Hospitals willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols during the pandemic to generate financial incentives from the government.

Natural News

<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>Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE</h2>
<p>Infowars recently claimed that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive. Dr. Heidi Klessig, M.D., appeared on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV to warn people that registering to be an organ donor puts them in danger of having their organs harvested from their bodies while they are still alive.</p>
<p>Dr. Klessig argues that when people register to be organ donors, they are not informed that brain death does not mean biological death. She cites cases where individuals declared braindead have delivered healthy babies and suggests that organ donors may recover if not taken advantage of by the organ transplant industry.</p>
<h3>Understanding Brain Death</h3>
<p>Brain death is a medically recognized state of death. According to the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565687/">National Institutes of Health</a>, brain death occurs when all functions of the brain, including the brainstem, have permanently and irreversibly ceased. This is determined through a series of rigorous tests and evaluations.</p>
<p>While it is true that a person declared braindead may still have a beating heart and functioning organs, this is due to the use of mechanical ventilation and other life support measures. The person is considered legally and medically dead because the brain, which controls all bodily functions, has ceased to function.</p>
<h3>Organ Donation Procedures</h3>
<p>Organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. The <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/about/donation-process.html">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> outlines the process, which includes obtaining consent from the donor or their family, conducting medical evaluations, and ensuring that the donor is medically suitable for donation.</p>
<p>Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) work closely with hospitals to facilitate the donation process. The decision to declare brain death and the process of organ donation are separate and independent, ensuring that the best interests of the patient are always prioritized.</p>
<h3>Addressing Specific Cases</h3>
<p>Dr. Klessig mentions two cases where individuals declared braindead may have been able to recover. However, these cases are not representative of the standard medical practice. In rare instances, there may be controversies or misunderstandings, but these do not negate the established medical criteria for brain death.</p>
<p>The case of Terrance Howard, a 19-year-old athlete, and Amber Ebanks, a 23-year-old business student, are cited as examples. While these cases are tragic, they do not provide evidence that organ donation procedures are routinely unethical or that hospitals harvest organs from living donors.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>The claim that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive is misleading and not supported by scientific evidence. Brain death is a medically recognized state of death, and organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. While there may be rare cases of controversy, the overall system is designed to prioritize the best interests of the patient and the ethical procurement of organs.</p>
<p>For more information on organ donation and brain death, please refer to reliable sources such as the <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> and the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/">National Institutes of Health</a>.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE

<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>The claim that four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion and that the money will be coming from the public has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis and context to help readers understand the truth behind it.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim states that the World Health Organisation (WHO), GAVI, the International Development Association (IDA), and the Pandemic Fund are seeking to raise a total of $123 billion. The money is expected to come from various sources, including national governments and private funders, ultimately impacting taxpayers.</p>
<h2>Breakdown of the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim is based on the following breakdown:</p>
<ul>
  <li>WHO wants to raise $11.1 billion.</li>
  <li>GAVI seeks $11.9 billion.</li>
  <li>IDA aims to raise $100 billion.</li>
  <li>The Pandemic Fund wants $2 billion.</li>
</ul>
<p>These figures add up to $123 billion.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we need to consider the sources of funding and the transparency of these organizations.</p>
<h3>World Health Organisation (WHO)</h3>
<p>WHO is seeking $11.1 billion for its work over the next four years. According to Devex, WHO expects $4 billion in membership dues, leaving $7.1 billion to be fundraised from governments and the private sector. WHO's funding sources include national governments, private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and other non-state actors.</p>
<p>WHO's financial transparency has been a concern. The most recent audited financial statements published relate to the year ended December 2021. This lack of up-to-date financial reporting raises questions about accountability and transparency.</p>
<h3>GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance</h3>
<p>GAVI is asking for $9 billion in new pledges for the period 2026-2030, out of a total need of $11.9 billion. GAVI's funding comes from a mix of public and private sources, with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation being a significant contributor.</p>
<p>GAVI's impact on global vaccine distribution is substantial, but its financial operations and profit margins are not fully transparent. The organization's spending on fundraising and management expenses raises questions about its efficiency and accountability.</p>
<h3>International Development Association (IDA)</h3>
<p>IDA hopes to raise $100 billion through a new cycle of funding. IDA's funds are primarily used for poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation. The organization's strategic directions for the latest funding round emphasize resilience, human capital, and climate adaptation.</p>
<p>IDA's funding comes from contributions from member countries, with top funders including Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The organization's focus on global agendas under the auspices of poverty alleviation raises concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of its spending.</p>
<h3>The Pandemic Fund</h3>
<p>The Pandemic Fund wants to raise $2 billion for its work. The fund is a World Bank partnership with a consortium of donor countries, foundations, and civil society organizations. Its founding financial contributors include various countries and private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<p>The Pandemic Fund's focus on strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response is crucial, but the lack of transparency in its financial operations and the involvement of private foundations raise questions about accountability and the potential for conflicts of interest.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations are seeking $123 billion for pandemic-vaccine schemes is partially true. However, the claim lacks context and transparency regarding the sources of funding and the specific uses of the money. The involvement of private foundations and the lack of up-to-date financial reporting by some organizations raise concerns about accountability and potential conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>While it is true that the money will ultimately come from taxpayers, the claim exaggerates the direct impact on individual taxpayers. The funding for these organizations comes from a mix of public and private sources, and the specific allocation of funds is not fully disclosed.</p>
<p>It is essential for these organizations to provide more transparency and accountability in their financial operations to build public trust and ensure that the money is used effectively and efficiently.</p>
<p>For further reading on the involvement of private foundations in global health, see the following study:</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2014_3_323">The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN (1939–1946)</a> by Ludovic Tournès, published in the Journal of Modern European History.</p>

Claim Review: Four Organizations Seeking $123 Billion for Pandemic-Vaccine Industry

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 willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols during the pandemic to generate financial incentives from the government." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: