Tag: pandemic

Narrative Nuked: Nearly Half Of ‘COVID Hospitalizations’ This Year Have Been Mild Or Asymptomatic Cases

A brand new study is calling into question how reliable and meaningful of a number of “patients hospitalized with Covid-19” in the U.S. is. 

Covid hospitalizations – the most common metric heard when discussing the seriousness of the pandemic – may not be nearly as meaningful of a number as many once thought. And don’t take it from us: The Atlantic published a stunning piece on Tuesday citing a new study that suggests “almost half of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have mild or asymptomatic cases”.

The Atlantic had formerly called Covid hospitalizations “the most reliable pandemic number,” last winter. Now, after a nationwide study of hospitalization records was release, the publication is walking back its fervor on that statement. 

Researchers from Harvard Medical School, Tufts Medical Center, and the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System took on the task of trying to figure out how serious Covid cases were in those hospitalized, and how many people counted as Covid hospitalizations were actually in the hospital for Covid, versus getting a Covid test after being admitted for something else. 

The study “analyzed the electronic records for nearly 50,000 COVID hospital admissions at the more than 100 VA hospitals across the country,” The Atlantic wrote. It “checked to see whether each patient required supplemental oxygen or had a blood oxygen level below 94 percent” in order to try and determine if cases met the NIH’s threshold for “severe COVID”. 

What the study found was that from March 2020 to January 2021, 36% of Covid cases in the hospital were mild or asymptomatic. From January 2021 to June 2021, during the Delta variant’s spread, that number rose all the way to 48%. For vaccinated hospital patients, the number rose to a stunning 57%.

Keep reading

TRUE CONSPIRACY: More than 96% of Lancet “scientists” who denied covid lab origin theory have direct ties to Wuhan

As you may recall from the early days of the plandemic, 27 “scientists” penned a letter published in The Lancet that claimed the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) did not originate in a Wuhan laboratory. Well, it turns out that 26 of these scientists have direct ties to the Chinese lab in question, making their claims entirely untrustworthy.

That letter, which was published on March 7, 2020, “strongly condemned conspiracy theories” related to the Chinese Virus that suggest it did not come about by chance from bat soup at a wet market. Chinese Germs, they insist, are a product of nature, not of genetic tampering.

This declaration was intended to be the end of the conversation, except for the fact that inquiring minds decided to look into the matter further. What they found is that almost all of the scientists in question have major conflicts of interest when it comes to telling the truth.

The Daily Telegraph discovered that 96 percent of the research team that authored the article for The Lancet have links to Chinese researchers or their colleagues or benefactors at the infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), China’s only known level-four biosafety lab.

Keep reading

Australia admits it is banning ivermectin for COVID because it interferes with universal vaccine agenda

Why in the world would anyone want to ban a medicine that is listed as a WHO essential safe medicine, won the Nobel prize, and has turned around millions of people with COVID from death’s doorstep? The Australians have now let the cat out of the bag. The reason is because it works, and it will eradicate COVID, along with the agenda — from control to vaccination — that they have built upon its existence.

Last Friday, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia officially banned the prescribing of ivermectin for COVID-19 or any other use besides parasitic infections. One would think that a country that forged a policy of “zero COVID” would want to aggressively treat this virus with everything that has proven to work and actually achieve literal zero COVID, as the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh did with the use of ivermectin. But indeed, this is not about getting rid of COVID, but about perpetuating the control and cronyism harnessed through COVID.

The three reasons given for the TGA’s decision were as shocking as they were revealing. “Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin,” begins the statement. If you stop reading at that point mid-sentence, you are likely wondering how a drug that was praised more than any other drug in recent decades and was used safely billions of times could suddenly cause such terrible problems. However, when you complete the sentence, you will understand what sort of “risk” they are referring to. Here is the full explanation:

“Firstly, there are a number of significant public health risks associated with taking ivermectin in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection rather than getting vaccinated. Individuals who believe that they are protected from infection by taking ivermectin may choose not to get tested or to seek medical care if they experience symptoms. Doing so has the potential to spread the risk of COVID-19 infection throughout the community.”

