How Hospitals Were Ineffective Against Covid and Killed Many

Executive Summary

• The conventional medical sources have a steady stream of false information on covid treatment.
• This article performs an analysis of a typical one of these articles.

Introduction

The lies that the medical establishment tells on covid are mind-boggling. We go through an entire article to uncover this false information. This analysis uses the article How Hospitals Treat Covid 19 Patients (August 21) on the Website Healthgrades.

Our References for This Article

If you want to see our references for this article and related Brightwork articles, visit this link.

What Percentage Survive from Hospital?

COVID-19 is the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. Symptoms include fever, cough, fatigue, shortness of breath, lack of appetite, loss of taste or smell, and diarrhea. Most people who develop COVID-19 have mild symptoms that can (and should) be managed at home. However, some people with COVID-19 develop serious illnesses and require hospital care. About 25 to 33% of those who are hospitalized need intensive care, but most people who are hospitalized for COVID-19 recover.

Yes, but most who were not hospitalized would also likely have recovered. Covid is not a very deadly virus.

No Know Cure?

Unfortunately, there is no known cure for COVID-19. Scientists and physicians are still searching for effective treatments, but there are some promising therapies currently in use for severely ill COVID-19 patients.

Yes, and as we will see, most of these effective treatments were denigrated by the health establishment.

Hospital Care for Those With The Coronavirus?

A person who is persistently short of breath may need hospital care. Shortness of breath indicates the lungs are not delivering enough oxygen to the rest of the body; without treatment, oxygen levels may fall and cause organ failure.

Yes, but hospitals did not prove very adept at dealing with this. They placed people on ventilators when they probably could have benefited far more from just receiving oxygen. Some people were placed on ventilators because (in the US) Medicare paid $39,000 for every person treated this way.

Supportive Care?

Because there is no cure for COVID-19 at this time, hospital care for coronavirus focuses on what’s called supportive care, or treatment to support the body’s vital organs. Doctors, nurses and others will monitor oxygen levels and provide treatment to maintain a healthy supply of oxygen to the rest of the body. Some patients need only a nasal cannula, a tube that’s placed in the nostrils to deliver oxygen. Other patients require an oxygen mask, which can deliver high concentrations of oxygen.

Supportive care means that hospitals get to charge, but they can’t do much for the patients. It was a significant error to make people think that hospitals had the answer for treating covid. It led to a perverse logic for the lockdown, which was intended to reduce the stress and load on the hospitals, but the hospitals were able to do very little for patients. Some hospitals became overwhelmed because they did not communicate. There were little hospitals could do.

And there is a cure for covid. It’s called one’s natural immune system. However, the medical establishment does not like talking about the innate immune system because they don’t make money from the natural immune system. The only people at risk from covid are those with a fragile immune system, and there are ways to increase one’s immunity. However, again this is not a topic of interest to the medical establishment.

The quote continues…

Hospital staff monitor patients’ vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, number of breaths per minute) to watch for developing problems. A patient whose heart rate increases as their blood pressure decreases could be experiencing heart trouble; staff will likely run tests and administer IV (intravenous) fluids and medicine to support the heart’s function.

Did this help, or was this just supportive care? And that is an awful lot of money just to be monitored.

The quote continues…

Some patients will be able to eat and drink normally; others are too sick to do so. If needed, hospital staff can deliver nutrition directly into patients’ veins via an IV.

In that case, it makes sense to go to the hospital, but only a tiny percentage of those who went to the hospital fell into this category. But as is par for the course, this article does not want to discuss that only the fragile run into these problems.

Looking for a Coronavirus Cure? Monoclonal Antibodies

Up until November 2020, there were no FDA-approved treatments specifically for COVID-19. Since then, the FDA has authorized monoclonal antibody drugs—bamlanivimab; combination bamlanivimab and etesevimab; and combination casirivimab and imdevimab—that target the virus’s spike protein. Clinical studies show the antibodies can reduce emergency room visits and hospitalizations in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Emergency use authorization (EUA) of the antibodies is for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk for developing severe COVID-19.

This is curious because when Joe Rogan announced that he had used ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, he was called an anti-science buffoon by the establishment media.

CNN pilloried Joe Rogan for things that the medical establishment did not use. CNN receives significant funding from Big Pharma. The doctor in this segment is also on the Big Pharma payroll. The studies on ivermectin do not match what this pharma shill states in this video segment. I will get into the comparison table further in on the article. Ivermectin has shallow side effects, and this doctor produces explanations of what would happen if you took a megadose — for livestock of ivermectin. This would be like saying, if you drive at 150 miles per hour, you could die. It is not relevant for people that drive the speed limit. 

This is a media outlet that does not take significant inputs from pharma. This outlet cannot even mention that the product was ivermectin as YouTube banned its mention. Months later, Pfizer created a very similar medicine.