The current scam seems to be ensuring that Medical Records of hospitalized people incorrectly show up as Unvaccinated. This seems to be a hospital intake mechanism that accidentally-on-purpose records most patients as Unvaccinated regardless of actual status. It's simple: patient intake ASSUMES a patient is unvaxxed and then avoids collecting evidence that shows otherwise. They do this by only counting as Vaccinated patients who got their jabs IN THAT HOSPITAL SYSTEM. They seemingly don't merge the data from multiple sources, and they don't ask. Thus, unless a patient got their jabs recorded in that same in-hospital system they show up as UNVAXXED. This lets them goose the numbers as needed, resulting in this CDC publication. Easy peasy.
I know this because I've heard it from numerous health care providers. Some know about this trick and don't like it, while others don't know about it and are confused why everyone on their ward is 'unvaxxed' when they are pretty sure that's not really the case.
I strongly suspect that's the origin of this fake CDC report. At this point it just spews blatant lies that still manage to deceive everyone not Red-Pilled.
This is 100% correct and the reason for the phony report from the CDC. Whether it is intentional, I don't know. The CDC is a hybrid of malevolence and incompetence.
Clearly, the people at the top who caused the hospital intake system to work that way did it on purpose, as part of the coverup for the mRNA psyop. The other 99.7% are just doing what they're told.
I think it's time that we get over being disappointed with the MORE-ONS and their obsession with shooting the rat juice... (that only leads to frustration and stress... and stress is a bad thing that I prefer to avoid)
And just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the shit show. Like watching a sport -- instead of towering home runs... a long pass... or a pin point shot into the top corner of the net...
We get strokes and heart attacks and collapses...
Did you see the highlight from the other day -- a teen with legs blackened by the jab (literally black) had both of them amputated... and he was pictured smiling in the hospital bed with two stumps for legs...
The doctors blamed it on 'the flu' -- you couldn't make this up (even if you were Stephen King)....
It's like getting free tickets to the House of Horrors exhibition ...
At some point you just have to stop giving f789s about these people -- and to recognize .... they are just trying to cure their stupidity
Dr Pierre Kory documented in a substack article in June 2022 that patients are either entered as vaccinated or unknown, rather than vaccinated, unknown, and unvaccinated. For almost everyone in the hospital they are listed as unknown, which the CDC turns into "unvaccinated"
Starting in March 2022 the COVID deaths/100,000 are much higher for vaccinated than unvaxed but the "incidence" is hugely higher for the unvaxed. I can't make heads or tails out of it.
with an even more confusing explanation of incidence rates estimates and "continuity corrections." I am not convinced that these rates and ratios are true or that it is good data to rely on. Also interesting, the above link will not let me copy/paste text from the footnotes section where they attempt to explain their categories. Odd.
I can say that in my neck of the woods in the US, the local hospital reports covid positive patients by jab status (they test all patients) and for the past week 100% have been jabbed.
"Unvaccinated" is commonly being misused. It does NOT necessarily mean "never-vaccinated". I found this in another study looking at the effectiveness of booster vaccines against "long-covid". The "unvaccinated" were defined as those who did not have the booster vaccination compared with the "vaccinated", those that did. Nothing was said about the prior vaccination standing of either the "unvaccinated" (or "vaccinated") groups.
