Seeking Truth in a World of Propaganda. Links do not necessarily indicate agreement with stories or perspectives.
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” - Plato
Most COVID-19 patients who died in the hospital during the early phase of the pandemic were killed as a result of being put on a ventilator, according to a new study.
The analysis, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation last month, found the majority of COVID patients who required help from a ventilator also developed secondary bacterial pneumonia.
“Our study highlights the importance of preventing, looking for, and aggressively treating secondary bacterial pneumonia in critically ill patients with severe pneumonia, including those with COVID-19,” says Benjamin Singer, a pulmonologist at Northwestern University in Illinois.
From Science Alert:
The team looked at records for 585 people admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, also in Illinois. They all had severe pneumonia and/or respiratory failure, and 190 had COVID-19.
Using a machine learning approach to crunch through the data, the researchers grouped patients based on their condition and the amount of time they spent in intensive care.
The findings refute the idea that a cytokine storm following COVID-19 – an overwhelming inflammation response causing organ failure – was responsible for a significant number of deaths. There was no evidence of multi-organ failure in the patients studied.
In other words, though COVID-19 may have put these people in the hospital, the secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia after being put on a ventilator was responsible for the higher mortality rate, a condition called Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP).
“Those who were cured of their secondary pneumonia were likely to live, while those whose pneumonia did not resolve were more likely to die,” Singer says.
“Our data suggested that the mortality related to the virus itself is relatively low, but other things that happen during the ICU stay, like secondary bacterial pneumonia, offset that.”
The researchers stressed that the findings don’t diminish the health risks of COVID-19 itself, because for the patient to even require a ventilator would mean they were already experiencing respiratory problems from the China Virus.
It’s worth bearing in mind that if a patient’s requirement for a ventilator to treat COVID-19 complications leads to VAP, this doesn’t imply that a COVID-19 infection is less dangerous, nor does it decrease the number of COVID-19 fatalities.
As the authors write in their paper, “The relatively long length of stay among patients with COVID-19 is primarily due to prolonged respiratory failure, placing them at higher risk of VAP.”
But the findings highlight a need for further study and to be cautious when making assumptions about the cause of death in COVID-19 cases. A detailed molecular analysis from the same study should reveal more about what makes the difference between recovering or not from VAP.
The study confirms mainstream media reports from 2020 that approximately 90% of COVID patients who were put on ventilators died.
The difference is, the media claimed the high mortality was due to preexisting health conditions and the severity of COVID — not ventilator-induced pneumonia.
Twitter: @WhiteIsTheFury
Truth Social: @WhiteIsTheFury
Gettr: @WhiteIsTheFury
Gab: @WhiteIsTheFury
Minds: @WhiteIsTheFury
“Psychiatric treatment and psychiatric drugs are the common denominator of the growing number of shootings and other acts of violence, which are soaring right along with the soaring prescribing of psych drugs.” Killers on Psych Drugs
Here’s a question that every American should be able to answer: What percentage of the killers—that have carried out mass shootings across the United States—were on powerful psychiatric medications?
Why don’t we know the answer to this question? Doesn’t the United States have more mass shootings than any country in the world?
And aren’t these shootings the source of great suffering and anxiety?
And don’t most people genuinely want to know why these lone gunman feel compelled to kill innocent people?
Then, why don’t we know? Why—after more than two decades of these bloody incidents—do we still not have a definitive, thoroughly-researched answer to this one simple question: How many of these mentally-disturbed killers were on dangerous psychiatric medications?
Instead, the media pursues a line of inquiry that fails to reveal anything even remotely conclusive about the gunman’s actions. If “white supremacy” or “Nazi ideology” impacted the killer’s decision to go on a deadly shooting spree in Texas, then why didn’t he target a black community center or a Jewish synagogue? Wouldn’t that have been more consistent with his alleged ideology?
Yes, it would have been, which suggests that his alleged ideology is a symptom of his fragile mental condition not the primary factor driving his behavior. The reason these people go on crazed killing sprees is because they are ‘damaged goods’ not because they are ideologues. There’s a big difference.
