SARS Reporting
Validity Challenged

Dr. Robert E. Lee, PhD

Hello, Jeff
I have been keeping track of the SARS day-to-day statistics since they were first published in the website. These data are the day-to-day increases in SARS cases, deaths, etc. reported from many nations. I have done several things with these numbers, e.g., making forecasts, etc. Another thing that I have been doing is what I call a "Lie Index" or a "Reporting Validity Index" (however you would like to define those terms). Prior to May 1, I was observing substantial variance the day-to-day "Reporting Validity Index" as one would expect... number of reported cases, deaths, etc., should be a function of the real world and you would expect substantial variance. Beginning on May 1, however, there was a complete end to the day-to-day variance in the "Reporting Validity Index" and the index went flat.
What the data, i.e., the across-time reporting validity index, are telling me is that, beginning on May 1, 2003, there was, apparently, some decision made to not let the chips fall where they might in terms of accurate reporting of day-to-day SARS cases. There can be no other explanation for the sudden end to variance in day-to-day reporting. So, while I will continue to track the numbers, I want to caution you and your readers/listeners that, since May 1, 2003, there may have been a "rat in the woodpile" in the daily WHO-reported SARS numbers. It is important that you and your readers know that I do not yet know that the reliability index has, for a FACT, established that the WHO SARS numbers are being cooked but I strongly suspect they are being cooked. I will continue to monitor the numbers on a day-to-day basis for the foreseeable future and maintain this reliability index as just one of several indices of the SARS outbreak.
Please see the attached Lie Index/Reporting Validity Index so you can see for yourself the sudden and inexplicable end of day-to-day variation in the Lie Index beginning exactly on May 1, 2003. I would expect the truth to show a lot of variance, up and down on the graph... and a lie to show very little, if any, variance on the graph. Calculation of the index is based on a running comparison ratio. If your readers/listeners have any evidence of what may have occurred on May 1, 2003, to cause the lie index to indicate "Reliability problems/Fraud/Lie" in the numbers, I would be interested in knowing their thoughts.
Thanks, Jeff.
Bob Lee
From JK
I noticed what Dr. Lee has indicated around the same time he did. Although I am not a researcher I've come to a conclusion just from watching the daily news the World Bank and the IMF are now telling WHO how to report SARS. As the saying goes, "Money talks, bullshit walks."
Money has become more important than people, and that is a sad commentary for the human race at this time of paradigm shift. Rather than following the percepts of Adam Smith, the goal of today's capitalist is to see who has the most toys before they die, and in this equation people are considered "toys", and their deaths are "collateral" damage in the grand scheme of things.
From Patricia Doyle, PhD
I first want to commend Dr. Bob Lee for his work on SARS and other emerging diseases. I, too, watch the numbers and wonder about the SARS (suspected cases) that are dropped from the SARS numbers due to the fact that they are not identified as SARS cases. I wonder if these suspected cases are being followed and if they fit into the "new" "SARSLIKE Illness" category.
As we discussed, there appears to be spreading, either a variant of SARS or another disease that mimics SARS.
I cannot help but wonder if we take the "suspected" but non SARS numbers and add them together, will they surpass SARS?
Patricia Doyle
Patricia A. Doyle, PhD
Please visit my "Emerging Diseases" message board at:
Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa
Go with God and in Good Health



This Site Served by TheHostPros