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.

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