 and under in the State of Wyoming, and THEN factor the 5,000 “lab-confirmed” and “probable” cases, you’d STILL only have 1 percent of cases among the population of 18 and above, though their statistical grouping was 16 and above.

Here’s another “just for fun” idea. For comparison in statistical approach, visit the Wyoming Department of Health’s website on alcohol use in Wyoming.

Check out all of the statistics they are reporting. Not ONE of them uses CYA language like, probable, up to, nearly, etc….. WHY?

Why do I share this? It isn’t to quibble with facts, but only to show how WE ARE allowing ourselves to BE MANIPULATED by not paying attention to the WORDS being used, and by not DOING OUR OWN RESEARCH.

I’m not going to debate or argue the V, or the suggested therapies, nor any of the severity of the experience for those who suffer with it, I simply want people to SEE the manipulations of facts, figures, statistics, and acknowledge that we are being led… and not necessarily by facts.