Document makes powerful points on Iatrogenic deaths, masks

Excerpts from a very long, but important Covid document.

Even the cover page of the Isle of Man document is impressive.

In my recent article on 10 massive Covid scandals, I spoke highly of a comprehensive summary produced by authors in The Isle of Man. 

I’ve learned the authors produced the document as local officials will be hosting an inquest into the effectiveness of many of the Covid mandates. As impressive as I found the document, I know few people will read it as the text came in at over 22,000 words.

What follows are excerpts from the document I thought might interest my readers. I limited my excepts to just two chapters of the document - Iatrogenic deaths (which I think is probably the greatest unreported massive scandal) and mandatory masking. The authors argue that masks themselves are dangerous, which is a point seldom made.

Hopefully these excerpts will encourage more readers to at least skim the entire document and/or reinforce why I think this document is important.  (To preserve some of my holiday Monday, I didn’t go overboard with my punctuation typesetting).

Introduction/Overview:

“… The human cost of these policies has been as horrendous as it was predictable—a fact not even their most ardent defenders can seriously contest. We’ve witnessed the closing down of businesses, the coercion of medical treatments, the loss of jobs, the separation of families, elderly people dying alone in care homes and starvation levels increasing around the world. For this, we have been landed with a bill that we will be paying off for generations to come.

Pandemic or Democide: What Caused the Excess Deaths?

‘Democide means for governments what murder means for an individual under municipal law. It is the premeditated killing of a person in cold blood, or causing the death of a person through reckless and wanton disregard for their life.’ - Rudolph Rummel¹

The data is perhaps intriguing enough however, to at least look and see if any other factors could have been feeding into the excess mortality … There is solid evidence that the massive and high-dose administration of highly toxic drugs plays the decisive role

My comment: In developing their case that iatrogenic deaths were widespread, the authors discuss the significance of unacknowledged “early spread” and even reference one article I wrote on the topic. The authors’ conclusions mirror my own:

“The COVID-19 virus is reckoned to have been spreading over the world for months at this point, yet there was no sign of excess mortality anywhere except possibly China.¹⁶ 

“… Immediately after the WHO declares a pandemic and makes reference to making hospitals ready, the death rate dramatically spikes in various European countries, US States and Canadian provinces. These spikes are unprecedented in both their scale and the fact that they take place outside of the usual flu season. They occur simultaneously in geographic areas separated by thousands of miles, yet not necessarily in neighbouring countries or even provinces …”

“Various explanations are offered as to how the virus could spread without noticeably affecting mortality rates, then suddenly transform itself into the worst killer in a century.¹⁷  …”

My comment: Early in the official pandemic, up to 50 percent of all deaths were occurring in residents of nursing homes (or “care homes”). This statistic was also probably intentionally down-played. 

‘Amnesty International has received multiple reports of care home residents’ right to NHS services, including access to general medical services (GMS) and hospital admission, being denied during the pandemic, violating their right to health and potentially their right to life, as well as their right to non-discrimination. Care homes managers have pointed out that such reluctance or refusal to admit older care home residents to hospital could not be explained by need, as hospital bed capacity was never reached.’

‘The problem was widely reported early on in the pandemic, and was seemingly exacerbated by guidelines published by NHS England on its website on 10 April advising that some care home residents “should not ordinarily be conveyed to hospital unless authorised by a senior colleague.” The guidelines caused a controversy and were withdrawn a few days later but the damage lingered.’ “ …

Me: Several quotes from witnesses are republished, including this one: 

The care home called me and said (my 76-year-old, previously heathy father) had symptoms, a bit of a cough and that doctor had assessed him over mobile phone and he would not be taken to hospital. Then I spoke to the GP later that day and said he would not be taken to hospital but would be given morphine if in pain. Later he collapsed on the floor in the bathroom and the care home called the paramedic who established that he had no injury and put him back to bed and told the carers not to call them back for any Covid-related symptoms because they would not return. He died a week later.

“… He was never tested. No doctor ever came to the care home. The GP assessed him over the phone. In an identical situation for someone living at home instead of in a care home, the advice was “go to hospital”. The death certificate says pneumonia and COVID, but pneumonia was never mentioned to us.”’

“ … It is self-evident that the withdrawal of medical care will cause excess deaths. It is also worthy of note that a GP was willing to prescribe end-of-life drugs over the telephone.”

