From the Brownstone Institute

By BRUCE W. DAVIDSON

Even those who already know a lot about the recent man-made medical disaster may be shocked by the raw, firsthand accounts in this book of the horrors perpetrated at many American, British, and Canadian hospitals. Many do not yet fully realize that great numbers of putative “Covid deaths” were actually the result of deliberate hospital medical malfeasance.

What follows is a review of What the Nurses Saw: An Investigation Into Systemic Medical Murders That Took Place in Hospitals During the COVID Panic and the Nurses Who Fought Back to Save Their Patients by Ken McCarthy.

McCarthy interviews nurses, a respiratory therapist, and a public medical expenses analyst to reveal the terrible practices of many hospitals dealing with the Covid situation. His previous work includes the documentary HIV=AIDS-Fauci’s First Fraud, which explores an older debacle mirroring recent events – from the unreliable tests for HIV to the deadly, ineffective (but profitable) medical interventions undertaken to combat an overblown disease threat.

The book really helps the reader appreciate the heroic, vital role that nurses often play in hospital care. They have been indispensable advocates for their patients since the days of Florence Nightingale, whose quotes begin most chapters in the book. As one interviewed nurse puts it, “We troubleshoot to prevent errors…the value of a nurse is, her ability to critically think through these dangerous situations instead of just following orders blindly.”

However, during Covid, responsible nurses were unable to perform their advocate role in many hospitals. Under the cover of a medical emergency, many hospitals devolved into rigidly hierarchical, protocol-driven, inflexible, brutal institutions paying more attention to orders from above than to the well-being of their patients.

Nurses and others who opposed or questioned dangerous, irresponsible practices were ruthlessly punished and often fired. In other cases, nurses voluntarily had to quit their jobs because they were unable to continue witnessing the murder and abuse of patients.

In McCarthy’s words, “You couldn’t have created a better system if your goal was to use the doctors and nurses in hospitals to kill as many people as possible.” Nurse Kimberley Overton also remarks, “It was the complete and total medical mismanagement of Covid that was killing all of our patients.”

The nurses recount a multitude of examples of this “medical mismanagement.” They include the widespread use of the deadly, ineffective antiviral drug Remdesivir, the rejection of steroids and other standard anti-inflammatory drugs, and the common misuse of ventilators by unqualified staff. Such practices led to many unnecessary deaths, often later attributed incorrectly to Covid.

On top of that, many hospitals administered excessive amounts of potentially lethal sedatives such as midazolam, fentanyl, and morphine in order to induce passivity in resistant or anxious patients. However, these sedatives often had the effect of exacerbating their breathing problems, at times fatally.

Overton recounts one instance in which a patient received three different such medications in the space of twenty-nine minutes. At the same time, many patients were not administered medicines to prevent blood clotting, an obvious danger for bedridden, immobile patients.

The motive for these institutionalized crimes was money, plain and simple. Large amounts of money can be a very corrupting influence, as we can observe in various realms, including academia, which often receives huge amounts of money from foreign governments such as China.

Staggering sums went into the coffers of hospitals that adhered to the strict treatment protocols for presumed Covid patients. These massive funds came from a variety of government programs and agencies. For example, in the US in 2020, the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) showered healthcare providers with $178 billion.

In his interview, A. J. DePriest reports, “HCA, one of the largest for-profit hospital systems in America, received about a billion dollars in CARES Act relief funds. Tennessee’s billionaire Frist family, which owns HCA, doubled their wealth between March 2020 and 2021, from $7.5 billion to $15.6 billion.”

To guarantee receipt of such funds, hospital administrators, acting in sync with federal bureaucrats, followed the written rules rigidly and rejected any contrary feedback. The only criterion was whether or not something was in the protocols. The interviewed nurses constantly heard doctors and others parrot this justification.

With the application of each approved medical intervention for a patient, hospitals received a separate large bonus payment from government programs. In particular, ventilators and Remdesivir, both highly dangerous interventions, procured large amounts of money for hospitals using them.

Aiding the profiteering hospitals, the UN, the mainstream news media, and much of the Internet helped to maintain this inflexible, destructive system by vilifying and persecuting nurses fighting for the lives and rights of patients. Nurse Nicole Sirotek explains how the UN and the WEF created Team Halo to mobilize mobs on social media like Facebook and TikTok (UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communication Melissa Fleming has admitted working with Halo). Activists recruited and directed by Halo proceeded to attack dissident nurses and doctors on social media and besiege state nursing boards, which led to nurses having their licenses suspended.

The harassment did not stop at such things. Sirotek recounts that “people broke into my house, vandalized my car, and threatened to rape and murder my children. They poisoned my dog.”

Nevertheless, those interviewed by McCarthy did not respond as their attackers expected – by backing down. Despite their hardships, a number went on to form organizations like Frontline Nurses and create services to rescue many abused patients and their families from the hospital holocaust. In doing so, they demonstrated that they are the true heirs of Florence Nightingale.

The Kindle ebook version on Amazon is currently only $0.62 US dollars and 99 yen in Japan, certainly a bargain at that price.

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Britain has a Labour government with a historic majority of over 150 seats, following exit poll projections of the U.K. general election. Thursday’s July 4 vote saw the second lowest voter turnout since 1885, with only an estimated 60 percent of registered voters taking part.

