Egregious Medical Tyranny Holds Patient Hostage in a Hospital and Refuses Her Preferred Medical Treatment – Patient DIES Under Their Protocol

Veronica Wolski was denied specific treatment – AND denied the freedom to leave the hospital.

A tragic unfolding of events has occurred surrounding Veronica Wolski, a freedom activist who has largely expressed her views against masks, vaccines and vaccine mandates.

After falling ill and being sent to the AMITA Health Resurrection Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, Veronica Wolski was denied her choice in care and was also denied being released of her own free will to a medical team that was already lined up to take care of her illness and her wishes. She passed away on Sunday, September 13, 2021 – allegedly from pneumonia; after weeks of being denied release and denied her preferred treatment of Ivermectin.

The Resurrection Medical Center not only imposed a medical tyranny and abuse of power in withholding preferred medical treatment, but also exercised an egregious amount of authoritative control by preventing the patient from denying their protocol. This is basically like saying if you had cancer, out of all of the available treatments you have at your disposal, but you get admitted to a certain hospital, they are “allowed” to do only their protocol treatment on you, regardless if that is what you want or not. And not letting you leave and instead making you undergo their experiment procedure.

This outrageous misconduct and malfeasance was nothing less than keeping her a prisoner and demanding that she use their protocol, or else.

And as we can see, being forced to use their protocol ended up in a harrowing and heartbreaking ordeal, not only for Veronica Wolski and her loved ones, but also for the individuals vouching for her rights and freedom.

The below videos show two advocates who were trying to stand up to the medical tyranny that undoubtedly led to the death of Veronica Wolski.

Thank you to the Stew Peters Show and Dr. Lee Vliet and Attorney Nancy Ross for bringing this to our attention. Who knows how many others were subjected to this abuse, and ended up dying alone in the hospital while the establishment enforced their unsafe and disturbing “treatment” on unwilling patients.

Killed by Tyranny – Veronica Wolski’s Doctor Speaks Out

Transcript provided below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

Stew Peters: “Well, Americans are witnessing the unthinkable in our hospitals and our healthcare systems around the country as patients seem to be held hostage by doctors driven by a political machine, rather than the upholding of an oath.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet MD is president and CEO of the Public Charity Truth for Health Foundation, which can be found at truthforhealth.org and an independent practicing physician actively treating COVID patients and providing educational programs for patients. Community health groups and health professionals.

Dr. Vliet was assisting in the efforts to save the life of Veronica Wolski in Chicago who passed away without ever being provided the treatment she or her advocates were requesting. And Dr. Vliet joins us now.

Thank you so much for being here, we really appreciate it.”

Dr. Lee Vliet: “Thank you, Stew. I’m honored to be able to help in getting the horror out to the public of what happened to Veronica Wolski, in Resurrection Hospital in Chicago last weekend.

Our team was requested by the attorneys to be involved, beginning on Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday afternoon we had a medical care team with critical care, ICU doctor, independent critical care nurses, nurses on the ground willing to coordinate her medical care in the setting, delivery capability for high flow oxygen, IV fluids, medications. Everything she was being denied in the hospital, our team had ready by Friday.

And at every turn, I was personally involved in helping the patient’s power of attorney. Our team was involved and our attorneys were also involved trying to help the patient’s power of attorney, whom you’ll meet later, who was a warrior for Veronica, help her get the patient released from the prison of this hospital, which it had become.

Veronica, I heard, I was conferenced in on a conversation that took place, I heard it, Veronica was asking to be released today. And she was denied, she was pressured into intubation, she refused it; I heard her myself and she asked for the treatment that her power of attorney was fighting heroically. I heard the doctors deny it.

Every single step that the patient requested, that the power of attorney requested, was violated in her legal rights to request treatment. She was denied release even though the power of attorney made it clear she was being released home to hospice, and the patient knew she might die at home, she asked to die in freedom. Not as a prisoner.

And, quite frankly, I heard the doctor brow-beating the patient’s power of attorney on Sunday afternoon saying, “Well, we can’t get hospice here. And that’s not our process, and that’s not what we do.” And I happen to know medically for a fact that what she was telling the power of attorney was not factually correct.

