Prominent US Hospitals Drop Vax Mandates after Massive Shortage of Key Staff

“thousands of nurses have left the industry or lost their jobs rather than get vaccinated” for COVID-19.

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Original article written by Ashley Sadler / LifeSiteNews (December 13, 2021)

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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Major hospital systems have had to reevaluate their coercive COVID-19 jab policies after crucial employees, especially nurses, have opted to quit rather than get the experimental injections.

Facing serious staffing shortages, some of the largest and most prominent hospital systems in the United States, including HCA Healthcare Inc., Tenet Healthcare Corp., AdventHealth, and Cleveland Clinic have been forced to backpedal on their COVID-19 jab mandates in hopes of retaining crucial employees, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday

Townhall reported that University Hospitals in the Cleveland, Ohio area also recently announced the reversal of its jab mandate for hospital workers.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the major hospital systems have been forced to reevaluate their coercive COVID-19 jab policies after needed healthcare industry employees, especially nurses, chose to quit rather than get the experimental injections.

 

“Vaccine mandates have been a factor constraining the supply of healthcare workers, according to hospital executives, public-health authorities and nursing groups,” the report noted, adding that “thousands of nurses have left the industry or lost their jobs rather than get vaccinated” for COVID-19.

The Journal cited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in reporting that as of September, unvaccinated employees accounted for a massive 30% of workers employed by over 2,000 U.S. hospitals.

Many people, including healthcare professionals, have been skeptical of the push toward mass immunization. The CDC reports an infection survival rate of greater than 99.95% for those under age 50. Meanwhile, the list of FDA-recognized adverse events has grown from severe anaphylactic reactions to include fatal thrombotic events, the inflammatory heart condition myocarditis, and neurologically disabling disease like Guillain Barré Syndrome, as well as thousands of recorded deaths and permanent disabilities.

The staggering percentage of healthcare workers who have refused to comply with the jab requirements imposed by their hospital systems — many of whom are vitally necessary nursing personnel — could have a crippling effect on America’s hospitals if the establishments move to fire all noncompliant workers.

Recognizing this dilemma, an employee-benefits lawyer has suggested that hospitals that don’t mandate the jabs could see an influx of interested applicants fleeing hospitals with more coercive policies.

“It’s been a mass exodus, and a lot of people in the healthcare industry are willing to go and shop around,” Wade Symons, head of the consulting firm Mercer’s U.S. regulatory practice, told the Journal.

News of the major hospital systems dropping their injection mandates comes after a federal judge in Louisiana blocked the Biden administration’s top-down federal COVID-19 jab mandate for healthcare workers that would have impacted at least 10 million Americans.

The judge’s late-November decision was in response to President Joe Biden’s September 9 announcement of a series of vaccine mandates for public and private sectors, including one with no testing option for millions of healthcare workers employed by medical facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has subsequently announced it will temporarily halt enforcement of its healthcare worker mandate pending appeal of a federal injunction blocking the measure.

“I don’t think the mandates were helpful and I think the court in Louisiana did everyone a service,” Alan Levine, chief executive officer of Ballad Health, told The Journal. 

Levine, who told the newspaper his company employs about 14,000 people, of whom roughly 2,000 have opted not to get the shot, said firing “[t]hat many people … would have been devastating to our system.”

Before the Louisiana judge blocked the mandate, at least 22 states had joined a duo of joint lawsuits against the Biden administration over the rule.

States, companies, and private individuals have filed a raft of lawsuits taking issue not only with the mandate for healthcare workers but also the mandate for federal contractors and another for businesses with 100 or more employees.

In early November, a federal court blocked the mandate for large businesses, just two days after it was published. The mandate would have used the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to impose massive fines on noncompliant companies and individuals for failing to get the experimental shots.

By early December, all three of the Biden administration’s private sector jab mandates were stalled by federal judges.

 

The latest mandate to be blocked was halted December 7 by a federal judge who sided with South Carolina’s attorney general and Republican governor and stopped the Biden administration’s COVID-19 jab mandate for federal contractors, freezing the requirement nationwide and marking the third federal injection mandate to be blocked across all 50 states.

A shift in public policy toward the reversal of coercive jab mandates comes as many Americans remain concerned that the experimental drugs on the market have not been sufficiently studied for negative effects given their accelerated clinical trials. Many also harbor serious moral reservations about the use of cells from aborted babies in the development of the shots.