So, why does the media keep harping on this silly the idea that the killer’s behavior was effected by his feelings about “white supremacy” or “Nazi ideology”? It’s ridiculous, after all, the killer was not white himself nor were his victims racially targeted. They were merely random passersby strolling through a shopping mall. In other words, there is no evidence to support the case that is being made by the media. But—here’s the thing—the media doesn’t care about evidence because their real goal is to advance a political agenda aimed at linking violent fanatical behavior to race-based uber-nationalism. What they are trying to do, is make a subliminal connection between the erratic behavior of a ruthless killer and the sincerely-felt patriotism of many Trump supporters. The media has been hammering away at this same theme for over six years culminating in the January 6 fraud. This is just the latest iteration of the same tedious political psy-ops.
If the journalists were serious about investigating this latest bloody incident, they’d try to find out whether the killer had been on the FBI’s radar before the onslaught took place. (as so many mass killers have been in the past.) Was he? Was Mauricio Garcia on the list of potential “domestic terrorists” compiled by the FBI?
We’ll probably never know, because that would expose the inner workings of the nation’s premier law enforcement agency which would undoubtedly cause considerable embarassment. So, the FBI is going to circle the wagons and make sure that never happens, which means that a good portion of the truth about this event will probably remain concealed forever. Even worse, we can expect that the media will continue to push their wacky theory that Garcia was a “non-white white supremacist” regardless of the fact that the claim makes no sense at all. Here’s how analyst Michael Tracey sarcastically summed it up:
If a non-white person is a “white supremacist,” does that mean he believes in his own innate racial inferiority? @mtracey
Leave it to Tracey to expose the imbecility of a meme that defies reason but to which the media clings like the Holy Grail. It’s actually shocking that anyone can take this type of verbal hucksterism seriously when, in fact, the whole “non-white white supremacist” thing is one of the most absurd concoctions of all time. It’s pure gibberish.
So, where should we look for answers? Where can we find rational explanations for these sporadic acts of violence?
There’s only one place we can look; at the mental state of the person who committed the crime. That’s where we have to start. If we want to understand what drives a man to kill random people in a school or shopping mall, we need to know something about the psychology of the perpetrator. Fortunately, volumes have been written on this subject by respected professionals who have researched the topic, studied the data, and drawn their own informed conclusions. Take a look:
Close to 17% of Americans are taking psychiatric drugs with side effects such as acting aggressively, being angry, or violent and acting on dangerous impulses...
Psychotropic drugs are hardly helping when their side-effects include worsening depression, new or worsening anxiety, agitation or restlessness, panic attacks, new or worsening irritability, acting aggressively, being angry, or violent, acting on dangerous impulses, an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania), and other unusual changes in behavior or mood.
“Rather than helping the individual, psychotropics alienate, and push them into more and more potentially dangerous behavior,” states the president of the Florida chapter of CCHR, Diane Stein.
This situation was so egregious that in 2004, the Federal Drug Administration issued a “black-box” label warning indicating that the use of certain antidepressants to treat major depressive disorder in adolescents may increase the risk of suicide, homicide, and other acts of violence.
A study entitled Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others… declared … In the 69-month reporting period we identified 484 evaluable drugs that accounted for 780,169 serious adverse event reports of all kinds…. The violence cases included 387 reports of homicide, 404 physical assaults, 27 cases indicating physical abuse, 896 homicidal ideation reports, and 223 cases described as violence-related symptoms.” “Psychiatric Drugs and Side Effects – The Unseen Hand Behind Violence in America“, Citizens Commission on Human Rights
It all sounds very serious, doesn’t it? It sounds like something that policymakers should be aware of so they can tighten regulations on these potentially-lethal medications. It also sounds like something that pharmaceutical industry would try to keep out of the newspapers so people don’t see the connection between these drugs and the mayhem they produce. Simply put, the truth is being hidden for power and profits. What else is new? Here’s more background from another article:
A growing number of school shootings and other shooting rampages were committed by individuals under the influence of, or in withdrawal from, psychiatric drugs known to cause mania, psychosis, violence and even homicide. Consider this list of 13 massacres over the past decade or so, resulting in 54 dead and 105 wounded – and these are just the ones where the psychiatric drugs are known. In other cases, medical records were sealed or autopsy reports not made public or, in some cases, toxicology tests were either not done to test for psychiatric drugs or not disclosed to the public….