Therefore, in my opinion medically, they willfully denied treatment to this patient. And then the power of attorney learned that afternoon when she finally got into the hospital to see her, that standing outside her door, that they had taken away the IV fluids. And medically, we all know that if you deprive a patient of IV fluids who’s already dehydrated, which her laboratory data showed, then they’re going to go down quickly, no matter how high flow the oxygen is. You can’t deliver it if there’s inadequate fluid volume in the blood stream.

And they had not treated a rising white count bacterial pneumonia – I mean they – the oversight and the negligence medically, was staggering. I have never in my career seen anything as egregious as what our team, our whole team, was witness to from Thursday through Sunday in this situation. And ironically, we were also brought in on other hospital situations in other states, in the same time frame. The same talking points were being used with the patients; the same denial of the patient’s power of attorney access to the patient.

In fact, at one hospital, in Arizona, the patient’s power of attorney was escorted out of the hospital in handcuffs! This medical tyranny has got to stop, and Truth for Health Foundation is fighting that battle. We have a medical censorship defense fund to help doctors like Dr. McCullough and others who have been sued for speaking out. We will defend patients and their families, and their rights to have their power of attorney request honored. And, we know, our team was guiding the resources on the ground in Illinois to set up an entire mobile unit to take care of this patient. And she was denied leaving the hospital under bogus descriptions from the team there.

Stew Peters: “This – this is horrific; what you’re describing. And I – I’m sorry but, with TV and radio, I’ve got part breaks that I’m coming up against right now. Truthforhealth.org is your website. I encourage everybody to go visit that.

Dr. Vliet, thank you so much for being here – I gotta go. Uh, we really appreciate you coming forward and I hope to have you back soon. Thank you so much. God bless you.”

Dr. Lee Vliet: “Thank you.”

EXCLUSIVE! Veronica Wolski’s Power of Attorney Speaks Out After Tyrannical Killing

Transcript provided below. Some embellishment has been added for emphasis:

Stew Peters: “Well, an extremely emotional week in Chicago left us saying goodbye to Veronica Wolski; best known for her signage over the Kennedy Expressway on the People’s Bridge. 

Wolski became the center of controversy when she was denied the medical treatment being requested by her power of attorney, Nancy Ross, who joins us now.

Nancy, I know that it’s been a really emotional couple of weeks, specifically the last 24 hours, so I want to thank you for coming here to talk with us today. We know that you didn’t have to do that.”

POA Nancy Ross: “Thank you, Stew, very much. And thank you to your audience and all those really around the world who have been fighting for Veronica. Veronica always said, “Never be silent.” You know, “Never quit. Never give up.” And she fought to the very end. 

She had a prescription for Ivermectin at home. She’d been requesting to the hospital if she could bring that. My understanding is that was denied.

But I’ll back up. First she became sick, she thought she had a sinus infection, she tested positive for COVID, went home, and two days later had shortness of breath. And went into the hospital. Very quickly she was put on high levels of oxygen, was my understanding. And they began Remdesivir.

She called me, she told me she didn’t want the medicine: “I don’t want this. I want them out.” I have multiple texts from her saying, “Get me out of here.” / “Get me home.” / “Bring me oxygen.” / “Get medical transport. Take me out.”

I didn’t know what was going on. I tried to contact family and friends, and was assured that they were following frontline protocols, and that she would be getting some of the treatment she really wanted. It was all very confusing, very disturbing.

I finally told her, “I’m coming to Chicago. And I’ll help however I can.” She asked me then to be her POA so we can arrange to have after care for her to get her out and to get her after care. And there were so many roadblocks, over the next 10 days. It was, um, it was very difficult.

And um, security escorted me out of the building multiple times. After I’d been invited in. After day 2 they told me I was no longer allowed in the hospital, period. I asked what policy I violated, what had I done wrong? I was there to advocate for her. We sent a demand letter to the hospital with 17 different demands, and we were really trying to work with them. But it was clear that Veronica was being denied some treatments; even some food and nutrition that we had to beg for, over many many days.

Stew Peters: “It seems like she was denied… every human right that we’re inherently promised as Americans. Why – did they ever give you an answer on why you were not allowed to be there advocating for her?

Nancy Ross: “They told me after the 2nd day, that Veronica’s of sound mind. Everyone always assured me; and she is a warrior, as everyone knows, for truth and justice and freedom. She knows – she knows her rights. She was advising them on what, you know, she thought could work best for her, and pleading with them. They said she can speak for herself. That I didn’t need to be there and that further conversations would be with her.

