Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Nurse testimonials reveal ‘perfect storm’ of hospital COVID protocols leading to patient death

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Hospitals were given money bonuses to enact dangerous protocols on COVID patients, according to whistleblower nurses who were themselves punished for speaking out.

Nurse testimonials reveal that hospitals not only used a deadly cocktail of protocols facilitating the death of patients during the COVID outbreak but punished whistleblowers, an author and researcher recently explained.

COVID policymakers “created one of the biggest terror campaigns in the history of mankind,” Ken McCarthy told Polly Tommey of Children’s Health Defense last month while sharing the most shocking findings of his tell-all interviews with nurses who worked the COVID pandemic.

McCarthy told how when he began to speak with nurses about their experiences, he realized that COVID-era hospital abuses he knew were taking place in New York City were in fact taking place nationwide due to “top down driven” protocols from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

These protocols, McCarthy said, were being “filtered through” chief financial officers (CFOs) of hospitals, because they were being “heavily” financially incentivized. And they were, according to all that he had learned from the nurses, dangerous and even deadly to those were designated COVID patients.

McCarthy went down the line naming several incentivized hospital COVID protocols that inflicted harm on these patients, beginning with the denial of anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen, as well as inhalable steroids.

“That’s the normal way you treat respiratory distress. You knock the inflammation down and you give people steroids. If you had a positive COVID diagnosis, they wouldn’t give you those basic treatments. This is like a fireman showing up at the fire and saying, let it burn a little bit more before we do anything,” McCarthy shared.

The next harmful practice hospitals used on “COVID” patients was to strap BiPAP masks on patients, a form of non-invasive ventilation that when administered improperly, caused many patients to have panic attacks.

“When you treat somebody with that, you have to warn them … It’s like if you were driving at 80 miles an hour and then one of your passengers stuck their head out the window. The wind is going down that fast. They didn’t prepare the patients, they didn’t comfort the patients. They would just slap this thing on and leave them alone,” explained McCarthy, adding that this “understandably” triggered panic attacks, at which point they were offered tranquilizers.

These tranquilizers relaxed their muscles, including their diaphragm, thereby weakening their breathing.

The drug was also dropped from a clinical trial for Ebola in 2018 after it was found that it had the highest death rate of the four drugs being tested, Dr. Bryan Ardis shared in a 2021 interview. In addition, according to attorney Thomas Renz, 25.9% of those prescribed Remdesivir for COVID-19 are recorded as having died in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) database. The death rate for COVID patients prescribed Remdesivir dwarfs the fatality rate of COVID patients prescribed Ivermectin, which is recorded by the CMS database as being 7.2%.

The deadly clincher to these protocols was the invasive intubation, that is, the use of ventilators, which were also financially incentivized.

McCarthy told Tommey that such intubation is for “when you’ve exhausted every other possibility” for a patient, because it is “a dangerous procedure.”

“The nickname for it among the hospital people is the garden hose. It’s large. Then you have to give somebody a feeding tube … You can cause abrasions, you can cause bleeding, infections.”

McCarthy learned that, moreover, intubated patients are typically given anywhere from five to 15 different drugs, including analgesics like fentanyl needed for the severe pain of invasive intubation, paralytic agents, and drugs “to just knock you out.”

He explained that normally a respiratory therapy is supposed to watch over four or five intubated patients, whereas during COVID, there was typically only one such therapist “for an entire ward of people.”

“Recipe for disaster. And indeed there was disaster,” McCarthy said.

“Now, here’s the really sinister thing. If you kept (a patient) on for 90 hours or longer, you got an extra bonus,” he continued.

“Every respiratory therapist will tell you as soon as you intubate somebody, within 24 hours you’re testing to see, hey, has this person recovered enough that we can take them off the intubation? Because every day you’re on intubation, you are closer to death. That’s just a fact.”

“So by what stretch of insanity did they incentivize hospitals to keep people on for 90 hours?” said McCarthy, adding, “I’d love to know who was in that room planning out these protocols.”

The author stressed that hospitals nowadays act as corporations, and not charitable institutions like they used to be — that is, they are “bottom line people.” So when they are given money bonuses for enacting certain protocols, they simply direct their entire staff to carry them out.

McCarthy said that in order to hide these deadly protocols, hospitals punished whistleblowers, according to nurse testimony.

A group that “was literally affiliated with the United Nations,” Team Halo, who McCarthy noted was devoted to counteracting “anti-vaxxers,” “metamorphized” during the COVID outbreak into a group that went after whistleblower nurses.

“They gave out nurses’ addresses and telephone numbers. They encouraged unhinged people to show up at their door and threaten them,” said McCarthy, telling how one whistleblower nurse who lives “in the boondocks of Nevada” had people “showing up at her door” after she was doxxed.

“They also had people filing complaints against the nurses with the nursing boards. Many of them had their nursing licenses challenged,” McCarthy added.

“And these were the thugs that went out and terrorized these nurses. So not only did the nurses get abused on the job — they were all fired. Anybody that spoke up and wouldn’t stop speaking up was fired. They were also tracked down afterwards and punished. They went through hell,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy’s book about his findings, “What the Nurses Saw,” is currently being sold on Amazon and has garnered an average of full five-star reviews.

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

COVID-19

Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna

A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.

The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:

Study Overview

  • Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
  • Intervention: Two doses of either:
    • BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
    • mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
  • Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
  • Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
  • Main Outcomes:
    • All-cause mortality
    • Cardiovascular mortality
    • COVID-19 mortality
    • Non-COVID-19 mortality

All-cause mortality

Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.

  • Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)

Cardiovascular mortality

Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)

COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)

Non-COVID-19 mortality

Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.

  • Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
  • Risk Difference:
    ➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess)
  • Risk Ratio (RR):
    ➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk)
  • Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
    ➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)

Biological explanations

The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:

The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:

  • Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
  • Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions

Final conclusion

Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.

Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.

As the authors conclude:

These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Published on

Fr0m LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A Department of Health memo warns that Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program will exceed its $75 million budget due to high demand, with $16 million already paid out.

COVID vaccine injury payments are expected to go over budget, according to a Canadian Department of Health memo.

According to information published April 28 by Blacklock’s Reporter, the Department of Health will exceed their projected payouts for COVID vaccine injuries, despite already spending $16 million on compensating those harmed by the once-mandated experimental shots.

“A total $75 million in funding has been earmarked for the first five years of the program and $9 million on an ongoing basis,” the December memo read. “However the overall cost of the program is dependent on the volume of claims and compensation awarded over time, and that the demand remains at very high levels.”

“The purpose of this funding is to ensure people in Canada who experience a serious and permanent injury as a result of receiving a Health Canada authorized vaccine administered in Canada on or after December 8, 2020 have access to a fair and timely financial support mechanism,” it continued.

Canada’s Vaccine Injury Support Program (VISP) was launched in December 2020 after the Canadian government gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding COVID-19 jab-related injuries.

While Parliament originally budgeted $75 million, thousands of Canadians have filed claims after received the so-called “safe and effective” COVID shots. Of the 3,060 claims received to date, only 219 had been approved so far, with payouts totaling over $16 million.

Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.

The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

Additionally, a recent study done by researchers with Canada-based Correlation Research in the Public Interest showed that 17 countries have found a “definite causal link” between peaks in all-cause mortality and the fast rollouts of the COVID shots as well as boosters.

Interestingly, while the Department of Health has spent $16 million on injury payouts, the Liberal government spent $54 million COVID propaganda promoting the vaccine to young Canadians.

The Public Health Agency of Canada especially targeted young Canadians ages 18-24 because they “may play down the seriousness of the situation.”

The campaign took place despite the fact that the Liberal government knew about COVID vaccine injuries, according to a secret memo.

Continue Reading

Trending

X