That’s it! That is the reason they not only oppose ivermectin here and in Australia, but oppose hydroxychloroquine, budesonide, fenofibrate, and any and all forms of preventive and outpatient treatment. Doctors have even told me they have had prescriptions blocked by pharmacists for antibiotics or prednisone, if they think they are being used for COVID. This is the most evident admission yet from the Australian government that it can’t afford to get rid of the virus with something so cheap because it will obviate the need for the vaccine … and the totalitarian agenda accompanying it.

Keep reading

The Masking of the Servant Class: Ugly COVID Images From the Met Gala Are Now Commonplace

From the start of the pandemic, political elites have been repeatedly caught exempting themselves from the restrictive rules they impose on the lives of those over whom they rule. Governors, mayors, ministers and Speakers of the House have been filmed violating their own COVID protocols in order to dine with their closest lobbyist-friends, enjoy a coddled hair styling in chic salons, or unwind after signing new lockdown and quarantine orders by sneaking away for a weekend getaway with the family. The trend became so widespread that ABC News gathered all the examples under the headline “Elected officials slammed for hypocrisy for not following own COVID-19 advice,” while Business Insider in May updated the reporting with this: “14 prominent Democrats stand accused of hypocrisy for ignoring COVID-19 restrictions they’re urging their constituents to obey.”

Most of those transgressions were too flagrant to ignore and thus produced some degree of scandal and resentment for the political officials granting themselves such license. Dominant liberal culture is, if nothing else, fiercely rule-abiding: they get very upset when they see anyone defying decrees from authorities, even if the rule-breaker is the official who promulgated the directives for everyone else. Photos released last November of California Governor Gavin Newsom giggling maskless as he sat with other maskless state health officials celebrating the birthday of a powerful lobbyist — just one month after he told the public to “to keep your mask on in between bites” and while severe state-imposed restrictions were in place regarding leaving one’s home — caused a drop in popularity and helped fueled a recall initiative against him. Newsom and these other officials broke their own rules, and even among liberals who venerate their leaders as celebrities, rule-breaking is frowned upon.

But as is so often the case, the most disturbing aspects of elite behavior are found not in what they have prohibited but rather in what they have decided is permissible. When it comes to mask mandates, it is now commonplace to see two distinct classes of people: those who remain maskless as they are served, and those they employ as their servants who must have their faces covered at all times. Prior to the COVID pandemic, it was difficult to imagine how the enormous chasm between the lives of cultural and political elites and everyone else could be made any larger, yet the pandemic generated a new form of crude cultural segregation: a series of protocols which ensure that maskless elites need not ever cast eyes upon the faces of their servant class.

Keep reading

NYC Starts Enforcement of Vaccine Mandate

New York City started enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate Monday, with Mayor Bill de Blasio warning, “there’ll be consequences” for those who do not follow the rules.

The COVID-19 vaccine mandate, also known as the Key to NYC, requires people 12 and older to show proof that they have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine for indoor dining, indoor fitness, and indoor entertainment.

Under the mandate, staff at these locations must be vaccinated as well. Places affected include restaurants, bars, nightclubs, catering halls, event spaces, gyms, fitness centers, pools, theaters, museums, aquariums, and zoos, among others.

“Look, you’ve got to be safe. Wherever you go—movie theater, gym, restaurant—you’re going to be safe,” de Blasio said during a virtual press conference Monday morning.

“For those who are unvaccinated, you got to make the move,” de Blasio continued.

De Blasio announced the mandate in early August and started the requirements on Aug. 17.

The mandate requires the establishments to put up certain signage and verify customers’ COVID-19 vaccine proof, such as vaccination cards issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), New York City vaccination records, other official immunization records, the NYC COVID Safe App, or the Excelsior Pass.

According to the New York City Department of Health, establishments can make some exceptions, such as for outdoor eating, allowing customers to use the bathroom, or for other reasons that will take a small amount of time, for example, less than 10 minutes.