Former lawyer Sir Keir Starmer is set to become prime minister when announced by King Charles today, having purged his party of left-wingers in a successful move to mimic the electoral success of Tony Blair.

4 seats for 4 million votes

Current projections say the Labour Party won 9.6 million votes and an estimated 412 seats, with the Conservative Party second with 6.6 million votes and 120 parliamentary seats. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK took over 4 million votes, making his insurgent populist party the third force in U.K. politics by the popular vote.

Due to the workings of the British electoral system, however, Reform gained only four seats at the time of writing. This result still sees Nigel Farage finally enter Parliament as the MP for Clacton, having failed to win in previous elections.

Hopes for “zero seats” for a Conservative Party widely acknowledged to have conserved nothing were dashed, yet the Labour landslide – the greatest since 1945 – sees the Tories lose over 250 seats in what could be their worst result since their party was founded in 1830.

Winner takes all

Many constituencies saw Reform overtake the Tory vote. Conservative voters who turned to Reform have cost the Tories an estimated 124 seats in splitting the vote. This follows changes to election boundaries made last year.

The U.K.’s constituency boundaries were changed in 2023 to reflect population growth within them, and to arguably “equalize” the numbers of people voting per MP. The causes and demography of this population growth were not explained in reports, nor did any address the obvious mismatch between Welsh, Scottish, and English constituencies.

While the extreme left-wing Scottish National Party lost 37 seats, the eight it held onto were returned by only 666,000 votes. In Wales, the equally progressive Plaid Cymru won four seats with only 194,000 votes cast for the Welsh “nationalist” party.

As a result of this system, the liberal-globalist Labour Party will enjoy a record majority on a vote share lower than their right-liberal “conservative” and right-populist opponents.

Lower vote share, record low turnout?

The former leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn won his seat as an Independent in Islington. In the last election he contested as leader, he won 40 percent of the vote – but narrowly lost to Conservative leader Theresa May in 2017.

The current Labour vote share is expected to be lower than that won by Corbyn, at around 36 percent of votes cast. Yet the overall number of votes is, according to one expert, expected to be one of the lowest in decades.

As the Hindustan Times reported, “Prof. Sir John Curtice, the psephologist who led the team that produced the exit poll, indicated that early results align with expectations of a low voter turnout.”

Speaking to the BBC, Curtice explained: “We may discover we are heading towards one of the lower turnouts of general elections in postwar electoral history.”

Curtice warned that the low turnout he expected was due to voter indifference – to what George Galloway has called the “uniparty” politics of the U.K.

“The Left are globalists now” said Galloway in a March 22 podcast, in which he called for an exit from NATO and condemned the U.K.’s involvement in the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza.

Curtice appeared to agree with the sentiment about establishment politics, concluding there was “not that much difference between Conservative and Labour in much of what they were offering the electorate.”

In recent days, former U.K. Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary David Cameron admitted on camera that the British policy on the Ukraine war was “fixed,” and that no change would come with a Labour victory. The power to change foreign policy is clearly outside that offered to the British by liberal democracy.

Whilst Galloway himself certainly offered a different choice, he lost his Rochdale seat to the Labour candidate. Parliament will be far less interesting due to his absence.

Notable losses

Parliament has lost its champion of the vaccine injured, however, as Andrew Bridgen lost his seat in a four-way race won by Labour. Other absences include former ministers and high profile Tory MPs.

Former Prime Minister Liz Truss lost her seat, as did Zionist Defence Minister and former B’nai B’rith youth leader Grant Shapps. Well known Catholic Jacob Rees-Mogg was defeated in Somerset. Many high profile Tories are now out of Parliament, with the former Northern Ireland Minister Steve Baker saying “Thank God I’m a free man” on losing his seat in Wycombe.

What the future holds

Labour under Starmer has promised a “mission-driven” government. This mission appears to be strongly globalist in flavor.

Starmer has removed candidates from his party who held strong left-wing and Israel-critical positions. He is widely believed to have moved the party to the “center” to secure a mandate to govern.

The program he has in store does not resemble an abrupt transition to socialism. There is talk of taxing non-state schools, and rumors Starmer will increase income and inheritance tax – to redistribute the wealth of the British to a voter base expanded by over 11 million immigrants since 2011.

A further 6 million are expected in the next 10 years.

The Labour Party under Starmer has a plan to “Change Britain.” This plan is expected to go beyond its 10 headline promises to transfer state power to globalist-aligned NGO-like structures and other bodies independent of Parliament, providing for a permanent continuity of policy. Labour under Starmer has been as fastidious in “purging” anyone who stands for its founding principles, as has the defeated Conservative Party.

The uncertain future of liberal globalism

What is notable about this landslide is that it comes as a result of voter disaffection, with a lower turnout overall, and mounting exasperation with the political settlement of “uniparty” politics.

As Europe – and especially France – risks political instability in its attempts to lock populists out of power, the future for Britain looks less like socialism and more like the last hurrah of business as usual.

Populists are now in Parliament, albeit in a capacity which fails to reflect their level of support across the country. It is their voice which will provide a meaningful opposition to the liberal-globalist agenda, whose power internationally is in terminal decline.

The same can be said of the Labour Party, whose power is purchased in a context of exasperation with establishment politics. This victory is the verdict of a broken system. How long it can prevail against the tide of the times is the question.