Connect with us


New York Health Department Advises ‘Non-White Race’ COVID Patients to be Prioritized for Treatment



GettyImages 1207839451
Photo by Victor J. Blue/Getty Images

As cases of the omicron Covid variant steamroll through New York, the state government has turned saving lives into a matter of race, prioritizing non-white people to receive treatments. New York claims it is some sort of retribution for “longstanding systemic health and social inequities.”

Last week, New York’s Department of Health released a document to providers titled “Prioritization of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibodies and Oral Antivirals for the Treatment of COVID-19 During Ties of Resource Limitations Introduction.”

The document lays out a hierarchy of sorts for who gets to receive the limited supplies of monoclonal antibody treatments and oral antiviral pills recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization.

In addition to individuals considered high-risk such as those who are immunocompromised, aged 65 or older, and overweight, the state provides a “note” that any COVID-infected people who are non-white should receive priority for treatment over white people because of “inequities.”

“Non-white race or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity should be considered a risk factor, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities have contributed to an increased risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19,” New York’s Department of Health states.

“Consider race and ethnicity when assessing individual risk, as longstanding systemic health and social inequities may contribute to an increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19,” the memo adds.

New York’s rhetoric is consistent with Dr. Anthony Fauci who stated that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed “the undeniable effects of racism” in America.

“Now, very few of these comorbidities have racial determinants,” said Fauci, the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. “Almost all relate to the social determinants of health dating back to disadvantageous conditions that some people of color find themselves in from birth regarding the availability of an adequate diet, access to health care, and the undeniable effects of racism in our society.”

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pam Burgo

    January 4, 2022 at 8:48 am

    Let the lawsuits begin and keep em coming.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Internal docs show Amazon censored books on vaccinations due to pressure from Biden White House




Recently released internal Amazon emails reveal the company caved to pressure from the Biden White House to suppress available vaccine information.

Provided to the House Judiciary Committee, the emails light on the extent of the Biden White House’s influence over the retail giant regarding vaccine-related content. The emails disclose a concerning narrative of pressure from government officials to suppress information deemed unfavorable to their agenda.

Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio took to Twitter to disclose the findings, stating that the emails reveal direct pressure from the White House on Amazon to censor books expressing views contrary to those endorsed by the administration. One email, albeit redacted, explicitly poses the question of whether the administration requested the removal of certain books, to which the answer was affirmative.

National Review highlights the successful efforts of the Biden administration in persuading Amazon to limit the visibility of titles skeptical of vaccine efficacy. White House senior adviser for Covid-19 response, Andrew Slavitt, expressed concerns about Amazon’s role in propagating what he termed as “misinformation” regarding vaccines. His emails illustrate a push for action to address what he perceived as a proliferation of dissenting views.

In response to Slavitt’s inquiries, Amazon initially hesitated to take overt action, fearing backlash from conservative media outlets. The company’s internal deliberations reflect a concern for public perception and the potential amplification of the issue if intervention were too conspicuous.

Despite initially refraining from manual intervention, Amazon eventually succumbed to pressure, engaging in discussions with White House officials. The company’s internal documents reveal deliberations on whether the administration sought outright book bans or alterations to search results. Amazon’s stance, as expressed in their meeting with the White House, emphasized the provision of diverse viewpoints and the distinction between online retail and social media platforms.



Continue Reading