Funeral Directors Blow the Whistle on Deaths Falsely Attributed to Coronavirus

“Basically, every death certificate that comes across our desk now has COVID on it,” said a funeral director in Williston Park, N.Y., on a recorded phone call with Project Veritas in a newly-released video. James O’Keefe has been asking for people inside the medical system to blow the whistle if they see corruption or inconsistencies in reports about the Chinese WuFlu known as COVID-19. In conversations with several funeral directors across New York City, O’Keefe uncovered a shocking narrative where, without fail, every director he spoke to expressed his or her concern that coronavirus deaths are being inflated and every death in NYC is being recorded as a COVID death with or without testing to confirm.

“They are putting COVID on a lot of death certificates because people who are going to their hospital with any kind of respiratory distress, respiratory problems, pneumonia, the flu — the flu-like symptoms lead into the COVID-19,” said Joseph Antioco of Schafer Funeral Home. “To me, all you’re doing is padding the statistics. You’re putting people on that have COVID-19 even if they didn’t have it. You’re making the death rate for New York City a lot higher than it should be.”

One funeral director talked about a family who is related to an unnamed Supreme Court Justice who insisted on a private autopsy that discovered their relative did not have COVID-19. “I had one that was autopsied because the sister was famous, and apparently, and I don’t know who the Supreme Court Justice is, but the Supreme Court Justice was related to this family, and she says I know my sister didn’t die of COVID-19,” said Josephine Dimiceli of Dimiceli & Sons Funeral Home. “She said she had Alzheimer’s and they didn’t suction her. You have to suction because they forget how to swallow. And right away they put down COVID-19 on her death certificate, and the Supreme Court justice, whoever it is, contacted the hospital. They did an independent autopsy; bingo. No COVID-19.”

Dimiceli had other shocking tales to share. One nursing home assumed all its patients were positive without testing. “The guy that I just buried a little while ago from Long Island National Cemetery, they called me from the nursing home. They said, ‘Did Raymond have COVID-19?’ She said, ‘Well, no. It was a failure to thrive. But we’re assuming they all have it.’ And I’m all, ‘Why would you assume? Why aren’t they all in the hospital?’ She had no answer. ‘I can’t answer you,’ she said. They put it down on Raymond’s death certificate,” said Dimiceli. “He didn’t have COVID-19.”

There are several more funeral directors with similar stories.

SOURCE 

***********************************

Coronavirus: ‘Flattening the curve’ to eliminate COVID-19 could be dangerous, researchers say

No one can say for sure how the pandemic will unfold, but our lives will certainly be changed for the foreseeable future.
New research suggests “flattening the curve” may not be the most effective way to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.

A team of international researchers, led by Peking University Professor Liu Yu, have projected that the “flatten the curve” approach could destroy economies while having not enough of an effect on cutting infections.

“The turning point will never come, the peak value of case numbers will remain the same as if there are no such measures,” the team said in a non-peer-reviewed paper released last week. “We strongly suggest they reconsider.”

WHAT DOES THE RESEARCH SAY?

“Flattening the curve” refers to shutting down non-essential businesses and issuing social distancing measures to ensure that a country’s health system can cope with the number of infections and deaths.

The research, first reported on by the South China Morning Post, looked at daily infections, the geographical spread of the disease, economic output and public transport to assess the effectiveness of social restriction policies on flattening the curve.

They found that only a few countries, including South Korea, Qatar, Norway and New Zealand, have been able to stop the spread with minimum disruption to the economy.

Others, like the United States, Britain, France, Italy and Spain, have suffered major blows to their economies while also struggling with soaring infections and death rates.

They found that China’s “elimination” strategy was most effective at suppressing the virus, but was unsustainable due to its heavy impact on the economy. In other words, “flattening the curve” produces too little but costs too much.

The researchers suggested that the disruption to the economy and social life did not align with the reduction in cases.

“This choice still incurs 20-60 per cent loss of economic output, but only achieves a 30-40 per cent reduction in the number of cases, an extent which is insufficient to overturn the epidemic curve,” the researchers said. “Our results show that this is usually the worst scenario in terms of cost-effectiveness.”

But the basis of the research has been questioned. Jaymie Meliker, professor of public health with the Stony Brook University in New York, said the research failed to put a value on each life lost to COVID-19. “I could not find how much they estimate a life is worth in their cost benefit model,” he told the SCMP.

“If the hospitals are overrun and more people are dying because of that, then we need to quantify that cost for a cost-benefit model. “That is needed for us to be able to evaluate the pros and cons of the different containment strategies.”

SO DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD LIFT THE VIRUS RESTRICTIONS?

In short, no it doesn’t.

Australia’s response to COVID-19 is proof that social distancing measures do work. The latter half of March saw virus cases increase more than ten-fold, from 376 cases on March 16 to over 4500 by the end of that month. Social distancing rules came into effect on March 21, and the case rate has been declining since the beginning of April.

On April 22, Australia recorded just four cases nationally, with several states recording zero new cases.

The researchers acknowledged that simply removing social restrictions, as US President Donald Trump has suggested, would be a dangerous way to go.

They warned relaxing lockdown measures without ramping up infection control capacity could prove disastrous and see countries’ death tolls skyrocket.

The solution, they said, is to only relax lockdowns while rapidly increasing testing and patient isolation.

