Connect with us

COVID-19

Andrew Cuomo had aides manipulate death stats to cover up COVID record, report finds

Published

2 days ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Republican Brad Wenstrup, chairman of the House subcommittee, explained that ‘the Cuomo Administration is responsible for recklessly exposing New York’s most vulnerable population to COVID-19’

Former New York Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo personally edited state COVID-19 statistics to downplay deaths caused by his placement of contagious people in nursing homes, a new congressional investigation found.

For months, New York was the hardest hit of any state by the pandemic, due in large part to the coronavirus spreading within the state’s nursing homes. Cuomo, who resigned in 2021 over sexual harassment claims, ordered that nursing homes cannot turn away patients diagnosed with COVID-19 despite the fact the virus was most dangerous to the elderly.

He initially tried to blame nursing home deaths on the Trump administration by claiming that a federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance forced him to put the infected back in nursing homes (the CDC actually called for elderly housing decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis). But even the office of New York Attorney General (and fellow Democrat) Letitia James found Cuomo’s administration undercounted COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes by as much as half.

A 2021 report by the Judiciary Committee of the New York State Assembly found that Cuomo and his senior aides edited state COVID-19 reports and undercounted nursing home deaths “on multiple occasions” to “strengthen the defense” of his order by excluding COVID deaths that occurred once patients left their nursing home.

On Monday, the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released a memo confirming those findings, National Review reported.

“The Cuomo Administration is responsible for recklessly exposing New York’s most vulnerable population to COVID-19,” subcommittee chair Brad Wenstrup, a Republican from Ohio, said. “Today’s memo holds Mr. Cuomo and his team accountable for their failures and provides the most detailed and comprehensive accounting of New York’s pandemic-era wrongdoing.”

The committee found that Cuomo assistant Stephanie Benson emailed top aides to get out a “report on the facts” to prevent the governor’s nursing home directive from becoming a “great debacle in the history books. Cuomo has publicly denied involvement in creating the report, his former adviser, Jim Malatras, testified that Cuomo made his desires clear to the authors through his aids and handwritten notes, and even reviewed and edited the document himself multiple times.

Former New York State Department of Health official Dr. Eleanor Adams told investigators that her department did not independently author the report or was it peer reviewed. Others testified that the decision to remove out-of-facility deaths from the count came from the New York Executive Chamber, i.e., the governor’s cabinet.

Cuomo himself testified before the subcommittee this week, where he continued to maintain his innocence. He did, however, admit that he never spoke to anyone at the CDC or Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services about the scientific justification for his nursing home directive before issuing it.

In May, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch penned an opinion identifying America’s COVID response measures as “the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country,” against which Congress, state legislatures, and courts alike were largely negligent to protect constitutional rights, personal liberty, and the rule of law.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Censorship Industrial Complex / 19 mins ago

Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed

Economy / 58 mins ago

Scrap the second carbon tax: Taxpayers Federation

International / 4 hours ago

Lawmakers call for changes at Secret Service after second assassination attempt

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Trial for Freedom Convoy leaders ends, verdict may take 6 months

Published on September 16, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does ‘not know’ when a decision will be rendered in the Freedom Convoy leaders’ trial.

The trial for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, which was supposed to have been only 16 days long, has now concluded after over a year, with the presiding judge observing that determining a verdict, which could take up to six months, will be “daunting” task.  

In her concluding statements last Friday in an Ottawa courthouse, presiding judge Heather Perkins-McVey said that she does “not know” when she will “be in a position to give my decision,” adding that coming up with a verdict will be “a little daunting.” 

The judge has promised that on November 26, she will be providing an update as to when a decision could be forthcoming.  

The trial has been ongoing for over one year and began on September 3, 2023. As reported by LifeSiteNews, both Lich and Barber face a possible 10-year prison sentence for their role in the 2022 Freedom Convoy.

In an X post on Friday, Lich shared her thoughts on the trial finally wrapping up.  

“Well, that’s a wrap to the Longest Mischief Trial of All Time,” she wrote. 

“The Crown really disappointed me today. His remarks about the Event That Shall Not Be Named (Freedom Convoy) being nothing more than a weekend party are indicative of a level of smugness and elitism that I can never and will never understand,” added Lich.

Both Lich and Barber had attended the hearings in person, travelling from their homes in Alberta and Saskatchewan respectively. Last Friday, however, they attended via video.

The Crown prosecution has held steadfast to the notion that Lich and Barber somehow influenced the protesters’ actions through their words as part of a co-conspiracy. This claim has been rejected by the defense as weak. 

It has also been asserted “that the absence of violence or peaceful nature of the protest didn’t make it lawful, emphasizing that the onus was on the Crown to prove the protest’s unlawfulness.” 

The reality is that Lich and Barber collaborated with police on many occasions so that the protest remained law abiding.  

The Democracy Fund, which is crowdfunding Lich’s legal costs, noted in one of its last legal updates of the trial that it expected the Crown would try to prove the leaders were “co-conspirators,” meaning that accusations placed against one leader automatically apply to the other.

As reported by LifeSiteNews at the time, despite the non-violent nature of the protest and the charges, Lich was jailed for  weeks before she was granted bail. 

Continue Reading

Trending

X