Last month, we published in print and online a series of questions for the CEOs and medical directors of the Quad Cities' two local hospital-health systems. This was in response to their collaboration with Rock Island and Scott County health departments to host a virtual press conference and with the Quad Cities Chamber to launch a marketing campaign on December 15, 2022. The statements to the media and the marketing asserted the hospitals were filling up with unvaccinated patients and we all must take the experimental injections referred to as vaccines and boosters, if we were to avoid a disaster in our health care facilities. Since that day, there have been no additional public-health press conferences … where, ostensibly, the questions we published could be addressed. We did however receive a joint response to our questions via e-mail from the hospitals' marketing managers. We greatly appreciate Genesis and Unity Point participating in this critical updating community stakeholders on COVID-19 relative to health-care in the Quad Cities. We are re-publishing our questions along with their unedited responses below.
What percentage of your current in-patient admissions do you consider and publicize as “unvaccinated”?
How many ICU beds did the Quad Cities' based facilities in your health system have available as of February 2020? How many ICU beds are currently available in those same facilities?
Is there a difference between a “critical care unit” and an “ICU unit”? Both terms are used frequently in press briefings.
How many staff did your employ at these same facilities as of February 2020? How many staff do you currently employ at those same facilities?
What percentage of you patients at your facilities who are counted as COVID-19 patients have COVID-19 as a secondary diagnosis? As of February 2, 2022, the Web site Coronavirus.iowa.gov/pages/hospital-data shows that, in Iowa, 45 percent of COVID-19 hospitalized patients are such as a secondary diagnosis.
How long are patients, who test positive but are asymptomatic, isolated as COVID-19 patients before they are released into general hospital care if they don't actually present with COVID-19 symptoms?
How many patients are in the hospital for COVID-19 only? How many of these patients are in ICU?
What is the age range of ICU patients with COVID-19? How many ICU patients have additional comorbidities that are considered contributory to their condition?
Sharing data: Our area health systems have consistently shared COVID data with media outlets weekly on our website and as requested. On February 21, we shared that due to declining COVID case counts and hospitalizations, we will be pausing the release of weekly COVID data. If cases and hospitalizations rise again and impact operations, we will reinstate this weekly reporting. The most recent data supports the vast majority of hospitalized patients are unvaccinated. We follow current CDC guidelines for who is fully vaccinated
Further Defining “Unvaccinated”
Originally, when COVID-19 mRNA inoculations were introduced, one jab was considered fully vaccinated. As the inoculations' protection waned, a second dose was needed, after which a person qualified as fully vaccinated. Now comes a booster and that additional jab is necessary to meet the definition of fully vaccinated.
The CDC has also attached an additional 14 day “grace period” after each person's injection date before his/her fully vaccinated classification is official. If a person is injected on January 1, he/she will not be considered fully vaccinated until January 15. This is true for every injection whether the first, second, or booster.
In your most recently publicized COVID-19 patient counts, what percentage of patients are in their grace periods, and still being recorded as unvaccinated?
Why aren't the numbers of unvaccinated COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths exaggerated if technically fully vaccinated people still in their grace periods are included in the unvaccinated group?
If a person has an adverse event during the grace period, what is the protocol for reporting and treating this reaction if he/she is officially still considered unvaccinated? Is the adverse event still eligible and required to be reported by law, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?
When an admitted COVID-19 patient clears the grace period (on day 15 from the injection date), when does the hospital update the admission record and change his/her vaccination status to “vaccinated”?
If a person is admitted to the hospital, but did not get their injection(s) at your facility or within your provider system, and/or does not have their vaccination documentation, is that patient's vaccination status recorded as “unknown”? And are these “unknowns” also counted as “unvaccinated”?
If, during an admission, the patient claims he/she is fully vaccinated but does not have vaccination documentation, how is this patient's vaccination status verified and classified?
If an unvaccinated patient is admitted without a medical directive, does your hospital administer a COVID-19 vaccination as part of its standard care? In other words, are there any circumstances for which unvaccinated admissions can be given jabs without first giving their express informed consent based on hospital standard care?
Vaccination: Consistent with national trends, most of our hospitalized COVID-19 patients are unvaccinated or not up to date with their booster. We urge all individuals five and older to get vaccinated as soon as possible. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective in preventing serious illness and death. Vaccines reduce hospitalizations and ensure more team members are available to care for all the illnesses, injuries and emergencies our patients might face.
Testing and Protocols
Are all hospital admissions tested for COVID-19 if (a) fully vaccinated whether asymptomatic or symptomatic or (b) unvaccinated whether asymptomatic or symptomatic?
As of January 1, 2022, PCR tests with cycle thresholds routinely higher than 35 cycles were discontinued as unreliable due to excessive false positives, therefore no longer authorized for diagnosing a COVID-19 case.
