Did Your Loved One Really Die From COVID? Unpacking a Dangerous Misinformation Campaign

In recent weeks, billboards have appeared in several cities across America asking a jarring question: “Did your loved one really die from COVID?” These billboards direct viewers to a website called “truecovidfacts.org” that claims to offer “true facts” about the pandemic. After seeing these billboards popping up in our town, we felt compelled to investigate these claims and determine what’s actually happening here.

What Is TrueCovidFacts.org?

The website “truecovidfacts.org” presents itself as a source of “true facts” about COVID-19, but upon examination, it’s clear this site is promoting misinformation that contradicts established scientific consensus. The site prominently displays leading questions with pre-checked “Yes” boxes, such as “Did public health officials lie to Americans regarding Covid? Yes ☒ No ☐” and makes claims about natural immunity being deliberately ignored by health authorities.¹

This approach – using leading questions with predetermined answers – is a classic propaganda technique, not a genuine attempt to present balanced information. By framing complex scientific and public health issues as simple yes/no questions with answers already provided, the site manipulates visitors into accepting its narrative without critical examination.

The Dark Money Behind COVID-19 Misinformation Campaigns

The truecovidfacts.org billboard campaign represents a concerning trend in public health communication: the emergence of well-funded misinformation efforts designed to undermine scientific consensus and public health measures. Despite extensive research, the specific individuals or organizations directly funding the truecovidfacts.org billboards remain obscure. This opacity is typical of what experts call “dark money” campaigns – political or ideological efforts funded through channels that deliberately obscure the original source of financing.²

Dark money organizations operate through complex structures that make it difficult to trace funding sources and organizational connections. As defined by the Brennan Center for Justice, these are typically organizations that “do not disclose their donors” and have “poured more than $1 billion into federal elections since 2010, typically concentrating on the most competitive races.”³ While dark money has long been a feature of political campaigns, its application to public health messaging represents a dangerous evolution.

Patterns in COVID Misinformation Funding

Although the specific funders of truecovidfacts.org remain elusive, examining similar misinformation campaigns reveals consistent patterns in how these operations are structured and funded.

The billboard tactic itself is significant. Billboards offer several advantages for misinformation campaigns:

1. They bypass content moderation systems that might flag misleading claims on social media platforms
2. They target geographic areas rather than demographic groups
3. They create a sense of local legitimacy and authority
4. They’re difficult to fact-check in real-time
5. They often operate with minimal disclosure requirements regarding funding sources

This approach has precedent in other politically-motivated billboard campaigns. For example, an investigation by The Badger Herald found that a group called “Community for Responsible Government” funded political billboards in Madison, Wisconsin, but maintained almost complete anonymity. When journalists investigated, they found only a UPS P.O. box and stock imagery rather than an identifiable organization.⁴

The “Disinformation Dozen” Phenomenon

Perhaps the most revealing pattern in COVID misinformation is the concentration of influence. According to NPR reporting on research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, just 12 individuals—dubbed the “Disinformation Dozen”—were responsible for the majority of false claims about COVID-19 vaccines on social media.⁵

These individuals include anti-vaccine activists, alternative health entrepreneurs, and physicians who have built substantial followings by promoting views contrary to scientific consensus. Many have financial interests in promoting alternative health products or receive donations from followers who support their messaging.

Their techniques for spreading misinformation include:

1. Distorting legitimate scientific studies
2. Using coded language to evade content moderation
3. Creating false linkages between celebrity deaths and vaccines
4. Promoting “natural immunity” while downplaying vaccine efficacy
5. Exploiting scientific uncertainty during evolving situations

The truecovidfacts.org campaign employs similar rhetorical techniques, particularly in how it frames questions about natural immunity and death certificates to lead viewers toward predetermined conclusions.

Fact-Based Refutations of TrueCovidFacts.org Claims

Let’s examine the specific claims made on this website and address each with evidence-based facts:

Claim #1: “Death certificates were manipulated to inflate COVID-19 death counts”

FACT: The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) established clear, medically sound guidelines for reporting COVID-19 deaths. These guidelines state: “COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death.”⁶ Death certificates are completed by medical professionals based on their best clinical judgment, not by government officials or politicians.⁷

The certification process requires medical examiners, coroners, or physicians to determine the chain of events leading to death and identify any significant conditions that contributed to it. COVID-19 is only listed if it played a causal role.⁸ This process follows the same international standards used for all other diseases, based on World Health Organization guidelines that have been in place for decades.⁹

Furthermore, studies of excess mortality (deaths above normal expectations) during the pandemic actually suggest COVID-19 deaths were likely undercounted, not inflated. Analysis by the CDC found that there were approximately 20-30% more deaths than would be expected during the pandemic period, many of which were not officially attributed to COVID-19.¹⁰

Claim #2: “Public health officials engaged in a coordinated effort to ignore natural immunity when developing vaccine guidance”

FACT: Public health officials fully acknowledged natural immunity but recommended vaccination based on scientific evidence showing that vaccine-induced immunity is more consistent, reliable, and often stronger, especially against variants.