Now I understand, you know, my rights at the time were to help her. I’d called for a patient conference for multiple days. Finally after 4 days, I walked in and they had maybe 8 representatives from the hospital system there to speak with me. And some of our, just even basic concerns just were not, were not met.

And we had private duty nurses who were available to go in and just be caretakers; just to sit with her in isolation. You know, as you know, many COVID patients, you know, they are, they’re isolated. And after 10 days, and certainly after 20 days, we felt like it’s time for her to stop being secluded. And at minimum, she needed loved ones, family, friends, and nurses who could at least just care for her. And be with her. Hold her hand, and try to advocate for her. But that was denied as well.”

Stew Peters: “I just can’t wrap my head around any of this. It – it’s – this is happening in America.

And if the justification for removing you was that Veronica Wolski could speak for herself, then why was it that her demands, her requests that she was speaking for herself, were not honored? And fell on deaf ears? And she didn’t – she was denied the right to try. She was denied the ability to make freedom choices after her own health!

I mean – I don’t, I don’t understand how they can get away – this is criminal! This is absolutely criminal. By every sense of the word.”

Nancy Ross: “On day 2, when I was there, so she would’ve been in the hospital at that point, I believe well over a week, I was able to meet with a very kind infectious disease doctor overseeing her care. And he agreed to prescribe the Ivermectin. Again, even though she had a prescription at home from a different doctor, he agreed to prescribe it in the hospital.

We were, thrilled. We thought we had an – a real advocate there.

And then hours later he was overruled by the AMITA system, who said they are following NIH protocols. And an ethics committee met; we demanded an ethics committee conference. They met without us. We didn’t have a chance to present what we believe was some solid case study.

There also had been a court ruling, in nearby Elmhurst, where a hospital was ordered to give a patient their Ivermectin. My understanding is, that patient came out of a coma after 20 days and is home now playing with her grandkids. Veronica knew this. And she knew that there was hope, and that was denied. She also wanted to be transferred; she wanted to come home on hospice. They told her, oxygen needs were so high she couldn’t leave the hospital. But we felt we had found medical transport to meet her oxygen needs; we had a team ready to care for her. And it seems it was blocked at every turn.”

Stew Peters: “Forgive my ignorance on this, but isn’t there such a thing as AMA – “against medical advice” – that a patient is always afforded the right to just leave? To walk out? I mean, they’re not in jail. She’s not being held in custody. She hasn’t been charged with a crime. And certainly nurses and doctors are not law enforcement. But it seems that they have this unilateral, unchecked authority over patients once they come in and are determined to be “COVID” patients.”

Nancy Ross: “Right. We were told she wouldn’t have oxygen – or may not have oxygen to walk out. I said, “Well, we would have it.” And, by the end, they said, no – no medical transport company, no one will take her, because her – she was so unstable at that point. The needs were so dire.”

Stew Peters: “But you had somebody that would take her. Correct?”

Nancy Ross: “We had, we had an ambulance that said they had the needs that she required. And they said they needed authorization from the hospital, to release her. And we also had a nurse practitioner who was prescribing medications to her, ready on the outside, and many doctors, lawyers. I was blessed to have, just a really incredible team around me. Because I’m – I’m not a medical expert. I’m her friend; I’ve been friends with her for, for some time, and she, you know, she asked for help. I just – I’ve never – I’m just speechless. I’m so sorry.”

Stew Peters: “So you had a hospice – you had an ambulance, rather, that was prepared and ready to take her; you had a practitioner that was prescribing the medications that Veronica Wolski was requesting. All that needed to happen was for authorization from the hospital for her to be released to that equipped ambulance – who said that they were capable of caring for her, and that authorization never came.”

Nancy Ross: “It did not. They said, “We just don’t release her to anybody. We need to know who’s the name of this hospice company? Who is it? Who is it?”

And I did not give the name. I said, “I need to know the proper procedures at the hospital. Who do I talk to for her release?” And, the end of the conversation, it was, “They’re not in till Monday morning at 9.” I said, “She may not make it, till Monday.” And she didn’t. Um, I just have so many questions.”

Stew Peters: “And when you get answers to those questions, would you please come back? Because – [Nancy Ross: “Absolutely.”] – millions of people have the same questions, and demand answers, on – “

Nancy Ross: “They do. If I could help at all, Stew, some – we have very kind people have reached out and said, you know, maybe this will work. You know, initially, when they inform you of the risk of certain medication, like Ivermectin, which, by the way, is issued to other patients at AMITA, for other conditions. It’s just not… um, it’s just not part of their protocol for COVID. It’s not banned. It’s just not part of their protocol. Okay? So when they present you with the risk, you say, “I now have informed consent, thank you very much, I demand to try this. I demand this medication.” Then give them a window. Maybe just 48 hours.

If you want to try budesonide, just 48 hours, to open up my lungs so I can breathe. Waive responsibility to the hospital for that medication, if you have to. You know, not everyone can get lawyers and doctors involved when you’re fighting for your life. But go through those steps. I mean, if you have to go to court. And then I was told you can fire your attending physician. Tell them you want to fire your attending physician in the ICU and have that person replaced immediately, until you can find someone who will listen to you.

Now, this isn’t “wild west” medications we’re talking about. These are, you know, these are some basic things that have shown – have proven results, is my understanding, to help heal COVID patients. And heal them much more quickly than a ventilator.”

Stew Peters: “Yeah. So proven that they have earned a Nobel Prize for saving human life. [Nancy Ross: “Exactly. Exactly.”] Uh, and they are FDA approved. Unlike the Remdesivir, that is part of the NIH protocol, which we think we know why that is happening as well. Horrific.

Really appreciate your courage and for you, as emotional as it must be pulling yourself together in order to come here and answer some of these basic questions. And we hope to hear more from you as you get answers to the many questions that you no doubt have.”

Nancy Ross: “Thank you Stew. And God bless all those who are fighting and all those families who are affected. We’re praying for you and Veronica did not die in vain.”

Stew Peters: “God bless you, Nancy. And no, she did not. Her voice will be heard. Thank you so much.”

I want to expand a little bit on Nancy Ross’s recommendations when in a hospital for an illness; specifically for “COVID”. Their protocols are in place by a deliberate design. From the very same corrupt government/medical/health agencies overseeing the vaccination efforts. As was the struggle that Veronica Wolski and her advocates went through, although there was a doctor who was willing to prescribe the Ivermectin medication, he was ultimately overruled by the health administrators.

This is the bottom line that needs to be addressed when seeking medical care. Veronica was also demanding to use Ivermectin, but it fell on deaf ears. Perhaps a better alternative would be to steer clear of all government funded/public hospitals and seek independent/private physicians with an honest reputation instead if possible; who will actually honor their patient’s wishes. And/or investigate online physicians who will fill out prescriptions and search for pharmacies that will fill them. I would suggest doing this sooner rather than later, so you or your loved one can better be prepared in case of a sudden illness.

Lastly, those who have advocated for the use of Remdesivir and ventilators, you have blood on your hands. There is no better description for the pain and damage you have caused. From the NIH/CDC/FDA/government officials who have approved this protocol (many of who I surmise know exactly what they are doing), to the influencers and social media peddlers/fact-checkers, to the physicians and attendants who have initiated it. 

Anyone who has died using this “treatment” is under the blame of the healthcare system and the government. Likewise, anyone who has suffered ill effects and/or deaths from the incredibly coerced COVID injections have the same groups responsible, along with the pharmaceutical companies.

If you are a doctor, nurse, healthcare worker/administrator, etc. who is just now learning (or have known) about the egregious and heartbreaking tyranny that has led to numerous complications and deaths of hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands of lives due to the illogical and deplorable “rules and guidelines” of these – for lack of a better (yet still politically correct) description – corrupt industries, this is your chance to do the right thing, and refuse to participate.

My heart goes out to these ladies who had to watch as the person they were trying to advocate for fell under the grips of the medical tyrannical authorities who basically imprisoned the patient within their walls and murdered her with their unsafe/dangerous protocols.

My heart also goes out to anyone who has lost loved ones amidst these strange, unethical circumstances. I urge anyone who works within these medical fields to fully contemplate on your choices, and put your life in these people’s shoes. What if the person being held against their will in the hospital was your mother, your father, your child, grandparent, husband, wife…? What if you were held against your own will and denied medical treatment that could have saved your life? Suffering alone and isolated, away from your friends and family, and at the mercy of people “just following orders”?