Given the growing list of shooters who were on psychiatric drugs, given the fact that 22 international drug regulatory agencies warn these drugs can cause violence, mania, psychosis, suicide and even homicide, and given the fact that a major study was just released confirming these drugs put people at greater risk of becoming violent, CCHR International asserts: “Any recommendation for more mental health ‘treatment,’ which [inevitably] means putting more people and more kids on these [psychiatric] drugs, is not only negligent, but considering the possible repercussions, criminal.” (“The Real Lesson of Columbine: Psychiatric Drugs Induce Violence”
So, why aren’t we addressing the elephant in the room? Is there any doubt that the gunman at the Dallas-area shopping mall was mentally-unstable, probably had some history of counseling and treatment, and may have been on powerful psychiatric drugs? If you were a professional journalist, isn’t that where you would start your investigation rather than trying to cobble together some far-fetched theory based on photos of Nazi memorabilia on an isolated social media post?
We are told repeatedly by the media and the pundits on cable news that ‘guns are the problem’, but isn’t the case against powerful psychiatric meds equally compelling? It’s worth noting, that guns don’t fire themselves and that, typically, guns are not fired into crowds unless they are wielded by unstable, deranged people who—more often than not—have some traceable mental history in which they were diagnosed, counseled and treated. All we want to know is which medications they were prescribed so we can better monitor their use in order to protect the public. Unfortunately, the media is unwilling to provide this information due to a fundamental conflict of interest. They are paid by the drug companies. Here’s more from an article at the American Psychiatric Association:
A link between several types of psychotropic medications and violent behavior toward others has been documented in a recent study…
In a study published in the December 15, 2010… They found that during the study period, 780,169 serious adverse events of one kind or another had been reported for 484 drugs, and that of those serious adverse events, 1,937 had been acts of violence. They defined a violent event as any case report containing one or more of the following items: homicide, physical assault, physical abuse, homicidal ideation, or violence-related symptom….
“In addition, antidepressant drugs showed consistently elevated risk, even when compared with antipsychotics and mood stabilizers. . . .”
Paul Fink, M.D., an expert in the study of violent behavior and a past APA president, commented. “I can tell you that as a psychiatrist who has practiced for a long time, I was unaware that [varenicline and antidepressants] had been linked with violence toward others. . . . Psychiatrists and mental health professionals need to be aware of this association.” The study had no outside funding.” Several Medications Linked to Violent Acts
Keep in mind, normal, well-adjusted men who are happily married and gainfully employed, do not commit random acts of homicidal violence. These are people who have serious psychological problems, who may have sought professional help, and who have (oftentimes) been prescribed various psychiatric medications.
These medications—while beneficial to many—can result in excessive violence in a small percentage of users. The public needs to know about these drugs so they can balance their benefits against the risks to public safety. So far, there has been no admission that these risks even exist. Instead, all the blame has been placed on guns which has merely fueled greater distrust of both the media and the political establisment. In fact, most gun owners now believe that the politicians are not interested in public safety at all but merely use it as platform for promoting their own narrow interests. Ostensibly, those interests now include the repeal the second amendment followed by the disarming of the American people. That’s the goal and most gun owners know that’s the goal. Here’s one last clip from a letter to the editor titled Psychiatric Drugs are Behind the Violence by Doug Dale:
As Congress, surrounded by armed guards, metal detectors, chain link fence and paramilitary forces, debates infringing on the constitutional right to bear arms by private citizens, isn’t it time they actually address the root cause of these mass killings?
These events were unheard of until the FDA began approving more psychiatric drugs several decades ago. From 2004 to 2009, researchers accessing the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System revealed that 1,537 cases of violence were linked to 31 different types of psychiatric drugs.
Other professional studies concluded that patients didn’t have homicidal ideation until after taking these drugs. From 1992 thru 2017, 37 school shootings have been linked to these medications. In a report submitted to the Senate in 2014, it was estimated that 90% of school shooters were using antidepressants. Obviously, it’s not a person’s mental health, but the drugs that cause this violence.
The pharmaceutical lobby contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to congressional members that craft federal laws. Who will deny that these drugs are the root cause of the mass killings? Will it be uneducated political groupies drinking the gun-control elixir, politicians taking campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical lobby, the pharmaceutical industry and/or the doctors peddling this poison to the public, and if so, why?…
In 2001, a drug manufacturer removed a cholesterol drug from the market because it was linked to 31 deaths. We are way past that number in mass killings.
Congress needs to ban gun ownership from anyone being prescribed these drugs, then, at the least, make it a federal crime to write new prescriptions going forward. To do otherwise, one can only conclude that Congress could care less about how much collateral damage they cause.
If we want to stop the mass shootings, we need to strictly regulate the psychiatric medications that are causing them.