Johns Hopkins Medicine explains that “studies show that natural immunity to the virus weakens over time and does so faster than immunity provided by COVID-19 vaccination,” highlighting why vaccination was recommended even for those who previously had COVID-19.¹¹

A CDC study found that Kentucky residents with previous COVID-19 infections who remained unvaccinated had 2.34 times the risk of reinfection compared to those who got vaccinated after their infection, demonstrating that vaccination provides additional protection beyond natural immunity.¹²

Scientists found that while natural immunity offers some protection, its effectiveness varies widely based on the severity of initial infection, age of the person, and time since infection.¹³ Vaccines, by contrast, produce more consistent immune responses across populations.

Laboratory studies consistently showed that “antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination provide better neutralization of some circulating variants than does natural infection,” particularly important as the virus evolved.¹⁴ This wasn’t “ignoring” natural immunity but making recommendations based on comprehensive scientific evidence.

Claim #3: “The PCR tests used to diagnose COVID-19 were unreliable and produced false positives”

FACT: While no test is perfect, PCR tests for COVID-19 are highly accurate when properly administered and interpreted. They remain the gold standard for detecting active SARS-CoV-2 infections.

The FDA’s evaluation of PCR tests showed specificity (ability to correctly identify people without the disease) of 95-100% for authorized tests, meaning false positives were rare.¹⁵ Most PCR tests demonstrated sensitivity (ability to correctly identify people with the disease) above 95% when samples were collected properly.¹⁶

The claim that PCR tests can’t distinguish between COVID-19 and influenza is false. PCR tests are designed to detect specific genetic sequences unique to SARS-CoV-2.¹⁷ Multiplex PCR tests that check for multiple respiratory pathogens including influenza and COVID-19 use different primers to identify each specific virus.¹⁸

While high cycle thresholds can sometimes detect non-infectious viral fragments, public health officials and medical professionals understood this limitation and interpreted results accordingly, especially after recovery.¹⁹

Claim #4: “COVID-19 vaccines are experimental, unsafe, and more dangerous than the disease itself”

FACT: COVID-19 vaccines underwent rigorous clinical trials involving tens of thousands of participants before receiving authorization. The vaccines have been administered to billions of people worldwide with ongoing safety monitoring that confirms their favorable safety profile.

The mRNA technology used in some COVID-19 vaccines wasn’t developed hastily but had been researched for decades before the pandemic. As the CDC notes, “Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades,” including earlier work on vaccines for flu, Zika, rabies, and cytomegalovirus.²⁰

Serious adverse events from COVID-19 vaccines are extremely rare. For example, anaphylaxis occurs in approximately 2-5 people per million vaccinated, and most cases respond well to immediate treatment.²¹ The risk of myocarditis after vaccination, while serious, is much lower than the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection itself.²²

COVID-19 has killed millions globally and caused serious long-term health problems in many survivors. The claim that vaccines are more dangerous than the disease contradicts all available mortality and morbidity data. The CDC estimates that COVID-19 vaccines prevented over 3.2 million hospitalizations and 700,000 deaths in the United States alone during their first year of use.²³

Claim #5: “Masks are ineffective at preventing COVID-19 transmission”

FACT: Multiple scientific studies confirm that masks, particularly high-quality ones properly worn, reduce transmission of respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2.

A large randomized controlled trial in Bangladesh involving nearly 350,000 people found that villages where surgical masks were promoted had an 11.1% reduction in symptomatic COVID-19.²⁴ The effect was even greater among older adults.

Laboratory studies demonstrate that masks can block 50-70% of fine droplets and particles and limit the forward spread of those that aren’t captured.²⁵ N95 and KN95 respirators can filter at least 95% of airborne particles when properly fitted.²⁶

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet found that mask use was associated with a significant reduction in risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and related betacoronaviruses.²⁷

Real-world observational studies found that states and countries that implemented mask mandates saw reductions in COVID-19 case growth compared to those without such requirements.²⁸

Claim #6: “Lockdowns and social distancing measures did more harm than good”

FACT: While lockdowns and restrictions certainly had costs, evidence indicates they saved millions of lives during the acute phases of the pandemic before vaccines were available.

A peer-reviewed study in Nature estimated that the first wave of restrictions prevented about 3.1 million deaths across 11 European countries.²⁹ Similar analyses for the United States estimated that stay-at-home orders and business closures prevented between 900,000 and 2.7 million COVID-19 deaths in the early months.³⁰

Research from Imperial College London found that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdowns, were critical in reducing COVID-19 transmission rates by about 81% in the initial pandemic wave, preventing healthcare systems from being overwhelmed.³¹

While economic impacts were significant, countries that implemented effective early controls often saw better economic outcomes in the medium term by controlling the virus more quickly and enabling safer reopening.³²

The mental health impacts of lockdowns are real and concerning, but studies show pandemic-related anxiety, depression, and PTSD were primarily driven by fear of the virus itself and grief from losing loved ones, not solely from restriction measures.³³

The Weaponization of Web Archives for Misinformation

An interesting aspect of COVID-19 misinformation campaigns is how they’ve evolved to evade content moderation systems. Researchers have documented how web archives like the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine have been used to store and spread misinformation even after the original websites have been taken down for violating platform policies.³⁴

In response, the Internet Archive has taken steps to add context to archived links, particularly those containing COVID-19 misinformation. When questionable content is accessed through the archive, disclaimers are added to inform users that the content violated the original platform’s policies.³⁵

This context is crucial because by using archived snapshots as a proxy rather than the original URL, links to archived misinformation can easily bypass existing content moderation systems used by platforms.³⁶ The truecovidfacts.org campaign may be employing similar tactics by directing people to their website through offline methods (billboards) that aren’t subject to the same content moderation as online advertisements might be.