Has your hospital discontinued using PCR tests?
Specifically, what test(s) is your hospital utilizing to diagnose COVID-19?
Are the new tests also PCR or other molecular testing, and/or antigen tests?
Does the new COVID-19 testing distinguish between variants (e.g. Delta or Omicron) without additional specific sequencing? How many individual test results are routinely submitted for sequencing for confirmation of diagnoses?
Testing: Both health systems offer PCR and antigen, or rapid, testing for COVID-19 testing. It's best to get tested at the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Testing earlier means more treatment options may be available. Testing options have expanded as the federal government is giving out tests and tests can be purchased at local pharmacies and grocery stores.
It is currently being reported that hospital resources are stressed, nearing capacity, and jeopardizing care. How much of your increased stress is the result of terminating health-care workers who declined to be inoculated, causing staffing shortages that forced a reallocation/reduction of available resources rather than solely the fault of increased numbers of unvaccinated patients admitted due to COVID-19?
What percentage of your health-care staff are COVID-19-recovered and have acquired natural immunity as a result?
These same workers, who consistently faced frightening risks from infected patients when COVID-19 initially appeared and was perceived as a dangerous contagion, bravely persevered for two years in the thick of the pandemic for all our sakes.
What possible justification does your hospital administration claim for violating employees' protected rights, terminating them because they refuse to absorb any more personal risk from experimental injections, especially considering the jabs are emergency use authorized (EUA) with inadequate long-term safety and efficacy data?
Staffing: Staffing remains an important priority. We’re pleased to share 100 percent of our employees at both organizations are compliant with COVID-19 vaccination policies. Compliance with our vaccination policy is defined as completing the COVID-19 vaccination series or qualifying for an approved exemption. While we've experienced some turnover in nurses and other team members, we've made it a priority – throughout the pandemic – to maintain staffing levels necessary to deliver reliable, quality patient care in each of our care settings. It's a particularly challenging time to work in health care, and we join hundreds of hospitals and health systems across the country and the world addressing critical workforce staffing issues.
Vaccination vs. Early Treatment
Why does your health-care system support the mass distribution of experimental mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 that are EUA based on only six months of clinical trial data – whose 500,000 pages of raw data the FDA and Pfizer are refusing to release to the public and research community – yet reject early treatments using off-label FDA approved drugs such as antivirals ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, a best practices otherwise embraced by the health-care industry and regulators, especially when these inexpensive, accessible drugs are prescribed as part of multiple drug protocols that include steroids, anticoagulants, antibiotics, vitamins, inhalers/nebulizers, all from a pharmacopeia that is consistently demonstrating impressive efficacy worldwide in the early treatment of COVID-19?
What is the downside of medically intervening early to prevent hospitalization and possible death, especially as the new experimental mRNA inoculations are proving largely ineffective in providing durable protection from getting or transmitting COVID-19 disease through time?
What is the rationale – beyond CDC's singular recommendation for mRNA experimental inoculations in treating COVID-19 – for rejecting outpatient early-treatment protocols for onset COVID-19 patients, while exclusively endorsing inpatient treatment once patients present with severe disease, using a limited protocol of drugs and intubation that has an unimpressive 50-percent chance of success?
Primary Care, Remdesivir, and Ventilators
Is a newly admitted patient's primary care doctor's directives subordinate to your staff? If you do not follow the patient's primary care doctor's wishes, what is your rationale for this protocol?
Why are ICU patients, who are admitted as COVID-19 patients due to a positive test result, isolated from loved ones and advocates if they are (a) advanced enough in symptomatic COVID-19 disease to be hospitalized, but no longer SARS-CoV-2 replicant-competent and incapable of transmitting disease, or (b) are admitted for medical reasons other than COVID-19 and test positive for COVID-19 but are asymptomatic and not infectious?
There is an uncomfortable skepticism relative to the bonus reimbursements from Medicare/Medicaid for COVID-19 inpatients. These higher reimbursements per COVID-19 patients are considered by some to be perverse incentives, especially as they relate to one such bonus reimbursement – for prescribing remdesivir. What is the dollar amount your hospital receives per patient for administering remdesivir to a patient?
Why is the expensive antiviral remdesivir exclusively approved by the FDA to treat inpatient COVID-19, especially knowing its predictable damage to kidneys?
How many patients are currently ventilated? What is the average number of ventilated patients per month? Are ventilated patients receiving nutritional support?
What is the survival rate for patients placed on ventilators at your hospital? Some reports claim 80 percent of intubated patients die, and if they do survive, have damage to their lungs from the ventilator, yet it is the standard care regardless. Is this a failure of innovation by the health-care community, relying instead on mRNA vaccination protection that quickly wanes and does not prevent illness or transmission?