The good news is that this is similar to Australia’s next move.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has repeatedly stressed there are three criteria points that need to be met before our social restrictions will be lifted: increased testing, contact tracing and greater ability to respond to local outbreaks.

“If you're going to move to an environment where there are fewer restrictions, then you need these three things in place,” he said at an earlier press conference.

Even so, easing the lockdown will not be considered for a few more weeks.

“National Cabinet agreed that we will use the next four weeks to ensure that we can get these in place.”

Australia’s deputy chief medical officer Dr Nick Coatsworth explained that eliminating the virus was not a realistic option.

He told the ABC on Wednesday that Australia was “in a pivotal moment” of the fight against the pandemic, but that we cannot become complacent.

He said social restrictions will need to remain in place “for at least another three weeks to May 11” but “easing restrictions would, by definition, mean some of those numbers (of cases) could change”.

“Businesses and individuals need to prepare, though, that physical distance from one another will need to keep going,” Dr Coatsworth said.

“Great hand hygiene and cough etiquette will need to keep going, because we won’t have a vaccine. So, while some restrictions may be lifted, the way we behave has to stay the same.”

He rejected the notion that Australia could “eliminate” the virus.

“I’m using the word ‘suppression’,” Dr Coatsworth said. “I’ll tell you why I’m doing that. The problem with using words like ‘elimination’ and ‘eradication’ is that we are a non-immune population.

“So, you have to be so sure that you’ve got to that point that you would need to extend your restrictions for so long to get to that point, that I think that that would lead to Australians having to be under social restrictions for too long to get there. That’s an honest view.

“If, in the process of suppressing, we get to the point of eradication, then that would be a magnificent outcome. But we must continue to build capacity and we must continue to contain the virus, and remember that we’re not immune from it. So, the word that — the strategy that we’re using — is to ‘suppress’ COVID-19 until there’s a vaccine.”

SOURCE 

***************************************

Study: Nearly all NY coronavirus patients suffered underlying health issues

A new study by a medical journal revealed that most of the people in New York City who were hospitalized due to coronavirus had one or more underlying health issues.

Health records from 5,700 patients hospitalized within the Northwell Health system -- which housed the most patients in the country throughout the pandemic -- showed that 94 percent of patients had more than one disease other than COVID-19, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Data taken from March to early April showed that the median age of patients was 63 years old and 53 percent of all coronavirus patients suffered from hypertension, the most prevalent of the ailments among patients.

In addition, 42 percent of coronavirus patients who had body mass index (BMI) data on file suffered from obesity while 32 percent of all patients suffered from diabetes.

The study also revealed that the overwhelming majority of patients who were on ventilators eventually died, and those who did more often had diabetes.

Data gathered from 2,634 patients who either died or were discharged from the hospital showed that 12 percent of them were placed on ventilators and of those who were, 88 percent of them died.

“Having serious comorbidities increases your risk,” said Karina Davidson, one of the study’s authors and senior vice president for the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, which is part of the Northwell Health system, according to reports by Time.

“This is a very serious disease with a very poor outcome for those who have severe infections from it. We want patients with serious chronic disease to take a special precaution and to seek medical attention early, should they start showing signs and symptoms of being infected. That includes knowing that they’ve been exposed to someone who has this virus.”

SOURCE 

******************************

Governors Provide a Liberty vs. Tyranny Contrast 

Governors were in the driver’s seat in terms of setting policies for stay-at-home orders, and they will be the ones deciding when those orders end and Americans can begin getting back to normal. The federalist system America’s Founders designed is as brilliant now as it was then, in part because everyone’s able to see the comparisons and contrasts across the nation.

All but five states issued some level of stay-at-home order, and many of those orders will remain in effect well into May, if not longer. Some orders are more restrictive than others. New York is encouraging citizens to snitch on other citizens for not abiding by restrictions. Some states are monitoring citizens with Chinese-made drones. Others are cracking down on Christians meeting in parking lots.

As we noted last week, Michigan Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s orders are so tyrannical that residents are protesting in the streets. She insists that makes her more likely to extend the orders. Protests have also flared up in Ohio, Minnesota, Virginia, Wisconsin, and elsewhere.

Likely thinking at least partly of Whitmer, who has been floated as a possible running mate for Joe Biden, President Donald Trump observed, “Some governors have gone too far. Some of the things that have happened are maybe not so appropriate.” Effectively ordering stores to rope off certain sections to prevent sales of items Whitmer deems nonessential is definitely an example of something being “maybe not so appropriate.”

It’s not just governors. House Majority Whip James Clyburn infamously said of last month’s massive relief bill that it was “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”

In short, one thing the pandemic has revealed is the authoritarian impulses of many politicians. Well before corona-anything was heard of, some governors, legislators, and bureaucrats — all egged on by a complicit news media — were already geared toward exercising control over the citizenry. The pandemic merely gave them “justification” for things they maybe couldn’t do previously.

Arguably the most revealing quote came from New Jersey Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy, who said of his shutdown order, “I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.”

It’s still too soon to give a true evaluation of the actions we’ve taken as a nation, but it will serve us well to contrast the heavy-handed crackdowns in Democrat-run states with the easier approach of many Republican-run ones

SOURCE 

**********************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated), A Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here  (Personal).  My annual picture page is here.  Home page supplement

**************************