Dr. Pierre Kory on why vaxx status of U.S. COVID hospitalized patients is PURPOSELY misleading

One important way to measure to efficacy of the COVID jabs, is to look at patients hospitalized for COVID and then look at the share of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. This can then be compared to the share in the general population, stratified by age group, to see whether the jabs are having a positive, neutral or negative effect.

According to dr. Kory, the software that U.S. hospitals use (called Epic), tends to only acknowledge two vaccination statuses: 'vaccinated' and 'unknown'. 'Unknown' is often purposely or accidentally confused with 'unvaccinated', which is completely incorrect. 'Unknown' is the default status. If a hospital doesn't ask about vaccination status, the status remains 'unknown'.

NB: Isn't it stupid that there is no 'unvaccinated' status which will be assigned to all patients that are, in fact, unvaccinated for COVID? The answer is that it is not stupid (in the conventional sense) at all. In fact, it's kind of genius and devious. The goal is to make the jabs seem as safe and effective as possible. Manipulating the data is one strategy to accomplish that goal. One way of gaming the data is to redefine categories and systems to suit your purpose.

If a patient is vaccinated, but by another organization than that specific hospital, their status might falsely be set to 'unknown', because the patient's vaccination data is not present in that hospital's database.

Within 6 weeks after the first jab, a person is also considered to be unvaccinated. This is problematic, because many infections happen in this period. This is because the immune system is suppressed during that period, as it needs all its resources to deal with the enormous dose of spike proteins and other toxins induced by the jab, and to repair tissues and blood damaged by the jab.

It can now be clearly seen that the share of vaccinated patients can easily be underestimated, while the share of unvaccinated patients is overestimated at the same time.

This would lead to the (false) conclusion that the jab are (significantly) more effective than they are in reality.

What more signals do we have that U.S. data is totally unreliable? For one, the data differs significantly from other countries such as Israel and Great-Britain, that provide more granular public health data. Also, the U.S. authorities have many times been caught spreading medical misinformation and misleading information, which was at the time known to be completely false.

Regardless of the trustworthiness of the COVID vaccination status of COVID patients, this data is at the minimum incomplete.

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS

Why is there little to no public data available on vitamin D status, comorbidities, Body Mass Index (BMI, which is a reasonable measure of obesity) and whether COVID patients received effective early combination therapy? The real problem was never with the unvaccinated and always with the immune compromised and those who did not receive early treatment.

Why is there so little information on hospitalized patients for COVID who previously already had acquired natural immunity?

Where is the data, presented in the media in an easily comprehensible way by the 'health' authorities, of people hospitalized shortly after COVID vaccination? This is an indication that the jab might have led to the hospitalization.

SEE ALSO

Hamburg, Germany admits to misleading vax efficacy statistics, unjustified oppression of unvaxxed
https://rumble.com/vtifqo-hamburg-germany-admits-to-misleading-vax-efficacy-statistics-unjustified-op.html

SOURCE

Sen. Ron Johnson moderates a panel discussion, COVID-19: A Second Opinion. A group of world renowned doctors and medical experts provide a different perspective on the global pandemic response, the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.

More at www.ronjohnson.senate.gov

https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html