Connect with us

COVID-19

Heroic Nurses in Horrible Hospitals

Published

6 months ago

8 minute read

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.

Author

Bruce W. Davidson

Bruce Davidson is professor of humanities at Hokusei Gakuen University in Sapporo, Japan.

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
Daily Caller / 9 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 9 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 10 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X