Is your job worth it? Worth tarnishing your own soul and compassion for fellow human beings that you would be willing to watch them die in the hospital bed? Or will you finally rise up and be brave and realize you don’t want any involvement of these heinous crimes?

Thank you so much to everyone who is speaking out against these malpractices and unbelievably cruel dictatorships. Your bravery and integrity in coming forward shines a light on the steps that we need to take in order to preserve our rights, lives and freedom.

God bless.

Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.

Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.

Featured image by KoalaParkLaundromat from Pixabay

Our Grave Concerns About the Handling of the COVID Pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK

Open letter from several healthcare professions to the UK government/administrators.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Mr Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Ms Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister for Scotland

Mr Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales

Mr Paul Givan, First Minister for Northern Ireland

Mr Sajid Javid, Health Secretary

Dr Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer

Dr Patrick Vallance, Chief Scientific Officer

 

22 August 2021

Dear Sirs and Madam,

Our grave concerns about the handling of the COVID pandemic by Governments of the Nations of the UK.

We write as concerned doctors, nurses, and other allied healthcare professionals with no vested interest in doing so. To the contrary, we face personal risk in relation to our employment for doing so and / or the risk of being personally “smeared” by those who inevitably will not like us speaking out.

We are taking the step of writing this public letter because it has become apparent to us that:

  • The  Government (by which we mean the UK government and three devolved governments/administrations and associated government advisors and agencies such as the CMOs, CSA, SAGE, MHRA, JCVI, Public Health services, Ofcom etc, hereinafter “you” or the “Government”) have based the handling of the COVID pandemic on flawed assumptions.
  • These have been pointed out to you by numerous individuals and organisations.
  • You have failed to engage in dialogue and show no signs of doing so. You have removed from people fundamental rights and altered the fabric of society with little debate in Parliament. No minister responsible for policy has ever appeared in a proper debate with anyone with opposing views on any mainstream media channel.
  • Despite being aware of alternative medical and scientific viewpoints you have failed to ensure an open and full discussion of the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing the pandemic.
  • The pandemic response policies implemented have caused massive, permanent and unnecessary harm to our nation, and must never be repeated.
  • Only by revealing the complete lack of widespread approval among healthcare professionals of your policies will a wider debate be demanded by the public.

In relation to the above, we wish to draw attention to the following points. Supporting references can be provided upon request.

  1. No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies

The evidence of disastrous effects of lockdowns on the physical and mental health of the population is there for all to see. The harms are massive, widespread, and long lasting. In particular, the psychological impact on a generation of developing children could be lifelong.

It is for this reason that lockdown policies were never part of any pandemic preparedness plans prior to 2020. In fact, they were expressly not recommended in WHO documents, even for severe respiratory viral pathogens and for that matter neither were border closures, face coverings, and testing of asymptomatic individuals. There has been such an inexplicable absence of consideration of the harms caused by lockdown policy it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is willful avoidance.

The introduction of such policies was never accompanied by any sort of risk/benefit analysis. As bad as that is, it is even worse that after the event when plenty of data became available by which the harms could be measured, only perfunctory attention to this aspect of pandemic planning has been afforded. Eminent professionals have repeatedly called for discourse on these health impacts in press-conferences but have been universally ignored.

What is so odd, is that the policies being pursued before mid-March 2020 (self-isolation of the ill and protection of the vulnerable, while otherwise society continued close to normality) were balanced, sensible and reflected the approach established by consensus prior to 2020. No cogent reason was given then for the abrupt change of direction from mid-March 2020 and strikingly none has been put forward at any time since.

  1. Institutional nature of COVID

It was actually clear early on from Italian data that COVID (the disease – as opposed to SARS-Cov-2 infection or exposure) was largely a disease of institutions. Care home residents comprised around half of all deaths, despite making up less than 1% of the population. Hospital infections are the major driver of transmission rates as was the case for both SARS1 and MERS. Transmission was associated with hospital contact in up to 40% of cases in the first wave in Spring 2020 and in 64% in winter 2020/2021.

Severe illness among healthy people below 70 years old did occur (as seen with flu pandemics) but was extremely rare.