Political Motivations and Connections

COVID-19 misinformation has frequently aligned with specific political ideologies and narratives. Research has revealed that certain political factions have been more likely to promote skepticism of vaccines, mask mandates, and other public health measures.

While many COVID misinformation campaigns present themselves as grassroots efforts concerned with “truth” or “freedom,” they often have connections to established political networks. As an example of how these networks operate (though not specifically linked to truecovidfacts.org), Wikipedia notes that some COVID misinformation spreading from Chinese lab leak theories was funded by organizations with political ties, like “the Rule of Law Society and the Rule of Law Foundation, two non-profits linked to Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, and Guo Wengui, an expatriate Chinese billionaire.”³⁷

Similarly, an investigation by openDemocracy found that “half a dozen US Christian right groups have poured millions of dollars into… promoting misinformation about COVID-19 and other health and rights issues.”³⁸ These connections highlight how public health misinformation often serves broader political agendas rather than genuine health concerns.

The Dangers of Ongoing COVID-19 Misinformation

The continued spread of misinformation about COVID-19 carries serious consequences for public health and our ability to respond to future pandemics.

Misinformation during the pandemic has “perpetuated beliefs that led to vaccine avoidance, mask refusal, and utilization of medications with insignificant scientific data, ultimately contributing to increased morbidity.” It has become “a challenge and a burden to individual health, public health, and governments globally.”³⁹

The Center for American Progress noted that as pandemic conditions vary geographically, “the differentiation of public health conditions, lack of certainty around the coronavirus, and lack of local media resources are likely to lead to continued spread of misinformation.”⁴⁰

This creates fertile ground for actors seeking to sow division and undermine trust in public health institutions, making communities more vulnerable to future health threats.

Research has found that “increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people’s self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people’s willingness to get vaccinated.”⁴¹ This connection between belief in misinformation and health behaviors has real consequences for community health and resilience.

Building Resilience Against Health Misinformation

Rather than simply accepting claims at face value or dismissing them outright, we can develop critical thinking skills to evaluate health information more effectively:

1. Identify the source: Check who is behind the information. Legitimate health information typically comes from recognized scientific institutions, academic medical centers, or public health agencies.
2. Look for scientific consensus: Rather than focusing on individual studies or opinions, look for what the majority of experts in relevant fields agree upon.
3. Check for transparency: Credible sources explain their methodology and acknowledge limitations or uncertainties.
4. Be wary of absolute claims: Science rarely deals in absolutes. Claims using words like “never” or “always” should raise skepticism.
5. Consider multiple reliable sources: Compare information across several reputable sources rather than relying on a single website or viewpoint.

By strengthening our collective information literacy, we can better navigate the complex information landscape of public health crises and make decisions based on evidence rather than fear or misinformation.

Financial Interests Behind Health Misinformation

While ideological motivations drive many misinformation campaigns, financial interests often play a crucial role as well. Some organizations promoting COVID skepticism benefit from:

1. Direct donations from followers who align with their messaging
2. Sales of alternative health products or supplements marketed as alternatives to vaccines
3. Book sales and speaking fees
4. Advertising revenue from websites and YouTube channels
5. Political fundraising based on opposition to public health measures

A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that even crowdfunding campaigns became vectors for COVID-19 misinformation, with many campaigns promoting unproven treatments while soliciting donations.⁴²

Conclusion: Why This Matters for Future Pandemics

The truecovidfacts.org billboard campaign isn’t just about relitigating the past; it represents an ongoing threat to our collective ability to respond effectively to future public health emergencies.

When misinformation erodes trust in public health institutions and scientific consensus, it makes us more vulnerable as a society. Future pandemic responses may be hampered by hesitancy to follow public health guidance, delays in seeking appropriate medical care, or resistance to protective measures like vaccines.

By understanding the tactics used by misinformation campaigns and developing the skills to evaluate health information critically, we can build a more resilient public health infrastructure capable of withstanding not just biological threats, but informational ones as well.

The question on the billboard—”Did your loved one really die from COVID?”—is designed to prey on grief and uncertainty. But the real question we should be asking is: “How can we ensure that fewer loved ones die in future pandemics by building trust in science-based public health measures?”

The answer lies not in simplistic narratives or predetermined conclusions, but in our collective commitment to factual information, critical thinking, and compassionate, evidence-based public health policy.