Treatment: We're committed to offering the latest lifesaving COVID-19 treatments locally. This includes monoclonal antibody therapies and oral antiviral drugs. Currently, there are two antibodies effective against the Omicron variant (Sotrovimab), which has a very limited supply and will be prioritized for patients at highest risk of hospitalization and bebtelovimab, which is not yet available locally. State public health departments will determine how and when the antiviral drugs will be distributed to retail pharmacies and health-care facilities, and how much supply will be available. If an oral antiviral medication is prescribed by a provider, there is no guarantee that pharmacies will have supply to fill the prescription.
One More Time: Why Should Kids Get Vaccinated?
The FAQ page on Unity Point's Web site “How do I know the vaccine is safe for my child” has two paragraphs for children 5-11 years old. The first paragraph states, “more than 3,000 5-11-year-olds were enrolled in the vaccine clinical trials. With continuous monitoring and millions of doses administrated to adults over the past year, the vaccines have proven to be very safe.” There have been common, minor short-term side effects but nothing long-term has been identified. Common side effects (fever, fatigue, headache, etc) were shown to be lower in individuals 5-11 than those ages 12 and older. In addition, there was not a single serious side effect noted in the Pfizer trial.”
There are 28 million U.S. children, so a trial of 3,000 children (for which the raw data has not been released) is a very low-powered study considering the stakes. Making the claim that “no long-term side effects have been identified” is arguably misleading when there are no long-term safety studies for this age cohort, or any other cohorts because this experimental injection is brand-new in the market, and children 5-11 are just beginning to receive them. What specific data are you using to make such a definitive claim of safety, both short and long-term, for this cohort?
At Genesis' Web site on COVID-19, the information for children 5-11 includes the FDA's ACIP review slide stack with comparative information to other viruses. The suggestion is that more children in this cohort have been hospitalized and/or died from COVID-19 related illnesses compared to the other viruses but, unlike the other viruses' total numbers that are sourced, there is no source cited for the COVID-19 totals.
A comprehensive analysis of death certificates and hospital records of all U.S. children with COVID-19-related conditions in this time period confirmed that every child (approximately 350) had at least one serious comorbidity (e.g. lukemia) as the primary cause of hospitalization and death. COVID-19 was not the primary cause of any deaths of children. The ACIP slide stack is unpersuasive regarding safety and efficacy in the 5-11 cohort, including antibodies detection after vaccination that could also indicate previous exposure and mild SARS-CoV-2 infection of children.
One of the three EUA standards for approval is that benefits exceed the risks. Where children ages 0-19 are concerned, with even greater emphasis on children 0-12, statistical zero risk from COVID-19 exists for them. Why is the medical community fast-tracking inoculating children at all when there is greater risk from the injections, such as myocarditis, than from COVID-19?
Is this fast-tracking because once these mRNA vaccinations are officially licensed for younger-age cohorts and placed on the children's vaccine schedule, the vaccine companies automatically become immune from any financial liability arising from harm from those protected vaccines, including indemnification for harm to adults as part of the 1986 Act governing vaccines?
COVID and Kids: We urge all individuals five and older to get vaccinated as soon as possible. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective in preventing serious illness and death. Vaccines reduce hospitalizations and ensure more team members are available to care for all the illnesses, injuries, and emergencies our patients might face.
Publisher's Note: We are a fan of brevity for most explanations, but we also prefer thoroughness.
Genesis and Unity Point persist in encouraging children to receive mRNA inoculations, blanketly claiming safety and efficacy in preventing serious illness, thereby preventing hospitalizations and/or death and freeing resources to care for other patients. That claim is not scientifically conclusive.
After two years, volumes of data from pharmacovigilance systems (VAERS, EudraVigilance, etc), and extensive clinical observations worldwide, affirm the high risk/no benefit ratios underpinning an unfathomable medical incoherence for injecting children with mRNA products that have unprecedented numbers of adverse reactions in all age cohorts, especially evidenced by CDC's and FDA's acknowledgment of cardiovascular complications and/or deaths in 12- to 19-year old boys.
To claim safety and efficacy for inoculating children five to 19 is a challengeable assertion that demands a rigorous amount of proof that has not been forthcoming from HHS, CDC, or FDA, our appointed health officials. Now wheels are in motion to approve injections for babies and toddlers, with zero additional scientific support, especially long term safety. Again, what is the medical community's justification for this potentially ruinous policy?
It is time for those with legitimate concerns to present evidence to one another with open minds in an open public forum. It is critical that we engage in rigorous discussion and debate to either dispel contradictory evidence, or to affirm it, thereby making our respective cases, whichever prevails after proper consideration of each other's data. We owe this to our children as part of our duty to protect them.
Please see this article for more critical information: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-cdc-covid-vaccine-injuries-kids-5-to-11-pfizer-vaccine.