Still others simply consider the injections unnecessary given COVID-19’s high survivability among most groups, low risk of asymptomatic spread, and research indicating that post-infection natural immunity is either just as protective against reinfection or provides even greater protection.

*

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 is from Shutterstock

Revolver Exclusive: The Big Pharma “Shell Game” Tricking Our Military Into Mandatory Vaccinations

Commander Jay Furman alerting of deception and malfeasance within the government and pharmaceutical companies.

Reposted from Revolver and Commander Jay Furman
Original article written on September 25, 2021 (reprinted with permission)

Last month, Revolver exclusively published a paper by Navy CDR J.H. Furman, warning that the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of the entire Navy could constitute a national security threat.

Now, Furman has produced another paper, describing what he calls a “shell game” by which other U.S. government agencies, and several pharmaceutical companies are tricking the Navy into embracing mandatory vaccination, at great risk to the United States.

 

His paper is reproduced below.

The views and opinions expressed in this paper do not in any way represent the United States Navy or the Department of Defense.

 

CDR Jay Furman, USN

At the turning point of the Spanish American War, a single American officer volunteered to hand carry a critical message through impossible enemy lines to a fateful ally named General Garcia, forever changing the course of that war and our country. Today, one million COVID-19 non-vaccinated brave military messengers would deliver a, no less, existential dispatch: the U.S. Military is being misled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), and the Pfizer and BioNTech drug companies, resulting in the current mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. While some media outlets reflexively cheer on the deadly shell game, is our military leadership prematurely mandating a vaccine that their personnel cannot, or should not, legally receive? Could that decision prove to be more detrimental to military readiness than the disease itself, thereby posing a greater threat to U.S. national security?

 

On August 23, 2021, news broke that Pfizer had obtained an FDA license for its COVD-19 vaccine. The contrived FDA announcement:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first COVID-19 vaccine [BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA, not Pfizer]. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine [Pfizer’s non-FDA licensed vaccine], and will now be marketed as Comirnaty (koe-mir’-na-tee) [only available in markets outside U.S.], for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older (emphasis added).

 

The agency charged with the public’s health in pharmaceutical matters issued two related official letters confounding the announcement, above. Reconciling those letters and the ensuing policy is tedious, leaving the truth one-layer too deep for most media outlets. Unfortunately, the resulting confusion appears more goal than incidental. Bottom-line, the FDA did not license a COVID-19 vaccine physically available to consumers in the U.S.

In their first letter, the FDA issued the only COVID-19 vaccination license for COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA (Comirnaty) owned by German company BioNTech (not Pfizer). It is not produced for a U.S.-licensed label anywhere in the FDA’s jurisdiction. In their second letter, the FDA re-issued the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (not a FDA license). The letter officially designates Comirnaty as the licensed name for COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA. This EUA explicitly states that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine “[…] has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized by emergency use [EUA] by the FDA […]” (emphasis added). It goes on to assert that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) formulations are the same and thereby can be clinically substitutable. The FDA notes the abundant supply of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and the non-availability of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) in the U.S. market. They then explicitly re-affirm that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is, in fact, experimental and only covered by the EUA, not FDA licensed.

 

FDA License Letter:

 

EUA Re-issue Letter Excerpts:

Confused yet? The CDC did not help matters, either. On Monday, August 31, 2021, their Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) released an inaccurate statement. The committee’s public announcement unanimously endorsed the FDA license for the “Pfizer-BioNTech licensed vaccine.” They misstated the vaccine name and license holder, never mentioning the actual owner of the FDA license, BioNTech, conflating legal ownership of Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) as Pfizer’s. They neglected to mention it is not available in the U.S. and therefore not possible for consumers here to receive. Those inaccuracies further aided the public misperception that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is FDA licensed. Concurrently, two high-level career FDA officials resigned at the time of the CDC ACIP board announcement, citing frustration with overreach into FDA affairs by other parts of the Executive Branch.

