I am shocked to hear of the Memorial hospital case. I knew the Midazolam murders were implied as early as 2011 'by stealth' in Scottish care homes. Did not know it went back as far as 2005. The fact it even led to a potential conviction meant the evidence must have been overwhelming.
What truly shocks me is the public who... defended the doctors who terminated the patients?! And got rid of the DA who was aiming to prosecute the murderers? What the hell guys?
Now the public wonder why Midazolam murders have become mainstream - because they either do nothing in the face of such mass murder, or help the perpetrators to get away with it (no, making someone "resign" their job isn't a prosecution; there's always more work in other fields where they can commit further crimes; they need to be jailed).
I get HART are avoidant to use such strong language as Midazolam murders, but it is clear that is what these are. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. Pandemics do not kill in one giant, spiked lump and then suddenly nosedive.
If people continue to tolerate this, more and more illnesses will be "solved" by offing the patient. Killing the patient is *always* cheaper than saving their lives; normalising the murder disincentivises treatment and the search for treatments.
I wonder how many other patients where my husband died from the ventilator misuse, the fentanyl and other pain and sedatives, and I think they did use Midazolam on him but I’m not sure. This isn’t just theoretical or happened to other ppl but the pain hits there.
- the role of Public Health changed from a body that is to provide re-assurance and help, to a body that helped promote fear and did not provide any guidance in how to keep healthy. Instead, they did everything possible to make people as weak as possible- restrict exercise, increase anxiety, restrict social contacts.
-the use of mechanical ventilators. As a veterinary surgeon I know how difficult it is to make sure that the mechanical ventilation is used at the right pressures and how difficult it is to safely use prolonged ventilation. So I was not convinced by it's widespread use, especially in the face of damaged lung tissue. At the time I thought that my colleagues in the human field must clearly know better... however it soon came out that they had exactly those problems and caused tremendous harm.
As a non medical person I think I understand the ethical dilemmas involved here. It certainly looks as if healthcare workers were nudged into using medical interventions as a matter of course rather than by objective analysis. In their defence it seems scenarios were promulgated to achieve quick results approved by NICE directions. Perhaps only experienced end of life carers can appreciate the subtle difference between "offing" and palliative care? Those without a conception of the sacredness of "life" may not appreciate the difference?
Two fundamentals stand out to me. The decision not to use proven medication eg. Ivermectin, and the overuse of ventilators (known to be likely to cause death) to the exclusion of non invasive oxygen (as was the reported case with Boris Johnson).
When no one wanted us to listen to the Frontline doctors on the steps of the Capital and RIDICULED them made my entire senses see. When they gave people chickens to get vaccinated I thought you cannot be serious and lastly when I saw people in lines to purchase donuts with masks on, Meanwhile a man was yelling how he lost his job at these people in the donut line and how LUDICROUS it was made me see this was intentional mind games.
This is a brilliant synthesis, which I feel comes closer than anything else I've read to explain the events of Spring 2020. Give it 10 years and Panorama will be all over this as a breaking story.
I've been writing about the discombulating experience in my substack- the sudden shift in ethics and new focus on resource-based triage, all primed by projections of worst-case scenarios.
It isn't any secret that ethical boundaries were crossed - After all, the 'moral injury' of healthcare workers (the strong cognitive and emotional response that can occur following events that violate a person's moral or ethical code) is openly discussed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52144859), but often such accounts seem to deflect attention away from the more difficult subjects and focus instead on battlefield analogies.
And I was told he didn’t have covid but never directly told he had pneumonia really bad and compounded by the poison/vax he took that caused many blood clots, afib, myocarditis, and bleeding randomly. 🤬😔💔
I would add DNR's to the picture you portrayed. They murdered many elderly, disabled, cognitively challenged people this way. Many of these people had no advocates and/or were not allowed to have in-person advocates as third party witnesses were disallowed.
In the US on March 27, 2020 the mechanism for how DNR's would be executed was altered allowing for doctors to unilaterally make that decision. Similar DNR orders were utilized in other countries.
March 27, 2020 is the same day Public Law No: 116-136 the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act wnet into effect. That is not by accident.
One component in that act provided protection for doctors and nurses and hospital admin for the ensuing changes in protocols of which DNR decisions was one.
They sold it as such:
"The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is challenging health care systems worldwide and raising important ethical issues, especially regarding the potential need for rationing health care in the context of scarce resources and crisis capacity. Even if capacity to provide care is sufficient, one priority should be addressing goals of care in the setting of acute life-threatening illness, especially for patients with chronic, life-limiting disease."