Misuse of ‘do not attempt resuscitation’ (DNAR) forms

“.. In addition to infection risk, this also represents the denial of (presumably necessary) hospital care to thousands of elderly people—an action guaranteed to raise the death rate.

My comment: These people might not have had Covid but they still needed medical care. I hadn’t read much about this possible cause of a spike in deaths …

“Increased workload, reduced staffing levels and removal of oversight for care homes

… Compounding the medical problems, Amnesty’s report identified how COVID regulations reduced the number of staff, whilst increasing the workload of the remaining ones:

‘According to the National Audit Office, workforce shortage in the care sector pre-pandemic was already estimated at 122,000 and staff absence increased significantly during the pandemic, with absence rates in care homes between mid-April and mid-May 10% on average, and considerably higher in certain care homes or areas. The lack of testing exacerbated this problem as it was impossible to know if some of those self-isolating were COVID-19 free and could in fact work. Staff shortages in turn impacted the ability of care homes to adequately manage infections and the quality of care they were able to provide for residents, both those infected with COVID-19 and others. 

This was exacerbated by a situation where care home staff had to perform a number of additional tasks—from assisting residents to communicate with their relatives who could no longer visit them, to enforcing social distancing among residents unable to understand the requirement because of dementia, to cutting residents’ toenails because chiropodists stopped visiting care homes, to interpreting and communicating residents’ symptoms to GPs who were no longer visiting care homes, etc.’

This coincided with the removal of oversight from care homes, with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) suspending inspections and family members banned from visiting:

Notably, this decision meant that at a time when older people in care homes were most vulnerable—because of the virus and because those who usually advocated on their behalf could no longer visit them—the regulator was largely absent.

The lack of official visits occurred at the same time as a ban on other visits—from family and friends, as well chiropodists, hairdressers, nurses, and others—which were normally an important source of information for the CQC. Expert noted that “[CQC] have been unable to rely on the ‘eyes and ears’ of visitors to raise the alarm and care workers have been frightened to speak out.”’

Reports from the various countries experiencing high excess mortality at this time tell a similar tale. They were all engaged in isolating their elderly population and denying them medical care. In a report into the care home disaster in Sweden, the BBC quote a nurse as saying:

“They told us that we shouldn't send anyone to the hospital, even if they may be 65 and have many years to live. We were told not to send them in.’²²

‘Quebec’s Health Ministry issued a directive on March 19 – barely a week after the global pandemic had been declared – instructing nursing homes not to send residents to hospitals unless in exceptional circumstances. Conversely, hospital patients who were not in critical condition were to be either sent home or transferred to care homes. This practice was adopted in multiple jurisdictions: Quebec, Ontario, several U.S. states including New York and New Jersey, and in England.’²⁵

^…  New York also made extensive use of ventilators, which are estimated to have killed tens of thousands of Americans unnecessarily.²⁷ 

In 2020, British journalist Jacqui Deevoy began documenting stories of people who contended their family members had been effectively murdered by the NHS, through being involuntarily put on ‘end-of-life pathways’.

Ms. Deevoy placed particular emphasis on the sedative drug, midazolam. 

… They highlight a paradoxical effect, where the drugs given to treat an ailment actually produce the symptoms of that ailment, leading to the delivery of more drugs.

(Witness, child of victim): “I think what happened was, because they neglected her, and they gave her a high dose of midazolam and morphine, because it is a respiratory suppressor, and they dehydrated her for such a long time, those drugs compounded and they were magnified in terms of potency, because she just couldn’t get the oxygen, she just suffocated.’

“ … The last thing she said to me was: “get me out of this hospital, they’re trying to kill me.”’

… As we’ll see in a moment, midazolam use spiked in April of 2020. Was this because so many people were dying of COVID, or were people dying because of the increased use of a respiratory suppressant drug?

In a presentation titled Euthanasia in the Pandemic?³⁰ Dr. John Campbell addressed this question by referring to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COVID treatment guidelines, published on the 3rd of April 2020. The key line that jumps out in the Managing Breathlessness section is:

‘Sedation and opioid use should not be withheld because of an inappropriate fear of causing respiratory depression.’³¹ 

Dr. Campbell questions whether a fundamental mistake was made in transferring the guidelines for incurable conditions onto a potentially completely recoverable one. He points out that if an opioid and a benzodiazepine (such as morphine and midazolam, respectively) are given together, they will have the effect of stopping the recipient breathing. He states that:

‘Opioids and benzodiazepines will depress respiration.

