Hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections

Infowars - com

<p>The claim that hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections has been circulating, based on a journal article published in October 2024. However, a thorough examination of the study and its findings reveals several issues that cast doubt on the validity of this claim.</p>
<p>The journal article in question reported that 5.69% of respondents were hospitalized due to vaccination adverse events, compared to 1.49% hospitalized due to Covid infection. While these numbers may seem alarming at first glance, it is crucial to consider the context and limitations of the study.</p>
<p>Firstly, the study primarily focused on gender differences in Covid-related outcomes and endocrine systems, not on comparing hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The data on hospitalizations was a secondary finding and not the main objective of the research.</p>
<p>Secondly, the study relied on self-reported data from a global survey, which can introduce biases and inaccuracies. Self-reported data is not as reliable as clinical data collected in a controlled setting. Participants may misinterpret or misreport their experiences, leading to skewed results.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the study did not provide detailed information on the severity of the adverse events leading to hospitalization. It is possible that some of the reported hospitalizations were for minor or temporary side effects that did not pose a significant health risk.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the study did not account for the overall number of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the population. Without this context, it is impossible to determine whether the hospitalization rates are representative of the broader population.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> &nbsp;found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing Covid-19 infections and severe outcomes.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(22)00001-7/fulltext">The Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks, with adverse events being rare and generally mild.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that hospitals treated more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The study cited has significant limitations and does not provide conclusive data to support this claim. It is essential to rely on peer-reviewed research and expert analysis when evaluating claims about public health issues.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Treated More People for Covid Shot Side Effects than Unvaccinated Patients for Covid Infections

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Expose claims that Public Health Scotland has revealed that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu. This claim is based on a study that reported an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.08% for Covid-19 in Scotland, which is within the range of the IFR for seasonal flu (0.03% to 0.1%). However, a closer examination of the data and scientific literature reveals significant misinterpretations and misinformation.</p>
<h2>Understanding Infection Fatality Rates</h2>
<p>The infection fatality rate (IFR) is a measure of the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The IFR for Covid-19 has been a subject of intense study and debate throughout the pandemic.</p>
<p>A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> estimated the global IFR of Covid-19 to be around 0.68%, which is significantly higher than the IFR of seasonal flu.</p>
<h2>The Winter Covid-19 Infection Study</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose references the Winter Covid-19 Infection Study (WCIS), which reported an IFR of 0.0762% for Scotland. However, it is essential to note that this study has not been peer-reviewed and its methodology and findings should be interpreted with caution.</p>
<p>Moreover, the WCIS study focused on a specific time period (November 2023 to March 2024) and a specific population (participants in England and Scotland). The IFR can vary significantly depending on the population studied, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the availability of healthcare resources.</p>
<h2>Covid-19 vs. Seasonal Flu</h2>
<p>While the IFR is an important metric, it is not the only factor to consider when comparing the severity of Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Other factors include:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Transmissibility:</strong> Covid-19 is more contagious than seasonal flu, with a higher basic reproduction number (R0). This means that Covid-19 can spread more rapidly and widely than seasonal flu.</li>
  <li><strong>Hospitalizations:</strong> Covid-19 has resulted in a much higher number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than seasonal flu. This has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.</li>
  <li><strong>Long-term effects:</strong> Many people who have recovered from Covid-19 continue to experience long-term symptoms, a condition known as 'long Covid.' The long-term effects of Covid-19 are still not fully understood, but they appear to be more severe and persistent than those of seasonal flu.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu is false. While the IFR of Covid-19 in Scotland was reported to be within the range of seasonal flu in a specific study, this finding is not representative of the global IFR of Covid-19, which is significantly higher. Furthermore, Covid-19 is more transmissible, results in more hospitalizations, and has more severe long-term effects than seasonal flu.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and official public health guidance when evaluating claims about the severity of Covid-19. Misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety.</p>

Claim Review: Is Covid No More Deadly Than Seasonal Flu?

<p>The claim that hospitals willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic to generate financial incentives from the government has been circulating widely. This claim is based on testimonials from nurses and the analysis of author Ken McCarthy, who investigated the treatment protocols implemented during the height of the pandemic.</p><p>McCarthy's book, 'What the Nurses Saw,' alleges that hospitals followed dangerous protocols from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which were financially incentivized. One of the key issues highlighted is the use of the drug remdesivir, which was halted in Africa due to organ failure. Other factors contributing to high mortality rates included the denial of anti-inflammatory medications, the use of BiPAP masks, and the excessive use of ventilators.</p><p>However, the claim that hospitals were solely motivated by financial incentives is not supported by comprehensive evidence. A study analyzed more than 4,200 hospitals and found that over half did not experience financial distress due to COVID-19, even without government relief funds. Moreover, average operating margins increased from 2.8% before the pandemic to 6.5% from 2020 to 2021, indicating that many hospitals were financially stable or even profitable during this period.</p><p>It is important to note that the complexity of treating a novel virus like COVID-19 led to varied and sometimes ineffective treatment protocols. The use of remdesivir, for example, was based on initial studies suggesting its potential efficacy, but subsequent research has shown mixed results. The denial of anti-inflammatory medications and the use of ventilators were also part of evolving treatment guidelines that were not universally effective.</p><p>Furthermore, the claim that hospitals were financially incentivized to keep patients on ventilators for extended periods is not substantiated by reliable scientific sources. The use of ventilators was based on medical necessity and the severity of the patient's condition, rather than financial incentives.</p><p>In conclusion, while there may have been instances of suboptimal treatment protocols and financial incentives, the claim that hospitals willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols for financial gain is largely unfounded. The treatment of COVID-19 patients was complex and evolved over time, reflecting the challenges of managing a novel virus.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Subjected Patients to Deadly Protocols for Financial Gain

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Remdesivir, an antiviral drug, has been widely promoted as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. However, the effectiveness and safety of this drug have been subjects of debate. This article aims to review the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients and to provide a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>What is Remdesivir?</h2>
<p>Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug that inhibits RNA polymerase, disrupting the production of vital RNA. It was initially developed to treat Ebola but has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment.</p>
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
<p>The claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is based on its approval by regulatory bodies such as the FDA, EU, and UK's drug regulator. However, several studies have cast doubt on its efficacy and safety.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>The World Health Organization's Solidarity Trial found that Remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time COVID-19 patients take to recover. A study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext">The Lancet</a> also found no statistically significant benefit from the treatment.</p>
<p>Furthermore, a review of Remdesivir on <a href="https://www.drugs.com/comments/remdesivir/">drugs.com</a> showed that 47% of reviewers had a negative experience with the drug, compared to 19.38% who had a positive experience.</p>
<h2>Side Effects and Safety Concerns</h2>
<p>Remdesivir has been associated with several side effects, including fast, pounding heartbeats, trouble breathing, wheezing, shivering, itching, sweating, facial swelling, severe headache, and a feeling of being about to pass out. Subsequent side effects may include nausea and abnormal liver function tests.</p>
<p>The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reports that Remdesivir interacts with twelve other drugs, including chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and phenytoin. Doctors prescribing Remdesivir should be aware of these interactions to avoid potential harm to patients.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the available scientific evidence, the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is not supported. The drug has shown minimal efficacy in clinical trials and is associated with significant side effects. It is crucial for healthcare providers to consider the risks and benefits carefully before prescribing Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients.</p>

Claim Review: Remdesivir as an Effective Treatment for COVID-19

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections" is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: