A NHS whistleblower has come out and claimed that NHS hospitals were not swamped during the Covid-19 epidemic, as claimed by authorities and the mainstream media.
The whistleblower also confirmed that the lack of care provided throughout the pandemic amounted to negligence and that the government and NHS bosses essentially instructed staff to let people die, or in some cases kill them, through the ‘End of Life Care’ program while falsely labeling the deaths as Covid-19-related.
This individual referred to as Dr. John, has worked in minor injuries and illness centres as well as in a primary care role throughout the pandemic.
Dr. John claims that he has “seen this mess evolve from the very beginning of the pandemic” and that hospitals were actually extremely quiet and almost empty during the first lockdown.
“I used to see an average of 20 patients per day, that dropped to 1 – 2 patients during the first lockdown. I have even witnessed an elderly lady with horrific broken bones come into the hospital three weeks after her accident as she was too scared of catching coronavirus to visit the hospital sooner. In the end, the pain overcame the fear.
“I have also assessed people with chest pains in their homes who would not go for further assessment as they were so scared of ‘the virus’ they would rather chance a heart attack than the infection or the loneliness of going to the hospital alone.”
NHS statistics certainly back up Dr John’s claims.
We examined the data for A&E attendance in the months of April (Lockdown 1) and November (Lockdown 2) for 2020 and compared this with April and November in 2018 and 2019 which showed A&E attendance during the first lockdown was 57% down on the previous year, and A&E attendance during lockdown 2 was 31% down on the previous year.
2018 – April – 1,984,369 attended A&E / November – 2,036,847 attended A&E
2019 – April – 2,112,165 attended A&E / November – 2,143,505 attended A&E
2020 – April – 916,581 attended A&E / November – 1,485,132 attended A&E
This significant drop in attendance suggests that people were too scared to visit the hospital due to the fear propaganda perpetuated in the mainstream media.
Furthermore, Dr. John also describes how changes in care policies have led to patients not receiving proper follow-up care, resulting in negative outcomes for patients and their families.
He states that usual follow-up visits were not done and parents were removing casts from their children’s broken limbs, “I dread to think the state of some of their limbs,”.
He also mentioned that a change in care policies led to one 80+–year-old woman being permanently disabled.
He describes visiting an elderly patient who had only had a single face-to-face physio follow-up and a single follow-up via phone call following a hip operation. He found her in a bedridden state, unable to transfer to a commode, her dignity taken away.
“I recall visiting one patient a female in her 80’s. She’d only had a single face-to-face physio follow-up and a single follow-up via phone call following a hip operation. I found her laid in her mess on incontinence pads, her dignity taken because she was bed bound with a fixed rotated leg, unable to transfer to a commode. Her family were extremely upset”.
The demise of the NHS didn’t just affect Dr John’s patients though, it also affected him personally as he lost a family member to cancer during the alleged pandemic due to not being given the required care.
“He was given 7 years to live with his illness, he lasted just 1 year in the new NHS system.
“I’ve also witnessed the desperation of families witnessing their own relatives dying sooner than they should have due to the lack of professional care that should have been provided. It has been a very sad year in which I have witnessed the demise of the health service.
“I have also seen stroke patients sent home without being given any follow-up care. I also know of a triage policy in which staff were forced to send potentially seriously ill people home on the premise of giving them a call if their condition worsened”.
This testimony from an NHS staff member suggests that the public was being lied to regarding the official narrative of the NHS being overwhelmed during the pandemic.
It highlights the negative impact of misinformation and fear propaganda on the public’s perception of the situation, leading to people avoiding seeking medical treatment for fear of contracting the virus.
Additionally, it also highlights the negative impact of changes in care policies, leading to patients not receiving proper follow-up care and negative outcomes for patients and their families.
A fact that is also backed up by a document nicknamed ‘The Death Document’ that was published by NICE, an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care.
As well as a mountain of evidence that the UK Government authorised the essential “mass murder” of the elderly and vulnerable by Midazolam injection and then told the public Covid-19 was to blame.
Between 2 March and 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died with COVID-19, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over, representing almost 40% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in England during this period.
This is a significant number considering that during the same period, 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England, representing a 46% increase compared with the same period in previous years.
A number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in the UK violated care home residents’ rights to life, to health, and to non-discrimination.
Suspension of regular oversight procedures for care homes by the statutory regulating body, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
These actions by authorities contributed to the high number of deaths among care home residents during the pandemic.
It is also stated that serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency.
Therefore, typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. It is also noted that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.