Thirteen agencies will send out inspectors to enforce the mandate, the mayor announced.

“What we’re going to do is have our inspectors out from 13 civilian agencies,” de Blasio said. “We don’t want to fine people. We don’t have to. We want to just get it right and keep moving forward.”

“But I think folks understand by now we are resolute. And if anyone wants to not follow the rules that everyone else has to follow, then of course, there’ll be consequences,” de Blasio, a Democrat, added.

According to de Blasio’s legal counsel (pdf), an establishment found to be non-compliant may be subject to a fine of $1,000. Repeated violations may result in increased fine amounts or other enforcement action.

Keep reading

Medical Experimentation and Collective Punishment Are War Crimes

Fake President but Real Dictator Joe Biden: “We are going to protect the vaccinated workers from unvaccinated coworkers.”  Ah, if only the “vaccinated” workers had as healthy immune systems as their unvaccinated colleagues.  Whatever the friendly U.S. government is injecting into people, it’s certainly not inoculating against or inhibiting transmission of the Fauci Virus if the “vaccinated” must walk around in bubble-boy suits for the rest of their lives.  The “vaccine” that works so nice you have to take it twice…er, thrice…er, we’ll let you know when you’ve had enough, prole!

Before “hope and change” replaced the Scientific Method, not only did the medical community know the difference between males and females, but also vaccinations actually conferred immunity.  Is there some unwritten rule that we must endure fake vaccinations during fake presidencies?  I know we live in a time when the political left redefines words daily to fit its desired propaganda objectives, but if “vaccine” now means nothing more than “an injection that may or may not prevent illness so long as the subject remains in sterilized environments and wrapped in protective headwear,” then that’s hardly different from defining “bulletproof vest” as “a garment that may or may not prevent bodily harm, so long as the wearer curls up in the fetal position and hides from danger.”  Now that Americans are being threatened with economic destruction unless they let Uncle Sam slap on some rubber gloves and play doctor, I think we know where this bowdlerization of medical terminology is naturally heading: “Vaccination, noun: The choice between letting the lying liars who run the U.S. government pump your an experimental serum into your veins or being forced into unemployment, homelessness, and starvation; also, Vaccinate, verb, a profane expletive for fornication, as in, ‘The pudding-brained Pretender-in-Chief sure vaccinated me this time!'”

As long as we’re considering technical definitions, maybe it’s time to consult long-standing international agreements on the protection of human rights and the prosecution of war crimes.  As its first stated principle outlining the bare minimum required of medical professionals “to satisfy moral, ethical, and legal” duties, the 1947 Nuremberg Code states clearly:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.  This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

Let’s put aside whether, in their rush to “vaccinate” the world, medical bureaucrats have sufficiently “enlightened” patients as to all the health hazards that might be reasonably expected to come from an experimental treatment because the usual long-term studies that track potentially harmful side-effects of new treatments over the course of ten or more years were thrown out the window so governments could quickly jab their citizens without much scrutiny.  Long-term harm?  Only the future will tell.  

Rather, let’s highlight what the Nuremberg Code says about consent: it must be free from “force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”  Does this set off any alarm bells for ethicists concerned about not following in the footsteps of Nazi medical science or treating civilians as guinea pigs for experimental research?  Is it possible that Herr Biden’s angry threats against healthy citizens for not partaking in his medical research might amount to “duress” or “coercion”?  Let’s see — jab this in your arm, or we will fire you, render you unemployable, threaten the financial survival of you and your family, and maybe leave you destitute and homeless.  Ding, ding, ding!  Talk about “overreach”!  Surely, threatening people with economic destruction if they won’t submit to medical experimentation is the exact kind of government “force” (or mandate) the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg was trying to prevent in the future.  Surely, “vaccine” mandates explicitly designed to outlaw “freedom or personal choice” should be scrutinized with an eye open to the human atrocities of the past.  Yet here we are, seventy-five years later, and medical experimentation is back in style.  Maybe the New World Order the globalists keep forcing down our throats is once again written in German, even if “President” Dummkopf speaks only gibberish.

Keep reading