"Provision of nonbeneficial or unwanted high-intensity care may put other patients, family members, and health care workers at higher risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Now is the time to implement advance care planning to ensure patients do not receive care they would not want if they become too severely ill to make their own decisions."
"In extreme situations in which CPR cannot possibly be effective, clinicians in some health care settings may unilaterally decide to write a DNR order. This latter approach is not uniformly accepted and, prior to COVID-19, it rarely had a role. During this pandemic, however, in extreme situations such as a patient with severe underlying chronic illness and acute cardiopulmonary failure who is getting worse despite maximal therapy, there may be a role for a unilateral DNR to reduce the risk of medically futile CPR to patients, families, and health care workers."
Great post, thanks! - points to systemic / bureaucratic fixation on not taking responsibility and "doing ones best" (my most hated phrase) - the totalitarian foundation to build the "pandemic" on, as noted by Arndt and Mattias Desmet.
Both bureaucracy and "doing one's best" are designed to protect the system and bureaucrats of responsibility, fuck everyone else. Anyone is a target to be thrown under the bus for purporting an unofficial narrative THEY have not birthed - yet that in itself is taking responsibility for the narrative. Blatant power abuse, used against individual acts and worst of all individual thinking. The most hated by those drawn to bureaucracy, clubs, organizations, institutes, and government.
Excellent article. I was not aware of the Hurricane Katrina / Memorial Hospital midazolam story. This add a very interesting additional triangulation point. As a Engineer and Lab Scientist, I highly value "outlier" data sets for their utility in often revealing candidate factors/variables that might be producing undesirable/unexpected outcomes, and it's great to see you putting this approach to good use in this article.
It is important to note that the enactment of prejudice against people with disabilities in Nazi Germany could not have succeeded without the complicity of the medical and adjunct professions. Power over life and death was placed firmly in the hands of physicians who became white-coated executioners, having long abandoned the "do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Currently, there is evidence of the medical community's again being willing agents in hastening the deaths of people deemed not viable, including people with disabilities, through familiar methods for ending the lives of terminally ill people, such as starvation and death by thirst. Furthermore, there is evidence that "do no harm" is now viewed as a somewhat quaint throwback to a distant, less sophisticated era. For example, many physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath before beginning their careers, and many standard hospital treatment protocols now stipulate that staff physicians may override next-of-kin requests for patient treatment if the physician decides that treatment will likely be ineffective (Smith, 2000). Once again, patients, including those with disabilities who are terminally ill, now bear the responsibility of justifying their existence and their need for treatment. This being the case, and with the clear understanding that not all physicians put the greater good ahead of their individual patients, there should at least be some debate about what this means for people with disabilities, many of whom rely extensively on the assumption that their physicians have their best individual treatment interests at heart and will treat them regardless of utilitarian arguments to the contrary."
Hippocratic Oath abandoned:
Culture of death : the assault on medical ethics in America
"Smith warns that future troubles could be tied to the fact that only 14% of doctors today report having taken the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” Smith even recounts episodes of doctors recommending that the old or sick be denied basic treatments which might potentially save life. This enlightening book unmasks unexpected occurrences in the present practice of medicine, and shines light into a future that many of us might not like."
Seems that the Grand Jury formed to investigate Memorial Hospital was just a trial run for all the other bogus Grand Juries we’ve seen convened over the last 3 years…just another way to hide the truth and protect the guilty!
As the Usual Suspects ensure we get new RSV “vaccines,” we shouldn’t forget the biggest Covid lie of all - the narrative that Covid was a top killer of children.
Modern 'Pharma-trained' Medical practitioners are strongly disposed to accept the 'contagion' view of infection, especially with what was promoted as a virulent deadly virus. So no surprise that fear for their own lives PLUS huge monetary incentives paid to medical specialists and hospital administrations for Covid classifications of illness conditions identified by flawed 'test' (PCR) led to excessive deaths in the first supposed wave of a forecast and grossly promoted pandemic narrative. ALL of us are and will continue to be called to account for our actions or inaction.
It is good to see HART doing a deeper dive coverage on the Midazolam murders (context, for anyone curious: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/the-death-penalty-drugs-used-by-care).
I am shocked to hear of the Memorial hospital case. I knew the Midazolam murders were implied as early as 2011 'by stealth' in Scottish care homes. Did not know it went back as far as 2005. The fact it even led to a potential conviction meant the evidence must have been overwhelming.
What truly shocks me is the public who... defended the doctors who terminated the patients?! And got rid of the DA who was aiming to prosecute the murderers? What the hell guys?