 

The Pfizer company issued a “forward-looking” press release, that was also easily misinterpreted. Perhaps they were hoping the mundane went unnoticed, as the pharmaceutical giant intermingled complex terms and concepts: Pfizer, BioNTech, Comirnaty, COVID-19, mRNA, EUA, authorized, approved, licensed, manufacturer, legal owner, national markets, and etc. The corporate relationship between Pfizer and BioNTech is no less convoluted. The joint venture and vaccine names, also similar, only add to the confusion. All of which potentially prevented a clear understanding of important legal and regulatory nuances, and allowed a fearful U.S. public to believe an available vaccine was now regulatorily licensed for their safety and legal recourse, when in reality, it was not. In brief:

  • BioNTech is the marketing arm of the two company enterprise in the U.S., Europe, and UK.
  • Pfizer produced Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) for BioNTech, while both submitted supporting material for the license.
    BioNTech, alone, received an FDA license for Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA).
  • Both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) were covered, in-part, by the re-issued EUA.
  • Both Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine and COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA may be available in other countries. Yet, Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is not available anywhere under FDA jurisdiction.
  • If and when this occurs, Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) will be “[…] manufactured, filled, labeled, and packaged at Pfizer.”
  • Both Pfizer produced vaccines are, at times, marketed as Comirnaty outside the U.S. While only COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is officially recognized as Comirnaty in this country.

Recent U.S. military vaccine mandates look to be a direct result of the manufactured confusion. August 24, 2021 DoD guidance stated that the Department “[…] will only use COVID-19 vaccines that receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) […]” (emphasis added). A fully FDA licensed COVID-19 vaccine is not available to U.S. service members. They are simply not able to legally comply with the DoD mandate.

By administrative and regulatory law, it appears that all public and private institutions are not allowed to mandate EUA medical products. In 21 U.S. Code 360bb-3-Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies for unapproved products (b)(2)(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), it says that recipients have “[…] the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” In the FDA’s own policy guidelines it is written that recipients “[…] have the option to accept or refuse the EUA product […].” Under U.S. Code 335(i)(4) and related regulations, “the informed consent process typically requires human subjects to agree to the receipt… upon a disclosure that the product in question is not yet FDA approved and that the receipt of such product is voluntary.” Informed consent is required to administer EUA vaccines with few exceptions.

 

The newly mandated Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is legally defined as an EUA and therefore cannot be mandated in the military unless informed consent is waived by a presidential waiver and, according to U.S. Code Section 1107a of Title 10 and DoDI 6200.02, only after meeting specific criteria. Two of these criteria apparently preclude its issuance in this case: 1) “[…] specified military operation presents a substantial risk that military personnel may be subject to a chemical, biological, nuclear, or other exposure likely to produce death or serious or life-threatening injury or illness […]” and; 2) “[…] no available satisfactory alternative therapeutic or preventive treatment in relation to the intended use of the investigational new drug.” In the first, a waiver of informed consent is limited to the support of a specific military operation. For the second, monoclonal antibody therapy is an FDA-authorized alternative COVID-19 treatment.

It does not matter that the FDA stated in their re-issued EUA, their website, or Fact Sheet that the vaccines are similarly formulated and can be clinically interchangeable. The simple fact is that the administration of an EUA vaccine, by law, requires informed consent. It is therefore illegal to mandate any of the three U.S. available COVID-19 vaccines that are not officially licensed. As the Department did not receive an informed consent waiver from the President to mandate the Pfizer-BioNTech CV-19 Vaccine, and the FDA licensed Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is not yet available in the U.S., it remains uncertain how the military can continue to incorrectly mandate COVID-19 vaccination.

Consequently, the Services’ mandatory vaccination orders are impossible to lawfully execute according to Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 90. U.S. military officers take an oath to the Constitution, and not to those appointed over them in the event orders are unlawful (enlisted service members swear allegiance to both). An officer may find themselves duty bound to refuse an unlawfully mandated vaccination in support and defense of the law of the land, on the behalf of their troops.

 

Meanwhile in other countries, Pfizer has not provided any COVID-19 vaccines without explicit (and extreme) indemnity contracts in place. They are requiring not only protection from all future product harm civil lawsuits, but also protection from Pfizer’s “[…] fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing processes… or malice […].” The company is requiring some countries to fund foreign bank accounts, take out insurance, and put up sovereign assets such as their Embassies or military bases, according to global health law lecturer Mark Eccleston-Turner of the University of England and statnews.com.

The aforementioned regulatory charade may be a U.S. version of Pfizer’s COVID-19 global indemnity project. Unfortunately, the company has a history of misbranding “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” In a landmark DOJ case they were found guilty of a felony, and fined $2.3 billion (the largest such fine ever) for fraudulent marketing. Interestingly, the FDA receives almost half of its current funding from industry in the form of “regulatory fees,” a clear conflict of interest which should be strongly questioned.