Midazolam injection may cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death. You should only receive this medication in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops. Your doctor or nurse will watch you closely after you receive this medication to make sure that you are breathing properly.
The warning states that this medication should only be given in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the necessary equipment to monitor the patient’s heart and lungs and provide life-saving treatment if needed.
The question is therefore raised as to why the “Death Document” published in April 2020 instructs doctors to treat Covid-19 patients suffering a disease hat allegedly affects the respiratory system with Midazolam, a drug that affects the respiratory system.
Anoher question is raised as to why during the same month out-of-hospital prescribing for Midazolam was twice the amount seen in 2019.
This raises concerns about the appropriateness of the treatment being given to Covid-19 patients in care homes during the pandemic.
The CQC, a statutory body commissioned by the Department for Health and Social Care, conducted a special review of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation found evidence of unacceptable and inappropriate DNACPR’s being made throughout the pandemic and states that it is possible that cases of inappropriate DNACPR’s remain in place.
The CQC’s investigation also found that throughout the “pandemic” this guidance was not being followed as they had received deeply troubling evidence from numerous sources that during the COVID19 pandemic DNACPR notices have been applied in a blanket fashion to some categories of person by some care providers, without any involvement of the individuals or their families.
Almost 10% of people using services or families who responded to their call for evidence told the British Institute of Human Rights that they had experienced pressure or use of DNACPR orders.
Thirty-four per cent of people working in health and/or social care said they were under pressure to put DNACPR’s in place without involving the person.
In addition, 71% of advocacy organizations and campaigners said they experienced DNACPR orders put in place or pressure to make them without being involved in the decision.
It’s also noted that these DNACPR orders were wrongly used as an excuse to begin end-of-life care.
The Death Document
NICE claims to be an independent organisation but in truth it seems to be anything but once you look into its structure. On this page HERE you will see the quote “Our Structure – The structure of the organisation and how we work with the government”. Following the link to the “Our Structure” page HERE, and then clicking “Find out more about how we develop guidelines” takes you to a page HEREfrom which is it clearly stated that “Topics are referred to NICE from the following organisations”:
Healthcare topics: NHS England
Public health topics: Department of Health and Social Care
Social care topics: Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education.
A copy of the NICE framework is HERE which you can go through at your leisure. As you will see at Clause 4.1 “The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the health system (its “steward”), including NICE”.
All the above information points to NICE not being independent at all. It is clearly part of the UK government, (NICE is funded by and accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care) and operates as an agency of the NHS. Further, and worryingly, given that it does not appear to be an independent organisation, the reach of NICE is extremely wide ranging given their guidance is implemented not only in hospitals, but in GP practices, and care homes and community organisations, along with others, and extends internationally.
It is with all the above in mind, that we must ask the question “Are the UK government, via the Department of Health and Social Care, responsible in any way for NICE guideline NG163 which led to the unnecessary killing of the UK’s elderly and most vulnerable by recommending the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the “treatment” of Covid 19?”
This document is tricky to find. If you search for it on the NICE website, you will reach a page that states that this guidance has been updated by NG191, which supersedes it. There is no library copy of NG163 for you to look at.
Clare Wills Harrison, a lawyer who has been exposing the Midazolam scandal since 2020, found NG163 some time ago along with multiple other documents which have since come to light and are relevant to the Midazolam issue. It is fair to say that NG163 has directly led to the incorrect use of a protocol which Clare and her team call “the death pathway”, and they have come to the conclusion that where the word “pathway” appears in any medical recommendations, this is normally a cause for concern.
When you read NG163, note the date – 3rd April 2020. This was less than 2 weeks after the UK entered lock down. Even if we concede that NICE, via the government, were working on treatment guidelines from January 2020, when early reports of Covid 19 were circulating around the world, that would have given NICE only 3 months to formulate the guidance in NG163. It is inconceivable that NICE could have the evidence and effectiveness information about the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the treatment of breathlessness and anxiety in Covid 19, within this time frame.
NG163 clearly states, Midazolam did not have a UK marketing licence to be used for breathlessness or agitation at the date of its publication. If prescribed for the same, it would therefore be regarded as being used off label. A PowerPoint presentation created by Clare Wills Harrison (see here) explains the extra requirements placed on anyone prescribing a medicine off label. You should also consider the consistent refusal by the UK health agencies to allow prescribing off label for other cheap anti-viral drugs to treat Covid.
The GMC regulates doctors in the United Kingdom. They set standards, hold a register, quality assure education and investigate complaints.
On 14th April the GMC put out a “Joint statement: Community-based prescribing for COVID-19 symptoms” which you can find HERE.