Despite this, no early, aggressive and targeted measures were taken to protect care homes; to the contrary, patients were discharged without testing to homes where staff had inadequate PPE, training and information. Many unnecessary deaths were caused as a result.

Preparations for this coming winter, including ensuring sufficient capacity and preventative measures such as ventilation solutions, have not been prioritised.

  1. The exaggerated nature of the threat

Policy appears to have been directed at systematic exaggeration of the number of deaths which can be attributed to COVID. Testing was designed to find every possible ‘case’ rather than focusing on clinically diagnosed infections and the resulting exaggerated case numbers fed through to the death data with large numbers of people dying ‘with COVID’ and not ‘of COVID’ where the disease was the underlying cause of death.

The policy of publishing a daily death figure meant the figure was based entirely on the PCR test result with no input from treating clinicians. By including all deaths within a time period after a positive test, incidental deaths, with but not due to COVID, were not excluded thereby exaggerating the nature of the threat.

Moreover, in headlines reporting the number of deaths, a categorisation by age was not included. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, higher than the average life expectancy when these people were born. This is a highly relevant fact in assessing the societal impact of the pandemic. Death in old age is a natural phenomenon. It cannot be said that a disease primarily affecting the elderly is the same as one which affects all ages, and yet the government’s messaging appears designed to make the public think that everyone is at equal risk.

Doctors were asked to complete death certificates in the knowledge that the deceased’s death had already been recorded as a COVID death by the Government. Since it would be virtually impossible to find evidence categorically ruling out COVID as a contributory factor to death, once recorded as a “COVID death” by the government, it was inevitable that it would be included as a cause on the death certificate. Diagnosing the cause of death is always difficult and the reduction in post mortems will have inevitably resulted in increased inaccuracy. The fact that deaths due to non-COVID causes actually moved into a substantial deficit (compared to average) as COVID-labelled deaths rose (and this was reversed as COVID-labelled deaths fell) is striking evidence of over-attribution of deaths to COVID.

The overall all-cause mortality rate from 2015-2019 was unusually low and yet these figures have been used to compare to 2020 and 2021 mortality figures which has made the increased mortality appear unprecedented. Comparisons with data from earlier years would have demonstrated that the 2020 mortality rate was exceeded in every year prior to 2003 and is unexceptional as a result.

Even now COVID cases and deaths continue to be added to the existing total without proper rigour such that overall totals grow ever larger and exaggerate the threat. No effort has been made to count totals in each winter season separately which is standard practice for every other disease.

You have continued to adopt high-frequency advertising through publishing and broadcast media outlets to add to the impact of “fear messaging”. The cost of this has not been widely published, but government procurement websites reveal it to be immense – hundreds of millions of pounds.

The media and government rhetoric is now moving onto the idea that “Long Covid” is going to cause major morbidity in all age groups including children, without having a discussion of the normality of postviral fatigue which lasts upwards of 6 months. This adds to the public fear of the disease, encouraging vaccination amongst those who are highly unlikely to suffer any adverse effects from COVID.

  1. Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere.

The harm caused by COVID and our response to it should have meant that advances in prophylaxis and therapeutics for COVID were embraced. However, evidence on successful treatments has been ignored or even actively suppressed. For example, a study in Oxford published in February 2021 demonstrated that inhaled Budesonide could reduce hospitalisations by 90% in low risk patients and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high risk patients too. However, this important intervention has not been promoted.

Dr. Tess Lawrie, of the Evidence Based Medical Consultancy in Bath, presented a thorough analysis of the prophylactic and therapeutic benefits of Ivermectin to the government in January 2021. More than 24 randomised trials with 3,400 people have demonstrated a 79-91% reduction in infections and a 27-81% reduction in deaths with Ivermectin.

Many doctors are understandably cautious about possible over-interpretation of the available data for the drugs mentioned above and other treatments, although it is to be noted that no such caution seems to have been applied in relation to the treatment of data around the government’s interventions (eg the effectiveness of lockdowns or masks) when used in support of the government’s agenda.

Whatever one’s view on the merits of these repurposed drugs, it is totally unacceptable that doctors who have attempted to merely open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID have been heavily and inexplicably censored. Knowing that early treatments which could reduce the risk of requiring hospitalisation might be available would alter the entire view held by many professionals and lay people alike about the threat posed by COVID, and therefore the risk / benefit ratio for vaccination, especially in younger groups.