If the vaccine is actually safe and effective, then why all this confusion? Why did they only license “Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA),” exclusively available outside of this country? Why did they not license the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” the only label available in the U.S. Why does Pfizer not just import the approved label? Why are they so keen on some form of almost total indemnity everywhere their vaccines are available? Why are we told they are interchangeable, but their license and EUA are legally not? If what is in the vial is the same, then why the legal labyrinth? And what exactly was the cross-agency overreach into FDA licensing processes and why is there no formal Congressional inquiry?

 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is asking questions. He recently wrote a letter to the FDA requesting “why they did not grant full licensure for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that is already in use and available in the U.S., and how the agency will ensure that those being vaccinated under mandates will receive the FDA-approved version […].” Those concerned about our nation’s defense should consider asking their Congressmen and Senators to do the same.

The complex web of words, business structures, international legal agreements, and unforthright regulation may not collectively protect U.S. citizens. Rather, they enable a slight-of-hand scheme that increases global market-share, reduces expenses, and lowers potential legal exposure. All the while, this product (with no long-term studies and declining efficacy) is pushed on the consumer—at all costs—regardless of the potential harm. If the confusion were removed as it should be, informed citizens, their elected officials, and public servants would not stand for this carnival-like side show.

Nine months into the vaccination campaign, available evidence to-date does not look good for existing U.S. vaccines. The original “wild” version of SAR-CoV-2 is virtually dead and the increasingly immune variants dominate. Delta is highly contagious, but much less dangerous to the general population. The largest real-world analysis study, examining 700,000 records in Israel’s official health database, found that the COVID-19 vaccinated are 13 times more likely to be infected and 27 times more likely to demonstrate serious symptoms than those with recovered natural immunity. The Combined Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which tracks post-vaccination events for possible patterns, has through August recorded more than 600,000 events, including 81,000 serious or life-threatening events and about 13,000 deaths.

In contrast, as of 12 August, the COVID-19 mortality rate in the military was .001%, or 29 deaths in the almost 2.2 million-strong and exceptionally healthy U.S. service member population. Recent studies, meanwhile, indicate that teen boys and young men (the military’s dominant demographic) are more likely to suffer heart problems from vaccination than they are to be hospitalized from COVID-19 itself. It is not difficult at all to imagine that in a force as young and healthy as the military, universal vaccination could cause more harm than the disease itself.

We all, citizen, elected official and military, want to protect the Force, but the extent of national harm that could result from doing so in this way, with wrong or incomplete information, is staggering to contemplate. Industry, regulators, and media must be immediately cross-examined. We literally only get one shot at this, as these vaccines are irreversible experimental gene therapies. I have previously suggested a Department-wide safety pause to conduct further study, so as to not prematurely commit the entire U.S. fighting force to one permanent experimental group. Given all of the cross-agency confusion, Congressional inquiry may be necessary. A bipartisan body could better investigate the misperceptions informing national security decisions.

Until more is reliably known, DoD can still maintain a control group with almost half of the 2.2 million uniformed population still deciding not to vaccinate. We could easily commence prevention and treatment therapies like I-MASK+ currently used in nations around the world with great efficacy.

It would be a national calamity to “rush to failure” en masse with the entire U.S. troop strength, using vaccines that may be more harmful than the disease itself to this specific population entrusted with our nation’s defense. The pervasive misperception that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is FDA licensed, thereby justifying mandatory vaccination policy, is a logical syllogism based on a false premise and, therefore, invalid. The FDA, CDC, Pfizer, BioNTech and the media must reveal what is under all of the “shells” for the sake of this Republic.

Many U.S. military service members are carrying these messages to Garcia in the strongest terms possible, by tendering resignations. I am aware of many seasoned officers and enlisted who have done so, or done the effective equivalent (early retirement or non-reenlistment). This mandatory vaccination decision may, in the end, squander billions in training and readiness. The sudden loss of even a fraction of the one million non-vaccinated force could expose critical capabilities at scale. The talent capable of separating, at this time, have completed all service obligations, are fully trained and highly experienced, constituting the best of our warfighter expertise and lethality. Many others are declining to visit the military recruiter’s office for the first time. The already difficult task of recruiting for our all-volunteer force may become nearly impossible with a mandatory vaccination policy.

The most tragic are those already in the Service who have a remaining obligation (contracts or enlistments) and cannot choose to leave for risk of legal or financial ruin. Continue down this path, and our military will almost certainly suffer a heretofore-unseen morale deficit, further reducing overall fighting capability. If we run off or demoralize fully half of our armed force, then the defense of this nation will be significantly crippled.

And for what? To protect 0.001% of those in service? We would wreck our military, just after wrecking our economy, at the worst possible time, when U.S. soft power and perceived hard power are arguably at their lowest levels in half a century. This unnecessary vaccine mandate comes at a moment when strategic competitors are demonstrably more capable, more aggressive, and more able to project their will against U.S. interests than ever before.

If the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy is truly a military readiness initiative, then the reality is it will cause a far graver impact to our national defense posture than this disease. America’s foes do not care the reason why our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guard or Guardians are not on duty to prevent attack. Mandatory vaccination’s enterprise-level damage to recruiting, retention, and trust and confidence within the ranks could make us all more vulnerable than COVID-19 ever could alone. It has been said that this great nation can only be conquered from within. If the military self-inflicts a strategic sized wound (by persecuting half the troops), then it is possible we could gift this nation’s enemies our own mortal blow.

To review, the FDA licensed vaccine is not available to consumers in the U.S. and even DoD cannot mandate any emergency vaccine without a specifically conditional, presidential waiver of a service member’s informed consent. To do otherwise is unlawful. The way I see it, service members have three choices: 1) choose to receive the EUA shot; 2) submit a religious and/or medical waiver, or; 3) refuse the EUA shot, as only a fully licensed vaccine labeled Comirnaty, not available at your U.S. clinic, can be mandated at present.

As we do best, service members are helping service members. More information can be found at COVID-19 educational information hub: thecontrolgroup.us

Commander Furman is a career United States naval officer, naval aviator and foreign area officer with extensive experience advising senior military, diplomatic and international organization’s leadership. The Commander has spent years serving throughout Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East at sea, ashore and airborne. He holds a Master of Arts in Security Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School.

NOTE FROM EXPANDING AWARENESS RELATIONS:
Thank you to Commander J.H. Furman and The Revolver for bringing these incredibly important issues to our attention. The amount of deception and manipulation that these “medical/health agencies”, government/politicians and pharmaceutical companies have employed to vaccinate everyone cannot in common sense terms be deemed as a beneficial goal and/or for health reasons. There is something else at work here.

Thank you again to Commander J.H. Furman and everyone else speaking up during these perilous times. Your bravery and integrity in coming forward is greatly appreciated and much needed to bring this awareness to the population.

God bless.

Heartbreaking Testimony: Pulmonary Nurse of 31 Years Testifies How He Followed the COVID Protocols, Unknowingly that They Could Result in the Deaths of Patients

” – they gas themselves to death. And I’m the guy who was pushing the buttons.”

This article has been cross-posted from globalresearch.ca
Written by Brian Shilhavy / Health Impact News (September 22, 2021)

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.

***

Albert Spence is a pulmonary nurse with 31 years of experience. He recently gave public testimony before the South Carolina State Legislature on “therapeutic options” for COVID-19.

Once again, we are finding that nurses who have been working on the frontlines treating COVID-19 patients are the most informed people in the U.S. right now who truly know what is going on in the hospitals, especially when it comes to COVID-19 protocols, and the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

We absolutely need to be listening to these frontline workers right now instead of the talking head “doctors” on TV who never actually treat patients, if we truly want to know what the truth is. Wall Street and the pharmaceutical industry now control the corporate media, and they will never publish testimonies like this, even though it is public knowledge now having been recorded by the South Carolina legislature.

In this public testimony, Mr. Spence relates how he followed all the advice in the beginning of how the medical system wanted him to treat COVID patients, even though so much of it went against his 30+ years of experience in treating patients with respiratory illnesses.

But when the COVID patients started dwindling down in his ward at the beginning of this year, and he found out that the CDC had changed the threshold for PCR tests by reducing the tests from 40 cycles to 28, then he realized what was happening, and it horrified him.

He had been unwittingly assisting in killing his patients by just “doing what I was told.” He now knows that these patients were dying from the COVID protocols, and not COVID-19.

I lost sleep over it. I was having chest pain over it. It woke me up in the middle of the night – hit me hard. I could not sleep.

Because my first week or two there (COVID ward), I didn’t lead them to the gate, but I’m the guy that euthanized people.

They call it “comfort care.” But when you get to the point where you can’t take (oxygen mask) off, you get so upset. You haven’t seen your family except through maybe an iPad, in weeks.

And you’re never going to come off the high flow, and the doctor says: “You’ve done your best. But this is going to be it for you.”

And so the patients get all teary eyed and upset, and they call in the palliative team, and they all hold their hands and cry.

But they said: “We can keep you comfortable.”

Here comes Albert (referring to himself). He’s got the morphine and ativan, and I load them up and take off the high flow, and they gas themselves to death.

And I’m the guy who was pushing the buttons, like in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and it is also on our Rumble channel.

*

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 is from HIN

 

Notes from Expanding Awareness Relations:

It’s interesting how Albert Spence mentions how there have been regular/normal treatments and protocol that they usually follow when dealing with pneumonia/respiratory/bronchitis-like illnesses, yet during the “COVID crisis”, all of these protocols were thrown out the window and the exact opposite was initiated.

Albert Spence admits that he was just following protocol. And was happy to do so because he trusted the protocols coming down from the CDC/NIH/FDA – AT FIRST.  While he has been a nurse for many years, his direct knowledge on respiratory viruses is limited, which he himself admits. However, having many years of experience and seeing what normally works as opposed to what doesn’t, even he starts questioning the suspicious changes to the guidelines once COVID hits.

There have been many renowned experts in their field that have spoken up about these vaccines as well, and while Mr. Spence may not have this medical expertise, he is still aware of and has first-hand account of the malfeasance and obvious corruption in the health/medical industry. He saw, with direct contact of these patients and in-person experience in the hospitals, what these “protocols” were really designed to do.

Another important subject to consider that Mr. Spence brings up, is HAP (hospital acquired pneumonia) or HCAP (healthcare associated pneumonia):

Background: Traditionally, pneumonia developing in patients who receive healthcare services in the outpatient environment has been classified as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). However, recent investigations suggest that this type of infection, known as healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP), is distinct from CAP in terms of its epidemiology, etiology, and risk for infection with multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens.

Results: Analysis of multi-institutional clinical data showed that mortality in hospitalized patients with HCAP is greater than that in CAP, and patients with HCAP received inappropriate initial empiric antibiotic treatment more frequently than CAP patients. The bacterial pathogens associated with HCAP also differed from CAP with potentially MDR Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria being more common in HCAP.

Conclusions: All patients hospitalized with suspected HCAP should be evaluated for their underlying risk of infection with MDR pathogens. Because HCAP is similar to hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), both clinically and etiologically, it should be treated as HAP until culture data become available.”

Source: [ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21616695/ ] / ” Healthcare-associated pneumonia: diagnostic criteria and distinction from community-acquired pneumonia”

With that being said, have we been seeing the deliberate inundation of inducing pneumonia-related symptoms in potential patients, just to drive the number of “COVID” cases up? Enough to egregiously trick the healthcare employees to unknowingly commit murder on these innocent patients all for the industry’s political/financial gain? And with that, leading to their main goal, which is tricking the population into believing that a “vaccine” is the only thing everyone needs to stay safe and return to normal?

Keep in mind that at the same time, “they” are censoring and defaming actual proven treatments that actually DO benefit their patients. Not to mention preventing them from getting up, getting fresh air, getting vitamins, getting sunlight, getting hugs from their loved ones… no, instead they are inhibiting these incredibly important aspects of human physiology and nature.

One has to wonder, why would they be denouncing and banning effective treatments and prohibiting the patients from getting access to these common and basic necessities, if their goal is to cure, heal and prevent disease and illnesses? All of the evidence points to the vaccines as being the end game.

Lastly, I have to address Mr. Spence’s last quote: “And I got a lot of COVID nurses and friends that are saying the same thing, but they can’t speak out because they still have a house payment. And they’re really upset about this.”

I am going to be completely candid on this. This is part of why we are in the problem we’re in, is because of people not speaking out. Staying quiet and continuing to watch all of the murders going on, because that’s what it is, is making one complicit. If “you” are in the hospital/healthcare profession, and you KNOW what is going on in this world, and you don’t speak out or leave, because of your comforts (even if family is involved – I know it’s hard, but this is the testament of a true character – to rise up above corruption especially when it’s challenging), then that makes “you” an agent and a part of these heinous plans. This is what the globalists depend upon. People being too agreeable and afraid to speak out in order to live comfortably even at the cost of other’s well-being.

A very warm thank you to Mr. Albert Spence for doing the honorable thing and leaving the establishment, and speaking the truth for others to hear. Your bravery and integrity are incredibly needed in these uncertain times, and is much appreciated.

And thank you to Brian Shilhavy/Health Impact News/Global Research for reporting on these accounts.