Good catch. There's nothing about this in any of the US-based main stream media as far as I know, other than acknowledgements of how data is collected buried at the end of stories.

The only news in this story is that it's the first media outlet in the world to admit they've been collaborating with health experts to spread misinformation since Covid began. They forgot to mention they've also spread whoppers about the origin of Covid - maybe that's still too big - but at least it's a start.

It's interesting that this 'with' or 'due to' distinction is suddenly being made now. We can deduce that it's due to vaccine failure - so it's a statistical lever to get the numbers down - to make it look like vaccines are still working - when they're not.

This could indeed be the point, to lower the count as boosters for a failed vaccine are continued to be pushed, required even, thus justifying this absurd reality we're in.

In a time where we're constantly exhorted to listen to the experts, we've seen lie, upon lie, upon lie from these same experts. It's hard to think of single topic on which they've been honest.

Then they complain about a growing mistrust in health experts and blame it on 'far-right-wing conspiracy theorists spreading misinformation'.

And the experts can spin the data however they want, depending on what needs to be accomplished. Do they count comorbidities or not? Do they count the 'with' or 'due to'? What does 'fully vaccinated' mean? Because it changes day to day. In fact the rules of the game change so frequently that it's no wonder the public has given up and just 'trusts the experts'. How about 'close contacts'? How long do we quarantine? Or do we? How far is social distancing? Six feet? Ten? Three? Masks? Indoors and out? It's all a farce.

There's a reference in The Refuser that sort of reflects this. I don't mean to confuse fiction with 'fact', but the line between the two has become very gray: For every Refuser, the Algorithm, for purposes of public health and safety, increased the number of Jab losses and decreased rewards according to the demographics and psychology of the community, resulting in a heightened sense of risk, risk attributed directly to the Refuser.