One of the more common-sense approaches to reviewing COVID-19 data, amid the outbreak of the ‘Delta variant’, is to look at the percentage of vaccinated people in a regional population, and then look at the percentage of vaccinated people in the hospital with “Covid related” symptoms.
If the COVID illness is severe enough to require hospitalisation, then the patient must be severely or acutely sick.
A review of Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, area populations/hospitalisations previously showed the percentage of hospitalised Covid-19 patients with the vaccine is identical to the percentage of people vaccinated in the population served by the hospital.
The same data was reflected in the statistics released by Public Health Scotland. The percentage of vaccinated people hospitalised is identical to the percentage of people vaccinated in the population.
What does that mean?
Quite simply, it means the vaccine provides no benefit with a COVID-19 illness severe enough to require hospitalisation. So, if the vaccine provides no benefit then why take it? That’s the bottom line question. Before going deeper, first watch this video segment:
Since that video and discussion above took place in May 2020, we now have a massive number of people who have been vaccinated. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we also now have the data on those vaccinated people coming into contact with the COVID-19 virus after their vaccination. The data is very troubling, because it confirms what was presented in that video.
A review of a sizable data-set from Public Health Scotland shows that 87% of the deaths directly attributed to COVID-19 are amid the vaccinated population (SEE DATA).
Putting both sets of empirical data together, this is what you discover:
(1) The vaccination provides no benefit to stop the COVID-19 virus infection rate.
(2) The vaccine does not prevent hospitalisation from severe symptomatic illness.
(2) The vaccine does not prevent severe acute respiratory failure that results from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
(3) The vaccinated population that are hospitalized and then die from COVID-19 represent 87% of all deaths.
These troubling outcomes also are confirmed by the Red Cross earlier saying: “Vaccinated people cannot contribute convalescent blood plasma to help other COVID-19 patients in hospitals. That plasma is made up of antibodies from people who have recovered from the virus, but the vaccine wipes out those antibodies; making the convalescent plasma ineffective in treating other COVID-19 patients.”
So, the second alarming question is: Does the vaccine actually create a pathway, an “antibody-dependent enhancement” that makes the infection more deadly?
Unfortunately, the data starting to come out now seems to say, yes. People appear to have a more severe illness when exposed to the virus after vaccination. That would explain why there is such a high percentage of deaths amid the vaccinated population after exposure.
Overall, the COVID-19 mortality rate is lower than the flu mortality rate; and both are influenced heavily by pneumonia as the symptomatic cause of death.
A researcher has done a very deep dive into the historic CDC and WHO record of flu cases and now COVID cases.
Ryan Christian has an extensive video presentation with dozens of citations from his data research (Main Article). His ongoing research indicates the COVID-19 virus is no more deadly than the flu; and Christian uses a historic reference of flu deaths being over-reported and conflated.
Citing a hidden 2011 report to the World Health Organisation about avian H5N1 and a new A(H1N1) human influenza virus:
WHO (2011) – […] The pandemic policy was never informed by evidence, but by fear of worst-case scenarios. […] In both pandemics of fear, the exaggerated claims of a severe public health threat stemmed primarily from disease advocacy by influenza experts. In the highly competitive market of health governance, the struggle for attention, budgets and grants is fierce. (link)
HHS (2017) – US data on influenza deaths are false and misleading. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably. Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear—a CDC communications strategy in which medical experts “predict dire outcomes” during flu seasons. (link)
Those cited historic examples set the baseline to see how three different sets of illness are being conflated in 2021 to maintain a COVID-19 pandemic policy based on fear, worst case scenarios and false data.
From the CDC website they tell us that deaths from pneumonia, influenza and COVID (PIC) are all reported as COVID-19 deaths without differentiation:
CDC – “Based on NCHS mortality surveillance data available on July 29, 2021, 7.4% of the deaths that occurred during the week ending July 24, 2021 (week 29), were due to pneumonia, influenza, and/or COVID-19 (PIC). This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 5.5% for week 29.
Among the 1,381 PIC deaths reported for this week (week 29), 642 had COVID-19 listed as an underlying or contributing cause of death on the death certificate, and one listed influenza, indicating that current PIC mortality is due primarily to COVID-19 and not influenza. The data presented are preliminary and may change as more data are received and processed.” (link)
All Pneumonia, Influenza and COVID deaths (the PIC group) are reported exclusively as COVID deaths; and all of that data is dependent on how the hospitals “code” the death. If all deaths are coded as Covid deaths, then the CDC mortality data is assembled based on false baselines.
COVID-19 is not more deadly than the flu UNLESS you have taken the vaccine; in which case it may be more dangerous. The vaccine is ineffective at stopping severe COVID illness and, data suggests, it may actually make things worse, creating a perpetual need for continued booster modifications to counteract the initial issue. Even the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergenices (SAGE) state that it is a realistic possibility.
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead we rely solely on your support, so
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism.
It’s quick and easy…
Please choose your preferred
method to show your support