Another Study Shows Hospitalization Numbers of COVID Patients in U.S. are Overinflated, Not Drawing Distinction Between COVID Incidental To Admission or Treatment Thereof

by Sundance

Interesting data on SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) being released and discussed today.  The first is the release of a study [DATA HERE] indicating that half of all recorded hospitalization cases for COVID-19 are incorrectly being interpreted.
 
The study of 50,000 VA patients recorded as hospitalized and testing positive for COVID-19, reflects that roughly half of the patients recorded on the dashboard were admitted to the hospital for some other, unrelated, reason and incidentally tested positive for the virus upon admission.  They arrived for treatment for something else, were tested and recorded for COVID, but the treatment was not for any COVID-19 related issue.
 
An earlier study in May, using the charts of hospitalized pediatric patients found roughly the same thing; 40 to 45 percent of the patients recorded as COVID hospitalizations, when in reality they were in the hospital for something unrelated to COVID.   As noted in the Atlantic “For two separate studies published in May, doctors in California read through several hundred charts of pediatric patients, one by one, to figure out why, exactly, each COVID-positive child had been admitted to the hospital. Did they need treatment for COVID, or was there some other reason for admission, like cancer treatment or a psychiatric episode, and the COVID diagnosis was merely incidental? According to the researchers, 40 to 45 percent of the hospitalizations that they examined were for patients in the latter group.”
 



 
In the VA study released today approximately half of the COVID-19 recorded hospital cases had nothing to do with COVID-19. “[T]he study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease.” (link)
 
Meanwhile a group of scientists and researchers have published an article in The Lancet Medical Journal today recommending that any effort to introduce “booster shots” to supplement the experimental COVID-19 mRNA gene therapy, aka “the vaccine”, be stopped because the approach by the medical system ‘writ large’ is undermining confidence in the healthcare profession. [Lancet Article Here]
 
The scientists write: “The effectiveness of boosting against the main variants now circulating and against even newer variants could be greater and longer lived if the booster vaccine antigen is devised to match the main circulating variants,” following the same protocol as the annual flu vaccine (which is not based on gene modification).
 
As you can see directly in the wording of the medical scientists and researchers the underlying message is that if the mRNA genetic modification approach is to be continued, they will need modifications of the ‘vaccine‘ to match each specific strain of the virus.  This is exactly what critics of the vaccine approach have been saying openly for quite a while; however, it is the first admission by the scientific community of that reality.
 
Their scientific admission proves the point….. If you take the genetic modification approach (vaccines) to create artificial antibodies; thereby destroying the natural immunity antibodies; you are creating a scenario where the genetic modification of the immune system will need to continue (more boosters) in perpetuity for every variant.
 
The authors of the paper worry the aggregate world population will look at their dependency on boosters as a negative outcome.

Read more