‘Even with moderate breathlessness people might have looked ill but had a virus that their immune system could have overcome. They could have recovered, but could well have been given these medications that resulted in suppressing their breathing.’

‘“Living in a nursing home is not a diagnosis. By itself it can never be a medical basis for deciding whether to live or die”. Gustafson said that nutrient drip treatment, blood clot prevention, oxygen and bacterial pneumonia treatment with antibiotics would help the elderly. “Instead, giving morphine and midazolam regularly to elderly people with lung infection is active euthanasia, if not something worse. We gave up the elderly who could have had a chance of survival”.’³⁶

Decrease in antibiotics prescriptions

In 2008 none other than Dr. Anthony Fauci himself co-authored a paper on postmortem studies of victims of the pandemic of 1918. The paper found that:

‘People who died of influenza during 1918–1919 uniformly exhibited severe changes indicative of bacterial pneumonia. Bacteriologic and histopathologic results from published autopsy series clearly and consistently implicated secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria in most influenza fatalities.’

And concluded that:

‘The majority of deaths in the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic likely resulted directly from secondary bacterial pneumonia caused by common upper respiratory-tract bacteria.

… In actual fact it is no secret that prescriptions for antibiotics fell dramatically through the COVID era, once again in a manner that correlated with rising excess mortality:^{38 …}

It is not unreasonable to ask whether the logic has not been inverted: Is COVID-19-assignment an incorrect cause-assignment for what is in fact bacterial pneumonia?’

‘If COVID-19 is largely misdiagnosed bacterial pneumonia (using a faulty PCR test: Borger et al., 2021; or not using any laboratory test), or if co-infection with bacterial pneumonia is not appropriately recognized (Ginsburg and Klugman, 2020), or if bacterial pneumonia itself goes otherwise untreated, while antibiotics (and Ivermectin) are withdrawn, in circumstances where large populations of vulnerable and susceptible residents have suppressed immune systems from chronic psychological stress induced by large-scale socio-economic disruption, then the state has recreated the conditions that produced the horrendous bacterial pneumonia epidemic of 1918 (Morens et al., 2008) (Chien et al., 2009) (Sheng et al., 2011), in COVID-era USA.’⁴⁰

“… What is well within scope, is to propose that this question—the question of what caused the excess deaths—is undoubtedly one of the most important in the world right now. Without answering it, societies around the globe will be doomed to repeat the devastating mistakes of the COVID era.”

Supplemental: an account from a nursing home manager on the Isle of Man

Amnesty International’s report, As If Expendable, highlighted the difficulty nursing homes faced maintaining staffing levels due to stringent isolation requirements. This situation led to a staffing crisis at Abbotswood Nursing Home on the Isle of Man. The result of this was that the Island’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) suspended the home’s license and took direct control. We are not aware of this happening anywhere else in the British Isles. Prior to this, two residents had died (both discharged from hospital on end of life care). After the takeover, fourteen residents died within two weeks. A further four died after this.

Mrs. Zandra Lewis was a registered nurse and a Director and responsible person of Abbotswood at the time the COVID-19 pandemic was announced. She had held a managerial position there since 1994. Mrs. Lewis strongly disputes that there was any reason for the DHSC to take the unprecedented course of action it embarked on. She further contends that the deaths at Abbotswood that occurred after the DHSC took over were essentially iatrogenic: brought about by residents being placed on ‘end-of-life’ pathways. In a letter delivered to the Island’s Chief Constable in June of 2020, Mrs. Lewis asserted that the DHSC:

Failed to provide basic medical care such as subcutaneous drips or oxygen to try and save residents' lives.

Failed to identify and treat residents' illnesses and medical issues and provide adequate care.

Refused to transfer ill residents to Nobles hospital, where appropriate medical care in a hospital setting may have changed their ultimate outcome.

Failed to provide appropriate hygiene care to residents, mouth care, grooming and washing.

Failed to feed and provide fluids to residents resulting in weight loss and dehydration (staff remaining at Abbotswood informed Ms. Lewis that they were taken away from essential care such as giving fluids and feeding residents to change pads).

Used lethal end-of-life drugs such as midazolam and morphine.

This list is by no means exhaustive. It parallels issues raised in the Amnesty report. A criminal investigation was launched into the directors of the home, however no criminal charges were brought.⁴¹ In spite of the deaths happening on their watch, no investigation into the actions of the DHSC has ever been held …”

Two. Mask Mandates

“.. The issue of mask mandates may seem like a relative triviality. If they helped ‘stop the spread’ then great, and if not—what did we really lose by trying?