The CDC also - as of May 2021, intentionally limited both the testing and reporting for hospitalized patients, if and only if, they had been injected. What they did was limit the PCR test administration to A) only those injected patients presenting with clear respiratory symptoms, and B) every single non-injected patient regardless of why they were at the hospital. Given that even the left-wing propagandists at the Atlantic and the BBC admit that 50+ - 70% of COVID hospitalizations are "secondary" (meaning not showing up due to respiratory distress but for other issues, including acute trauma); intentionally limiting the testing of the injected injects deliberate data bias / error. They further, and with obvious intent to defraud the data, limited the reporting of COVID hospitalizations in the injected+respiratory distress patients to 28 Ct of less. Meaning you could be jabbed, clearly suffering from ILI/CLI, go to the hospital and come up PCR-RT+ at 29 Ct; and not be counted as jabbed+COVID hospitalization. They quite intentionally did not impose this same Ct limit on the reporting of non-jabbed. Meaning, you could break your arm, show up with zero CLI symptoms, get force tested and come up PCR-RT+ at 35-40 Ct; and get counted as unjabbed+COVID hospitalization. Since many places have been attributing death FROM COVID to all deaths fr any cause + a PCR-RT+ within 28-30 days; you can see how easily they have cooked the books. The CDC Kentucky study that they crowed about - showing that IF hospitalization with CLI, you were 5X more likely to be PCR-RT+ demonstrated how this worked; since if you look at the actual full numbers of CLI patient in hospital correlated to the regional jab uptake level at that time, you were about 25% MORE likely to be in the hospital if jabbed. . .
Just crabbing this from better analyses that were done much more in depth; if memory serves, by folks like El Gato Malo and I think Joel Smalley - would have to go back and check their old posts.
EDITOR’S NOTE: When this article was originally written, there was misleading information given by the CDC that 28 cycles was being used only for sequencing COVID breakthrough cases. CDC Guidance surfaced months later showing 28 cycles is used for all case sequencing.
In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for COVID.
I can't find the original reference, but I do remember that it looked like the CDC guidelines singled out vaxxed for the Ct<28 limit; at least for reporting positive tests. And the way they only mass tested the unvaxxed virtually guaranteed bias in results. The later guidelines seemed to correct this (as the CHD article update states), but note they're specific only to follow on sequencing, not to what test results get reported as positive in the first place. The fact check just reads as another attempt to debunk topic A by addressing topic B and pretending it's the same thing (case rate reports vs samples submitted for sequencing). However, since I cannot seem to find the original piece ( CDC has quietly changed their website many times to alter claims and guidance as information came to public attention); I withdraw that objection. The mis-coding of folks as unvaxxed and split in who/when they test folks are still valid complaints against the trustworthiness of the data.
It's also possible that the original reference was just poorly written and confusing, so that's worth considering as well. This is another look at how the data was mis-labeled to present a false picture.
This is cutting medical services as a general principle. Just imagine-- you've got Dr's and hospital processes that treat patients as second class for not adhering to 1 (very arbitrary) rule. And the treatments you do get are more expensive, less effective, all while actively blocking people from seeking known, cheap solutions.
Can you trust most Drs and hospitals at this point? I'm having trouble with that. You're either left with "fate" and going with the flow locally, or hope to have the finances and lead times to do medical tourism.
The current scam seems to be ensuring that Medical Records of hospitalized people incorrectly show up as Unvaccinated. This seems to be a hospital intake mechanism that accidentally-on-purpose records most patients as Unvaccinated regardless of actual status. It's simple: patient intake ASSUMES a patient is unvaxxed and then avoids collecting evidence that shows otherwise. They do this by only counting as Vaccinated patients who got their jabs IN THAT HOSPITAL SYSTEM. They seemingly don't merge the data from multiple sources, and they don't ask. Thus, unless a patient got their jabs recorded in that same in-hospital system they show up as UNVAXXED. This lets them goose the numbers as needed, resulting in this CDC publication. Easy peasy.
I know this because I've heard it from numerous health care providers. Some know about this trick and don't like it, while others don't know about it and are confused why everyone on their ward is 'unvaxxed' when they are pretty sure that's not really the case.
I strongly suspect that's the origin of this fake CDC report. At this point it just spews blatant lies that still manage to deceive everyone not Red-Pilled.
This is 100% correct and the reason for the phony report from the CDC. Whether it is intentional, I don't know. The CDC is a hybrid of malevolence and incompetence.