The joint statement irrefutably supports the NICE guidance in NG163 –
It’s quite clear, from the evidence provided by whistleblowing NHS staff, investigative lawyers, and official Government reports is that you gave up over two years of your life due to a lie.
A lie that involved prematurely ending the lives of thousands upon thousands of people, who you were told died of Covid-19.
A lie that has involved committing one of the greatest crimes against humanity in living memory.
A lie that has required three things – fear, your compliance, and a drug known as Midazolam.
A newly released report alleges that the Biden administration withheld information that pointed to a lab leak in China as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic from U.S. intelligence agencies, while working with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices challenging the official narrative. According to the Wall Street Journal, the report claims that the suppression of alternative viewpoints was part of a broader effort to control the narrative surrounding the origins of the virus, particularly the zoonotic theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.
The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has become a focal point for concerns over censorship and government influence. While some agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported the zoonotic theory, the FBI stood apart, asserting with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak was the most plausible origin. However, despite this assessment, the FBI was excluded from an intelligence briefing for President Biden in August 2021, leading to concerns from officials within the agency about the omission of their perspective.
The Wall Street Journal’s report highlights the role of social media platforms in silencing opposing views. Public health officials and government agencies allegedly collaborated with platforms like Facebook to remove or flag content that questioned the zoonotic-origin theory. Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the White House had pressured Facebook to censor narratives contrary to the official stance.
The report also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Adrienne Keen, a former State Department official, was involved in advocating for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) zoonotic findings despite criticism of the WHO’s reliance on data from China. This involvement has led to questions about her impartiality, with some critics suggesting that her work may have discredited the lab leak hypothesis to protect Chinese interests.
Domestic efforts to suppress the lab leak theory were also widespread. Public health officials dismissed the theory as a baseless conspiracy, and social media platforms removed content that raised doubts about the official narrative. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which could have played a role in the virus’s development, but questions about the research were often dismissed as unscientific or even racist.
Internally, the suppression of information extended to government agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reportedly concluded that the virus was genetically engineered in a Chinese lab, but up to 90% of their findings were excluded from official reports. The DIA’s Inspector General has launched an investigation into the suppression of these critical contributions.
As more evidence supporting the lab leak theory has emerged, support for this explanation has grown. In 2023, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely origin of the virus. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has also supported this view, citing the intelligence community’s access to the most information on the matter.
The growing consensus around the lab leak theory raises questions about why it was suppressed for so long. Critics argue that the censorship and control of narratives not only delayed crucial inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 but also undermined public trust in the institutions tasked with managing the pandemic.
This case highlights broader concerns about government-directed censorship and its impact on free speech. The suppression of alternative viewpoints, especially when it comes to critical issues like the origins of a global pandemic, has far-reaching implications for public discourse and democratic principles.
Elon Musk threatened legal action on Thursday against an alliance of major companies, accusing them of participating in an “advertising boycott racket” that has exacerbated a revenue decline at his social media platform, X.
Musk, who acquired the company formerly known as Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, made the announcement in response to a video of Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro’s Congressional testimony. Shapiro’s testimony addressed alleged collusion by advertisers against right-leaning platforms.
“Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, X has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” Musk wrote on X. “Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.”
Elon Musk’s threat follows Shapiro’s testimony before a House Judiciary panel during a hearing entitled “Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).” GARM, an initiative by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), aims to tackle harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization through advertising. WFA’s members, including Disney, Coca-Cola, Toyota, and Hershey, represent nearly 90% of global advertising spending, amounting to almost $1 trillion annually.
During the hearing, Shapiro and lawmakers focused on the conduct of GARM chief Robert Rakowitz. An interim House staff report highlighted Rakowitz’s questionable behavior, including an internal email from February 9, 2023, where Rakowitz appeared to boast about X being “80% below revenue forecasts” after GARM’s challenges on brand safety issues. Rakowitz claimed the email was a “self-effacing joke.”
The House report also unveiled biases against conservative media. An email exchange from October 2021 between Rakowitz and John Montgomery, EVP of global brand safety at GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency, discussed blocking certain news outlets like Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart News. Montgomery admitted, “As much as we hated their ideology and bulls—t, we couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion,” but noted that they monitored these outlets closely and acted when they “crossed the line.”
In light of these revelations, Musk has urged for both civil and criminal repercussions. “Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution,” Musk stated, highlighting the severity of the alleged collusion.