  1. Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear.

Propagation of a deliberate fear narrative (confirmed through publicly accessible government documentation) has been disproportionate, harmful and counterproductive. We request that it should cease forthwith.

To give just one example, the government’s face covering policies seem to have been driven by behavioural psychology advice in relation to generating a level of fear necessary for compliance with other policies. Those policies do not appear to have been driven by reason of infection control, because there is no robust evidence showing that wearing a face covering (particularly cloth or standard surgical masks) is effective against transmission of airborne respiratory pathogens such as SARS-Cov-2. Several high profile institutions and individuals are aware of this and have advocated against face coverings during this pandemic only inexplicably to reverse their advice on the basis of no scientific justification of which we are aware. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence suggesting that mask wearing can cause multiple harms, both physical and mental. This has been particularly distressing for the nation’s school children who have been encouraged by government policy and their schools to wear masks for long periods at school.

Finally, the use of face coverings is highly symbolic and thus counterproductive in making people feel safe. Prolonged wearing risks becoming an ingrained safety behaviour, actually preventing people from getting back to normal because they erroneously attribute their safety to the act of mask wearing rather than to the remote risk, for the vast majority of healthy people under 70 years old, of catching the virus and becoming seriously unwell with COVID.

  1. Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses.

The mutation of any novel virus into newer strains – especially when under selection pressure from abnormal restrictions on mixing and vaccination – is normal, unavoidable and not something to be concerned about. Hundreds of thousands of mutations of the original Wuhan strain have already been identified. Chasing down every new emergent variant is counterproductive, harmful and totally unnecessary and there is no convincing evidence that any newly identified variant is any more deadly than the original strain.

Mutant strains appear simultaneously in different countries (by way of ‘convergent evolution’) and the closing of national borders in attempts to prevent variants travelling from one country to another serves no significant infection control purpose and should be abandoned.

  1. Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions.

It is well-established that asymptomatic spread has never been a major driver of a respiratory disease pandemic and we object to your constant messaging implying this, which should cease forthwith. Never before have we perverted the centuries-old practice of isolating the ill by instead isolating the healthy. Repeated mandates to healthy, asymptomatic people to self-isolate, especially school children, serves no useful purpose and has only contributed to the widespread harms of such policies. In the vast majority of cases healthy people are healthy and cannot transmit the virus and only sick people with symptoms should be isolated.

The government’s claim that one in three people could have the virus has been shown to be mutually inconsistent with the ONS data on prevalence of disease in society, and the sole effect of this messaging appears to have been to generate fear and promote compliance with government restrictions. The government’s messaging to ‘act as if you have the virus’ has also been unnecessarily fear-inducing given that healthy people are extremely unlikely to transmit the virus to others.

The PCR test, widely used to determine the existence of ‘cases’, is now indisputably acknowledged to be unable reliably to detect infectiousness. The test cannot discriminate between those in whom the presence of fragments of genetic material partially matching the virus is either incidental (perhaps because of past infection), or is representative of active infection, or is indicative of infectiousness. Yet, it has been used almost universally without qualification or clinical diagnosis to justify lockdown policies and to quarantine millions of people needlessly at enormous cost to health and well-being and to the country’s economy.

Countries that have removed community restrictions have seen no negative consequences which can be attributed to the easing. Empirical data from many countries demonstrates that the rise and fall in infections is seasonal and not due to restrictions or face coverings. The reason for reduced impact of each successive wave is that: (1) most people have some level of immunity either through prior immunity or immunity acquired through exposure; (2) as is usual with emergent new viruses, mutation of the virus towards strains causing milder disease appears to have occurred. Vaccination may also contribute to this although its durability and level of protection against variants is unclear. 

The government appears to be talking of “learning to live with COVID” while apparently practicing by stealth a “zero COVID” strategy which is futile and ultimately net-harmful.

  1. Mass testing of healthy children

Repeated testing of children to find asymptomatic cases who are unlikely to spread virus, and treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop.

During Easter term, an amount equivalent to the cost of building one District General Hospital was spent weekly on testing schoolchildren to find a few thousand positive ‘cases’, none of which was serious as far as we are aware.

Lockdowns are in fact a far greater contributor to child health problems, with record levels of mental illness and soaring levels of non-COVID infections being seen, which some experts consider to be a result of distancing resulting in deconditioning of the immune system.