Now the public wonder why Midazolam murders have become mainstream - because they either do nothing in the face of such mass murder, or help the perpetrators to get away with it (no, making someone "resign" their job isn't a prosecution; there's always more work in other fields where they can commit further crimes; they need to be jailed).
I get HART are avoidant to use such strong language as Midazolam murders, but it is clear that is what these are. The evidence is overwhelming at this point. Pandemics do not kill in one giant, spiked lump and then suddenly nosedive.
If people continue to tolerate this, more and more illnesses will be "solved" by offing the patient. Killing the patient is *always* cheaper than saving their lives; normalising the murder disincentivises treatment and the search for treatments.
I wonder how many other patients where my husband died from the ventilator misuse, the fentanyl and other pain and sedatives, and I think they did use Midazolam on him but I’m not sure. This isn’t just theoretical or happened to other ppl but the pain hits there.
In the UK two factors struck me early on in 2020:
- the role of Public Health changed from a body that is to provide re-assurance and help, to a body that helped promote fear and did not provide any guidance in how to keep healthy. Instead, they did everything possible to make people as weak as possible- restrict exercise, increase anxiety, restrict social contacts.
-the use of mechanical ventilators. As a veterinary surgeon I know how difficult it is to make sure that the mechanical ventilation is used at the right pressures and how difficult it is to safely use prolonged ventilation. So I was not convinced by it's widespread use, especially in the face of damaged lung tissue. At the time I thought that my colleagues in the human field must clearly know better... however it soon came out that they had exactly those problems and caused tremendous harm.
As a non medical person I think I understand the ethical dilemmas involved here. It certainly looks as if healthcare workers were nudged into using medical interventions as a matter of course rather than by objective analysis. In their defence it seems scenarios were promulgated to achieve quick results approved by NICE directions. Perhaps only experienced end of life carers can appreciate the subtle difference between "offing" and palliative care? Those without a conception of the sacredness of "life" may not appreciate the difference?
Two fundamentals stand out to me. The decision not to use proven medication eg. Ivermectin, and the overuse of ventilators (known to be likely to cause death) to the exclusion of non invasive oxygen (as was the reported case with Boris Johnson).
When no one wanted us to listen to the Frontline doctors on the steps of the Capital and RIDICULED them made my entire senses see. When they gave people chickens to get vaccinated I thought you cannot be serious and lastly when I saw people in lines to purchase donuts with masks on, Meanwhile a man was yelling how he lost his job at these people in the donut line and how LUDICROUS it was made me see this was intentional mind games.
This is a brilliant synthesis, which I feel comes closer than anything else I've read to explain the events of Spring 2020. Give it 10 years and Panorama will be all over this as a breaking story.
I've been writing about the discombulating experience in my substack- the sudden shift in ethics and new focus on resource-based triage, all primed by projections of worst-case scenarios.
https://thegreatcrapestryofcovid.substack.com/p/4-worst-case-scenarios?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
It isn't any secret that ethical boundaries were crossed - After all, the 'moral injury' of healthcare workers (the strong cognitive and emotional response that can occur following events that violate a person's moral or ethical code) is openly discussed (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52144859), but often such accounts seem to deflect attention away from the more difficult subjects and focus instead on battlefield analogies.
And I was told he didn’t have covid but never directly told he had pneumonia really bad and compounded by the poison/vax he took that caused many blood clots, afib, myocarditis, and bleeding randomly. 🤬😔💔
Good piece.
I would add DNR's to the picture you portrayed. They murdered many elderly, disabled, cognitively challenged people this way. Many of these people had no advocates and/or were not allowed to have in-person advocates as third party witnesses were disallowed.
In the US on March 27, 2020 the mechanism for how DNR's would be executed was altered allowing for doctors to unilaterally make that decision. Similar DNR orders were utilized in other countries.
March 27, 2020 is the same day Public Law No: 116-136 the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act wnet into effect. That is not by accident.
One component in that act provided protection for doctors and nurses and hospital admin for the ensuing changes in protocols of which DNR decisions was one.
They sold it as such:
"The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is challenging health care systems worldwide and raising important ethical issues, especially regarding the potential need for rationing health care in the context of scarce resources and crisis capacity. Even if capacity to provide care is sufficient, one priority should be addressing goals of care in the setting of acute life-threatening illness, especially for patients with chronic, life-limiting disease."
"Provision of nonbeneficial or unwanted high-intensity care may put other patients, family members, and health care workers at higher risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Now is the time to implement advance care planning to ensure patients do not receive care they would not want if they become too severely ill to make their own decisions."