The deeper question raised by mandates however, is at what point is it acceptable for one group of people to impose medical interventions upon others?

As the opening quotation of Dr. Anthony Fauci illustrates, at the start of the COVID era, masks were not generally regarded as helpful in preventing the spread of viruses.

“… In  many cases, the desire for wide spread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.’³

“… Indeed, in March 2020 US Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams even went so far as to say masks might actually increase the likelihood of infection.⁶

“…It’s fair to say that the issue of masking transcended science and became politicised …”

Lead author, Dr. Tom Jefferson, commented that:

“Governments had bad advisors from the very beginning… They were convinced by non-randomised studies, flawed observational studies. A lot of it had to do with appearing as if they were “doing something.” ’¹⁸

“… The evidence for masking is at best weak and in greater likelihood, nonexistent. This would explain what the effects of mask mandates are consistently invisible in real world comparisons.²¹

”… Serious concerns over the ‘potentially-harmful side effects’ of mask mandates have taken the following forms:

Masks restrict breathing and increase levels of carbon dioxide

A letter to the Belgian authorities, signed (at the time of writing) by 762 medical doctors and a further 2,931 medically trained health professionals, stated that:

‘Wearing a mask is not without side effects. Oxygen deficiency (headache, nausea, fatigue, loss of concentration) occurs fairly quickly, an effect similar to altitude sickness. Every day we now see patients complaining of headaches, sinus problems, respiratory problems and hyperventilation due to wearing masks. In addition, the accumulated CO2 leads to a toxic acidification of the organism which affects our immunity.’²⁴ 

The direct relevance of this is that numerous studies have demonstrated a link between hypoxia (low oxygen blood levels) and suppression of the immune system. This is not to mention cancer and heart disease.²⁶ Even if masks do keep viruses out (or in), then how should this be balanced against plausible immune system suppression?

‘This systematic review comprehensively revealed ample evidence for multiple adverse physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes of medical face masks, with worse outcomes in the case of N95 masks. This can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups e.g., children, pregnant, older adult, and the ill.

Masks are a breeding ground for bacteria

… However credible the idea that breathing behind a barrier may guard against viral transmission may be, surely the idea that placing a damp and dirty rag in front of one's breathing apparatus could cause harm, is at least equally plausible. In recognition of this fact, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) advises:

‘Before putting on a face mask, wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (with at least 60% alcohol). Without touching the front of the mask, secure the ties behind your ears or head. While wearing the mask, do not touch the mask or your face. When removing the mask, take off the ear loops or ties first. Do not touch the front of the mask or your face when removing the mask. After removing the mask wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds (or use hand sanitizer). Face masks should be washed routinely with soap and water or laundry detergent to prevent contamination.’²⁹

It is perhaps self-evident that the vast majority of the general public were not adhering to such standards over a prolonged time period—neither could they realistically be expected to.

Various studies have confirmed the self-evident presence of bacteria on masks.³⁰ 

Masks and all cause mortality

By comparing mortality rates in Kansas counties with and without mask mandates, Dr. Zacharias Fögen studied whether masks decrease or increase all-cause-mortality. He concluded that:

‘Results from this study strongly suggest that mask mandates actually caused about 1.5 times the number of deaths or ∼50% more deaths compared to no mask mandates. This means that the risk for the individual wearing the mask should even be higher, because there is an unknown number of people in Mask Mandate Counties who either do not obey mask mandates, are exempted for medical reasons or do not go to public places where mask mandates are in effect. These people do not have an increased risk and thus the risk on the other people under a mask mandate is actually higher.’³³

Masks are composed of chemicals which can be toxic

Conclusion

“Whilst other issues with masks, such as their effects on childhood development and the publication of previously private medical information are of course major issues too,⁴² this chapter has sought to question whether masks can be justified even in terms of their stated goals. Irrespective of any other downsides, do they actually improve physical health?

“Even ignoring health harms, It is clear that the evidence for this is weak at best and more likely: none existent. If we include the potential harms, the risks can not possibly be said to outweigh the negative consequences. Furthermore, it is not just a case of demonstrating a small effect, but of demonstrating a large and safe enough one to justify imposing masks on unwilling wearers. This condition has clearly not been met …”