  1. Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions.

Based merely on early “promising” vaccine data, it is clear that the Government decided in summer 2020 to pursue a policy of viral suppression within the entire population until vaccination was available (which was initially stated to be for the vulnerable only, then later changed – without proper debate or rigorous analysis – to the entire adult population).

This decision was taken despite massive harms consequent to continued lockdowns which were either known to you or ought to have been ascertained so as to be considered in the decision making process.

Moreover, a number of principles of good medical practice and previously unimpeachable ethical standards have been breached in relation to the vaccination campaign, meaning that in most cases, whether the consent obtained can be truly regarded as “fully informed” must be in serious doubt:

  • The use of coercion supported by an unprecedented media campaign to persuade the public to be vaccinated, including threats of discrimination, either supported by the law or encouraged socially, for example in co-operation with social media platforms and dating apps.
  • The omission of information permitting individuals to make a fully informed choice, especially in relation to the experimental nature of the vaccine agents, extremely low background COVID risk for most people, known occurrence of short-term side-effects and unknown long-term effects.

Finally, we note that the Government is seriously considering the possibility that these vaccines – which have no associated long-term safety data – could be administered to children on the basis that this might provide some degree of protection to adults. We find that notion an appalling and unethical inversion of the long-accepted duty falling on adults to protect children.

  1. Over-reliance on modeling while ignoring real-world data

Throughout the pandemic, decisions seem to have been taken utilising unvalidated models produced by groups who have what can only be described as a woeful track record, massively overestimating the impact of several previous pandemics.

The decision-making teams appear to have very little clinical input and, as far as is ascertainable, no clinical immunology expertise.

Moreover, the assumptions underlying the modeling have never been adjusted to take into account real-world observations in the UK and other countries.

It is an astonishing admission that, when asked whether collateral harms had been considered by SAGE, the answer given was that it was not in their remit – they were simply asked to minimise COVID impact. That might be forgivable if some other advisory group was constantly studying the harms side of the ledger, yet this seems not to have been the case.

Conclusions

The UK’s approach to COVID has palpably failed. In the apparent desire to protect one vulnerable group – the elderly – the implemented policies have caused widespread collateral and disproportionate harm to many other vulnerable groups, especially children. Moreover your policies have failed in any event to prevent the UK from notching up one of the highest reported death rates from COVID in the world.

Now, despite very high vaccination rates and the currently very low COVID death and hospitalisation rates, policy continues to be aimed at maintaining a population handicapped by extreme fear with restrictions on everyday life prolonging and deepening the policy-derived harms. To give just one example, NHS waiting lists now stand at 5.1m officially, with – according to the previous Health Secretary – a likely further 7m who will require treatment not yet presented. This is unacceptable and must be addressed urgently.

In short, there needs to be a sea change within the Government which must now pay proper attention to those esteemed experts outside its inner circle who are sounding these alarms. As those involved with healthcare, we are committed to our oath to “first do no harm”, and we can no longer stand by in silence observing policies which have imposed a series of supposed “cures” which are in fact far worse than the disease they are supposed to address.

The signatories of this letter call on you, in Government, without further delay to widen the debate over policy, consult openly with groups of scientists, doctors, psychologists and others who share crucial, scientifically-valid and evidence-based alternative views and to do everything in your power to return the country as rapidly as possible to normality with the minimum of further damage to society.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan Engler, MB ChB LLB (Hons) DipPharmMed

Professor John A Fairclough, BM BS B Med Sci FRCS FFSEM,  Consultant Surgeon, ran vaccination program for a Polio Outbreak, Past President BOSTA, for Orthopaedic Surgeons, Faculty member FFSEM

Mr Tony Hinton, MB ChB, FRCS, FRCS(Oto), Consultant Surgeon

Dr Renee Hoenderkamp, BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Ros Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Mr Malcolm Loudon, MB ChB MD FRCSEd FRCS (Gen Surg) MIHM VR

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, retired consultant physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MB ChB, FFPH (ret), Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine

Mr Colin Natali, BSc(Hons), MBBS FRCS FRCS(Orth), Consultant Spine Surgeon

Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Click here for the complete list of signatories and if you wish to add your name to the letter.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a press conference on 16 March, with Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Picture by Andrew Parsons