Clearly, the people at the top who caused the hospital intake system to work that way did it on purpose, as part of the coverup for the mRNA psyop. The other 99.7% are just doing what they're told.
Stroke-by-stroke, we get the clearer picture. Thanks, everyone!
I think it's time that we get over being disappointed with the MORE-ONS and their obsession with shooting the rat juice... (that only leads to frustration and stress... and stress is a bad thing that I prefer to avoid)
And just sit back with some popcorn and enjoy the shit show. Like watching a sport -- instead of towering home runs... a long pass... or a pin point shot into the top corner of the net...
We get strokes and heart attacks and collapses...
Did you see the highlight from the other day -- a teen with legs blackened by the jab (literally black) had both of them amputated... and he was pictured smiling in the hospital bed with two stumps for legs...
The doctors blamed it on 'the flu' -- you couldn't make this up (even if you were Stephen King)....
It's like getting free tickets to the House of Horrors exhibition ...
At some point you just have to stop giving f789s about these people -- and to recognize .... they are just trying to cure their stupidity
Stroke...I see what you did there
Only Canadians believe anything spews out by the CDC ....
Ain't dat da troot.
They just lie openly now because... why not?
Cuz Extermination
Dr Pierre Kory documented in a substack article in June 2022 that patients are either entered as vaccinated or unknown, rather than vaccinated, unknown, and unvaccinated. For almost everyone in the hospital they are listed as unknown, which the CDC turns into "unvaccinated"
https://pierrekory.substack.com/p/nursing-reports-from-the-front-lines
I guess it depends on what the "incidence" figure represents here:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7206a3.htm?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#T1_down
Starting in March 2022 the COVID deaths/100,000 are much higher for vaccinated than unvaxed but the "incidence" is hugely higher for the unvaxed. I can't make heads or tails out of it.
Similar info here:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
with an even more confusing explanation of incidence rates estimates and "continuity corrections." I am not convinced that these rates and ratios are true or that it is good data to rely on. Also interesting, the above link will not let me copy/paste text from the footnotes section where they attempt to explain their categories. Odd.
I can say that in my neck of the woods in the US, the local hospital reports covid positive patients by jab status (they test all patients) and for the past week 100% have been jabbed.
"Unvaccinated" is commonly being misused. It does NOT necessarily mean "never-vaccinated". I found this in another study looking at the effectiveness of booster vaccines against "long-covid". The "unvaccinated" were defined as those who did not have the booster vaccination compared with the "vaccinated", those that did. Nothing was said about the prior vaccination standing of either the "unvaccinated" (or "vaccinated") groups.
Can you provide a link to this "study"?
The CDC also - as of May 2021, intentionally limited both the testing and reporting for hospitalized patients, if and only if, they had been injected. What they did was limit the PCR test administration to A) only those injected patients presenting with clear respiratory symptoms, and B) every single non-injected patient regardless of why they were at the hospital. Given that even the left-wing propagandists at the Atlantic and the BBC admit that 50+ - 70% of COVID hospitalizations are "secondary" (meaning not showing up due to respiratory distress but for other issues, including acute trauma); intentionally limiting the testing of the injected injects deliberate data bias / error. They further, and with obvious intent to defraud the data, limited the reporting of COVID hospitalizations in the injected+respiratory distress patients to 28 Ct of less. Meaning you could be jabbed, clearly suffering from ILI/CLI, go to the hospital and come up PCR-RT+ at 29 Ct; and not be counted as jabbed+COVID hospitalization. They quite intentionally did not impose this same Ct limit on the reporting of non-jabbed. Meaning, you could break your arm, show up with zero CLI symptoms, get force tested and come up PCR-RT+ at 35-40 Ct; and get counted as unjabbed+COVID hospitalization. Since many places have been attributing death FROM COVID to all deaths fr any cause + a PCR-RT+ within 28-30 days; you can see how easily they have cooked the books. The CDC Kentucky study that they crowed about - showing that IF hospitalization with CLI, you were 5X more likely to be PCR-RT+ demonstrated how this worked; since if you look at the actual full numbers of CLI patient in hospital correlated to the regional jab uptake level at that time, you were about 25% MORE likely to be in the hospital if jabbed. . .