"In extreme situations in which CPR cannot possibly be effective, clinicians in some health care settings may unilaterally decide to write a DNR order. This latter approach is not uniformly accepted and, prior to COVID-19, it rarely had a role. During this pandemic, however, in extreme situations such as a patient with severe underlying chronic illness and acute cardiopulmonary failure who is getting worse despite maximal therapy, there may be a role for a unilateral DNR to reduce the risk of medically futile CPR to patients, families, and health care workers."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763952
Great post, thanks! - points to systemic / bureaucratic fixation on not taking responsibility and "doing ones best" (my most hated phrase) - the totalitarian foundation to build the "pandemic" on, as noted by Arndt and Mattias Desmet.
Both bureaucracy and "doing one's best" are designed to protect the system and bureaucrats of responsibility, fuck everyone else. Anyone is a target to be thrown under the bus for purporting an unofficial narrative THEY have not birthed - yet that in itself is taking responsibility for the narrative. Blatant power abuse, used against individual acts and worst of all individual thinking. The most hated by those drawn to bureaucracy, clubs, organizations, institutes, and government.
Another nice data point that I noticed when it was published. They literally talked people out of life-saving care at Columbia-Presbyterian in NYC. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2767018
Excellent article. I was not aware of the Hurricane Katrina / Memorial Hospital midazolam story. This add a very interesting additional triangulation point. As a Engineer and Lab Scientist, I highly value "outlier" data sets for their utility in often revealing candidate factors/variables that might be producing undesirable/unexpected outcomes, and it's great to see you putting this approach to good use in this article.
Past, present and future, "a future that many of us might not like."
Useless Eaters: Disability as Genocidal Marker in Nazi Germany
Catholic Culture, 2002
(From The Journal of Special Education, pages 155 - 168)
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7019
"Complicity of the Medical Professions
It is important to note that the enactment of prejudice against people with disabilities in Nazi Germany could not have succeeded without the complicity of the medical and adjunct professions. Power over life and death was placed firmly in the hands of physicians who became white-coated executioners, having long abandoned the "do no harm" clause of the Hippocratic Oath. Currently, there is evidence of the medical community's again being willing agents in hastening the deaths of people deemed not viable, including people with disabilities, through familiar methods for ending the lives of terminally ill people, such as starvation and death by thirst. Furthermore, there is evidence that "do no harm" is now viewed as a somewhat quaint throwback to a distant, less sophisticated era. For example, many physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath before beginning their careers, and many standard hospital treatment protocols now stipulate that staff physicians may override next-of-kin requests for patient treatment if the physician decides that treatment will likely be ineffective (Smith, 2000). Once again, patients, including those with disabilities who are terminally ill, now bear the responsibility of justifying their existence and their need for treatment. This being the case, and with the clear understanding that not all physicians put the greater good ahead of their individual patients, there should at least be some debate about what this means for people with disabilities, many of whom rely extensively on the assumption that their physicians have their best individual treatment interests at heart and will treat them regardless of utilitarian arguments to the contrary."
Hippocratic Oath abandoned:
Culture of death : the assault on medical ethics in America
Wesley A Smith, 2000
https://archive.org/details/cultureofdeath00wesl
Smith's Follow up book:
Culture of Death, The Age of "Do Harm" Medicine
Discovery Institute, 2016
https://www.discovery.org/b/culture-of-death/
"Smith warns that future troubles could be tied to the fact that only 14% of doctors today report having taken the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm.” Smith even recounts episodes of doctors recommending that the old or sick be denied basic treatments which might potentially save life. This enlightening book unmasks unexpected occurrences in the present practice of medicine, and shines light into a future that many of us might not like."
Seems that the Grand Jury formed to investigate Memorial Hospital was just a trial run for all the other bogus Grand Juries we’ve seen convened over the last 3 years…just another way to hide the truth and protect the guilty!
As the Usual Suspects ensure we get new RSV “vaccines,” we shouldn’t forget the biggest Covid lie of all - the narrative that Covid was a top killer of children.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-greatest-covid-lie?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Thank you for this excellent piece! I reported the same a few months ago based on other available data. Do check it out: https://theviraldelusion.substack.com/p/the-great-lie-and-the-data-that-shows
Modern 'Pharma-trained' Medical practitioners are strongly disposed to accept the 'contagion' view of infection, especially with what was promoted as a virulent deadly virus. So no surprise that fear for their own lives PLUS huge monetary incentives paid to medical specialists and hospital administrations for Covid classifications of illness conditions identified by flawed 'test' (PCR) led to excessive deaths in the first supposed wave of a forecast and grossly promoted pandemic narrative. ALL of us are and will continue to be called to account for our actions or inaction.