Representatives for GARM, GroupM, and X did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Musk’s post. Shapiro, in his opening statement shared by Musk, called on Congress to address what he termed as “censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies” that oppose conservative views. The subcommittee is currently evaluating whether existing civil and criminal penalties, along with antitrust law enforcement efforts, are adequate to deter anti-competitive collusion in online advertising.
This development underscores the growing tension between major tech platforms, advertisers, and political entities over content moderation and free speech. Musk’s aggressive stance signals a potential legal battle that could have significant implications for the future of digital advertising and media bias.
As the situation evolves, the spotlight remains on whether the legal threats will materialize and how they might influence the practices of global advertisers and media platforms.
A journalist from the Tennessee Star is being summoned to appear in court and faces jail time for publishing journal writings of transgender shooter Audrey Hale, sparking freedom of the press concerns.
The article revealed that Hale, who shot and killed six people at the Covenant Elementary School in March 2023, wrote about her ‘imaginary penis’ and how she would ‘kill’ to get puberty blockers weeks before her horrific act.
For more than a year, Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles has been presiding over a public records case wherein the plaintiffs are suing to get the right to release documents related to the shooting. Families of the victims are on the exact opposite side, trying to bury the documents and keep them out of the public eye.
But since the case is ongoing, Myles is claiming that the Tennessee Star may have published ‘certain purported documents and information’ that should have remained under seal.
At Myle’s request, Tennessee Star editor-in-chief Michael Patrick Leahy will appear in court Monday to explain why his news outlet didn’t violate the court order.
Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO of Star News Digital Media and editor-in-chief of the Tennessee Star Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles, who’s been presiding over the public records fight over Audrey Hale’s manifesto Michael Patrick Leahy, left, is the CEO of Star News Digital Media and editor-in-chief of the Tennessee Star. Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles has ordered Leahy to appear in court because of the Star’s reporting on Audrey Hale’s journal writings.
Leahy, who also serves as CEO of Star News Digital Media, publisher of the Tennessee Star, claims his outlet has done nothing wrong throughout the course of its reporting.
The Star has claimed a June 5 story didn’t actually publish any of the leaked images of her journal entries but just snippets from it, reported the Associated Press.
‘This could raise First Amendment issues,’ said Deborah Fisher, Tennessee Coalition for Open Government’s executive director.
Jeff Clark, a former US attorney, also sided with Leahy, saying he was just doing a journalist’s job and getting crucial information about the shooting.
Leahy ‘is in jeopardy in Tennessee state court for trying to get out the Covenant Killer Audrey Hale’s “manifesto.” And presumably other info about her,’ Clark wrote on X.
‘The American people deserve to know the details of how Hale was radicalized by the trans agenda. And the victims’ family especially deserve to learn that information.’
Hale, 28, was a transgender artist, who identified as a male named Aiden, shot her way into the Tennessee elementary school in March 2023, killing three adults and three nine-year-olds, before responding officers killed her.
Officers found her writings in the car she drove to the elementary school, and the Star reported on ‘nearly four dozen images of notebook pages written by Hale’ provided by a source familiar with the investigation.
Hale wrote about anger toward her parents, how she hated her conservative Christian upbringing, and how she had suffered because hormone blockers were not available when she was a child.
One of her entries was ‘My Imaginary Penis’ and included a crude drawing, according to the Tennessee Star.
‘My penis exists in my head. I swear to god I’m a male,’ Hale wrote in the papers.
She then wrote about her desire to have a penis so she could have sex with a woman, in her assumed identity as Aiden.
She wrote about how using that name on a job application for a delivery position led to issues with the company’s background check.
Hale also said that being raised as a girl was ‘torture.’
She worried that high school classmates would call her ‘dyke or a f*‘, she wrote.
That all changed when she learned about transgenderism in her early 20s.
‘I finally found the answer — that changing one’s gender is possible,’ wrote Hale.
After the Star’s reporting throughout June, the Nashville’s Metropolitan Police said in a statement that ‘it is concerned about the alleged leak, and we, like others, would like to know from where it came.’
Immediately following the shooting, Nashville’s police chief John Drake said Hale’s manifesto as well as the hand-drawn maps found in her car would eventually be made public.
Now, despite the leaks, both city police and the FBI say the material shouldn’t be released because the information could damage any potential investigation.
In a statement to The Center Square, Leahy said he plans to defend his and his outlet’s rights to publish relevant information about the shooting.
‘Yes, I intend to appear in court on Monday at 11 am, along with my attorneys, Nick Barry with America First Legal and Daniel Horwitz, a nationally recognized First Amendment attorney based here in Nashville,’ Leahy told The Center Square Sunday.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login