http://www.wral.com/fact-check-do-hospitals-get-paid-more-to-treat-covid-19-patients/19156357/

"Julie Aultman, a member of the editorial board of the American Medical Association’s AMA Journal of Ethics, told PolitiFact it is "very unlikely that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money to do so."

There are very obvious financial incentives hospitals have been receiving for treating Covid 19 cases for those on Medicare and the uninsured (13,000$ per case) and for putting these types of patients on a ventilator for at least 48 hours (39,000$ per instance).

However, the best attempt at refuting this claim of there being a financial incentive to inflate the number of cases (and put people on ventilators when they may not have needed it), is that "it's very unlikely that physicians and hospitals would be incentivized by money to intentionally falsify data". 😑

Julie Aultman from the AMA board of Ethics is literally just saying "just take my word for it. There is no evidence of a scandal". Why on earth would she say anything different, if there WAS a scandal?

There would be severe repercussions for Mrs. Aultman to claim that there is an obvious incentive to take advantage of this public health crisis to reap enormous financial gain even if it meant the needless killing of patients put on ventilators who may not have needed it.

She would be fired, deplatformed and discredited immediately, because a system of accountability EXISTS for those who attempt to hinder the financial gains of those hospital boards and executives of big Pharma companies.

On the other hand, there is NO system of accountability for those who reap the massive financial rewards that come from these enormous payouts to the hospitals. And if a genuine threat of being held accountable for committing enormous medical fraud and corruption for financial gain, does not exist, then it will continue to perpetuate. That's just behavioral psychology 101.

On another note, i cant understand how you are able to juggle both types of thinking regarding your discrediting of the VAERS sysyem.

You posit that the VAERS reports are designed to be inflated and misrepresented because it encompasses ALL deaths and ALL symptoms post vaccination (within a certain period), yet you also believe that the methodology used by hospitals to count "Covid deaths", is accurate and free from misconception?

If you believe that to be true, which you present a sound, logistical argument for, then by that same logic, I challenge you to entertain the following argument I propose, utilizing the following reuters fact check.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-comorbidities-coviddeaths-idUSL1N2TU22X

The following excerpt I extracted from the "Verdict" section in the final paragraph of the fact check refrenced above:

"The 6% figure used by users online to calculate COVID-19-only deaths originates from a 2020 database and represents the percentage of death certificates with COVID-19 listed as the only cause mentioned.

This extrapolation is misleading, however, and doesn’t take into account that conditions listed in a death certificate may be caused by the virus itself. While a comorbidity may cause someone to be at higher risk of COVID-19, the comorbidity is not necessarily the cause of death."

In the above fact-check, which I'm almost certain you would agree with, it proposes that the 6% of deaths in 2020 from the CDC database that were labeled "Covid only", are being misinterpreted because even in those other 94% of deaths in which co-morbidities are also listed, those conditions were probably caused by the virus itself.

Furthermore, if you indeed to agree with this logic, I propose you swap out the words "virus" and "COVID-19", and replace them with the word "vaccine", in the 2nd paragraph and tell me if you still believe that same logic applies in this new scenario.

It would read as such:

"This extrapolation is misleading, however, and doesn’t take into account that conditions listed in a death certificate may be caused by the VACCINE itself. While a comorbidity may cause someone to be at higher risk of VACCINE ADVERSE EVENTS, the comorbidity is not necessarily the cause of death."

I'm almost positive that your initial reaction would be "THATS NOT THE SAME!" and your brain will scramble to come up with some kind of rationale to prove why in demonstrating that the 850,000 Covid 19 deaths were not inflated and that the database showing only 50,000 "covid only" deaths is being misunderstood.

And that those 800,000 other deaths including comorbidities were likely caused by the virus itself. Why then when the same logic is applied to how one should interpret the numerous adverse events and deaths reported in the VAERS database, is it suddenly an "improper interpretation".

In order for your logic to be consistent, only one of these arguments can hold true. Both cannot be true at the same time.

So either:

A) the 50,000 "Covid only" deaths are being misunderstood and covid likely caused the comorbidities in the other 800,000 deaths.

AND the 24,000 deaths listed in VAERS were likely caused by the vaccine.

Or B) the 50,000 "Covid only", deaths were NOT being misinterpreted, the death count WAS purposefully inflated for financial and political reasons in order to scare people into abiding by strict draconian measures that decimated economies.

AND the 24,000 deaths reported on VAERS were NOT actually casually linked to the vaccine and the deaths were due to other conditions and just happened to fall into the window of time post vaccination that would cause it to be reported to VAERS

Those are the only two options if ones logic is to be consistent. I'm personally of the opinion that option B is the most believable scenario with the least assumptions (supported by Occam's razor).

And so the vaccine is likely to not be as deadly as many of us on this board believe (although I will argue to it being much less effective than advertised), but the Covid deaths were absolutely purposefully inflated in order to push an agenda and achieve corrupt, ulterior motives.