Appended this to the article, thanks a million!
Just crabbing this from better analyses that were done much more in depth; if memory serves, by folks like El Gato Malo and I think Joel Smalley - would have to go back and check their old posts.
Will do that - I tend to supplement my posts retroactively so they contain as much info as possible for future references.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-story-twists-facts-on-diagnosing-breakthrough-covid-19-cases/
By Aug. 2021, it became clear that the medical system sabotaged completely collecting data on "breakthrough" infections: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/06/cdc-covid-coronavirus-data-breakthrough-cases
Sifted through El Gato and Joel - nothing more to add than what Pierre Kory related. So your post about testing in hospitals is more than relevant. Do you have any links to sources? Found this: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-changes-rules-counting-breakthrough-cases/
EDITOR’S NOTE: When this article was originally written, there was misleading information given by the CDC that 28 cycles was being used only for sequencing COVID breakthrough cases. CDC Guidance surfaced months later showing 28 cycles is used for all case sequencing.
In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for COVID.
I can't find the original reference, but I do remember that it looked like the CDC guidelines singled out vaxxed for the Ct<28 limit; at least for reporting positive tests. And the way they only mass tested the unvaxxed virtually guaranteed bias in results. The later guidelines seemed to correct this (as the CHD article update states), but note they're specific only to follow on sequencing, not to what test results get reported as positive in the first place. The fact check just reads as another attempt to debunk topic A by addressing topic B and pretending it's the same thing (case rate reports vs samples submitted for sequencing). However, since I cannot seem to find the original piece ( CDC has quietly changed their website many times to alter claims and guidance as information came to public attention); I withdraw that objection. The mis-coding of folks as unvaxxed and split in who/when they test folks are still valid complaints against the trustworthiness of the data.
It's also possible that the original reference was just poorly written and confusing, so that's worth considering as well. This is another look at how the data was mis-labeled to present a false picture.
https://open.substack.com/pub/metatron/p/alberta-just-inadvertently-confessed?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android
When you own all the institutions, their statistics say whatever increases your profits the most.
USA and Canada are openly lying and corrupt. Simple as that.
And some more than the others, LOL!
I will go contrarian here and suggest that they believe what they are doing is necessary.
Otherwise why is not a single nation pushing back ... not even any opposition party.
It's all odd that's for dang sure.
Not even Iran, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, or Venezuela...
This is cutting medical services as a general principle. Just imagine-- you've got Dr's and hospital processes that treat patients as second class for not adhering to 1 (very arbitrary) rule. And the treatments you do get are more expensive, less effective, all while actively blocking people from seeking known, cheap solutions.
Can you trust most Drs and hospitals at this point? I'm having trouble with that. You're either left with "fate" and going with the flow locally, or hope to have the finances and lead times to do medical tourism.
In case you do, go to Switzerland.
The US government is one of the world's best sources of propaganda.
Why is age standardization applied to cases. and where are the age groups charted? I smell a rat …
I don't think the rat is in the standardization. It's all of it. Reminds me of that description what and how mRNA jab does to make you feel better (http://web.archive.org/web/20211213222803/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html), where every single statement was an outrageous lie. If you are going to lie, lie big and don't look back!
Rat Juice?
I can! You aren’t legally vaccinated until 28 days post vax. Those 28 days are when most of the damage appears.
Thanks for these insights about the US data.
The MORE-ONS will believe ... whatever the BBCCNN and CDC tell them...
Therefore the unvaxxed are dying in droves. This is reality for them.
And trying to unconvince them of that ... is a task for Sisyphus the Great
I am far too lazy to try rolling a 100 tonne square boulder up a mountain...
Rigging...definitely!