Tuesday, February 22, 2022

PRIORITIZING TREATMENTS OVER PEOPLE: CDC Has Withheld CV Data From Americans to ‘Prevent Vaccine Hesitancy’

Source: Summit

Published: February 21, 2022

By: Steve Watson

The New York Times reported this past weekend that the CDC has chosen not to publish huge amounts of COVID data, instead keeping it secret, because it fears that the information would cause ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among the American public.

The report notes that the withheld data includes information on boosters, hospitalizations, wastewater analyses, as well as critical information on COVID infections and deaths broken down by age, race, and vaccination status.


The justification for holding the information back?  Fears that the data would be “misinterpreted” and lead to “vaccine hesitancy,” according to the report.

In other words, it didn’t fit into the narrative that everyone must get vaccinated and boosted no matter who they are and what their situation is.

The report notes:

“Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.”

Ahhh, the plebs are not ready to know the truth.

Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said.”

The data has been withheld for more than a year, the report notes:

…the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

As we have previously reported, CDC director Rochelle Walensky admits that the agency’s guidance on COVID has been based on what the government perceived people would accept.

“It really had a lot to do with what we thought people would be able to tolerate,” Walensky starkly admitted during an interview in December.

Walensky also acknowledged for only the first time last month that over 75% of COVID deaths were people “who had at least four comorbidities” and were “unwell to begin with.”

The comments were later edited by the media to make it seem like there have been fewer deaths related to comorbidities.

The CDC also for more than two years based its guidance on PCR tests, which it recently admitted are producing massive amounts of false positives.

Read more at: Summit.news

* * * * *

The following is an excerpt from the National Institute of Health website on the legal requirement for all U.S. medical establishments to disclose all information about any intended treatment. These disclosures are legally required to take place prior to any treatment being applied, along with the patient's thorough understanding of treatments and procedures in question.

Keep in mind that every U.S. medical establishment and the parties therein are well aware of each of these requirements and that these organizations are likely to face severe legal consequences should these human-rights laws be violated.

This brings into question why over the past several years, the existence of these laws has been so ubiquitously ignored by officials and medical professionals from the very top of government down to the corporate world.

Informed Consent

The right to informed consent is composed of two parts: first, the right to be informed of potential harm to one’s property (one’s body) caused by a hired agent, and second, the right to autonomy. It was not until the 19th century that physicians began to advocate that a patient should be given an adequate amount of information to understand his or her state of health.[5] After landmark decisions by judges in the 20th century, especially in the 1970s with Canterbury v. Spence, Cobb v. Grant, and Wilkinson v. Vesey, in 1981 the American Medical Association recognized for the first time informed consent as "a basic social policy" necessary to preserve patient autonomy even at the expense of a healthcare provider’s desire for beneficence.

The roots of informed consent stem from the social contract theorists of the 1600s and 1700s mentioned previously. Under this social construct, patients own their bodies (their “property”). Medical therapies may have a genuine possibility of damaging that property. Thus, patients have the right to decide independently what risks and costs to incur regarding their bodies. The null assumption by physicians for most of the history of Western medicine has been that the patient is interested in whatever plan the medical professional thinks is best. In contrast, the null assumption under the moral philosophy of autonomy is that the physician has no way of knowing what patients want and must enable patients to decide for themselves whenever the patient has the mental capacity to do so. American courts have established that a risk of harm as low as 1% must be explained to the patient before submitting the patient to any therapy if that harm entails death or a life-altering complication, such as paralysis (Canterbury v. Spence).

In the United States, the right to informed consent is protected to some degree by legislation at both the state and federal levels. 42 CFR § 482.13 states that the "patient or his or her representative (as allowed under State law) has the right to make informed decisions regarding his or her care. The patient's rights include being informed of his or her health status, being involved in care planning and treatment..." Nearly all states have statutes that provide more detail than the US Congress with respect to the specifics of informed consent rights in their particular jurisdictions. Nevertheless, in large part, because of the vagueness of informed consent rights specified by executive branches of government, the judicial branch of government is usually the branch that enforces informed consent rights as part of tort claims brought by patients against healthcare providers.

The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
Discerning the Mystery is a website dedicated to awakening and educating the people to their true potential of mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if just one person benefits from these efforts, it is entirely worth it. 

If you enjoy what you read here, please give the post a like and share on social media. Also, if you enjoyed this article, please consider leaving a donation.

Feel free to send us an email and tell us what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let us know.

Thank you for your support.

No comments:

Post a Comment