Are Ventilators Killing Patients to "Protect" Healthcare Workers?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: whereislogic

Inaction -- including in the form of not voting -- is a choice to allow evil to flourish.

I don't think I want to spend time on responding to conditioned responses to this type of information. Do with it what you will. Not voting has nothing to do with allowing evil to flourish. And people have done nothing with their votes to fight evil. Sue the government (litigate), don't vote, at least that has had positive results in the past:

a reply to: whereislogic

Conditioned responses? Okay. No, please don't waste your time with actual thought and reason.

Heaven forbid that you actually use the brain that the good Lord gave you for that very purpose while invoking His word...

a reply to: Boadicea

Nothing thoughtful or reasonable about suggesting that not voting is akin to allowing evil to flourish, when it's voting that does that. It's a standard conditioned brainwashed response regarding the subject of voting, and the promotion of the habit of voting and all the false impressions associated with it (as if you're taking responsibility, as if you are contributing to democracy, which in reality is a corporate republic and not even a true democracy, as if you're doing something important like standing up to evil and corruption in this context, 'draining the swamp' as the current King of the Swamp, Shrek, likes to sell it as his team replaces the existing swamprats with bigger more greedy and murderous ones from their own gang).

I mean no offense, but I will not lie about it. You have a right to know the truth. What you do with it from there on, whether or not being confronted with this reality upsets your sensibilities and conditioned desire to vote, triggering the whole database of programmed arguments in favor of voting (as promoted by this system of things in conjunction with the media, entertainment industry, political pundits, so-called 'experts' and politicians themselves), is not an important factor that influences my decision whether or not to be honest and in this case, blunt, about it.

Pardon for not elaborating and building a more substantial case or line of argumentation to tell you the truth about the subject of voting. I know you've already been conditioned to resist this type of information, to not take the warnings seriously.

a reply to: whereislogic

Excuse me? You are being insulting, in the most arrogant way, and you do know it or you would have felt no need or reason to suggest otherwise. You could say that our free and fair vote has been compromised to one extent or another. You can say that it has only minimal or limited value. You could say many things that would be true. But to say that voting in and of itself is thee problem is in fact encouraging and supporting the evil that you claim voting allows. Does not voting change that? Of course not.

You also know that not voting guarantees no opportunity to vote in better. None. Zilch. Nada. Zip. By your logic (and I use that term loosely), only the corrupt will be voted in because those who know better and want better won't be voting. At all. It guarantees the corrupt will win. You can slap whatever color lipstick you want on that pig, but it's still a pig.

Your only alternate suggestion is a lawsuit, as if it's an either/or situation, rather than both/all. And I have in fact and in deed gone that route when I had the standing to do so. But we do not always -- even usually -- have that standing, and therefore it is not always a practical solution.

I'm not removing any weapons from my arsenal.

a reply to: Boadicea

You voted for the convicted con-artist Trump (or some equivalent character in your own country), didn't you? No need to justify it to me. Ever heard of bankruptcy fraud?

Whatever, you're already no longer hearing what I'm actually saying and reading something else into it that you then argue against. All because I said something that you've been conditioned to not want to hear, be offended by, and consider anyone being honest to you about it as "being insulting, in the most arrogant way". Causing you to not hear what I'm actually saying and respond only to that which offends your conditioned sensibilities, that which you want to hear to justify being offended and thinking of someone else as "being insulting, in the most arrogant way".

I'm being brainwashed and conditioned too, we all are. Someone pointing it out to me would not offend my sensibilities and cause me to call them "insulting, in the most arrogant way". There's no need for that sort of ad hominems for someone stating a reality (even though they might misunderstand in what manner I'm being brainwashed and conditioned).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Boadicea

You voted for the convicted con-artist Trump (or some equivalent character in your own country), didn't you?

Nope, I sure didn't!!! But you sure like to presume much, that's clear.

No need to justify it to me.

Of course not. How odd that should even be brought up. There is no need for me to justify anything to you or anyone. The only judgment I need to concern myself with is not of this world.

Ever heard of bankruptcy fraud?

Oh dear lordy...

This conversation is over. Our words will stand on their own merit. As always.

a reply to: Boadicea
Our words don't matter squat. Nor will our disagreement change reality. Nor will my words change your opinion on what type of person you voted for the last time you voted if you are eligible to vote (which as I explained before, will always be a character that is the equivalent of Trump, a greedy murderer, as all politicians are; I've not heard a single one speaking out against the withholding of HCQ for prophylactic purposes at least for health care workers, nor the withholding of HCQ from confirmed positively tested corona patients at an early stage of the disease, as it should be used, not when it's too late as the protocols that are still being followed across the world say; I did hear politicians speak somewhat positively about HCQ though, such as one who herself was treated with it, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about actually addressing the issues with the system and what it is that is preventing most people from getting this drug on time, which in my opinion, is prophylactically for health care workers at least, to limit the spread of the virus, since they are still the biggest spreaders of the disease becuase of faulty PPE protocol that again is designed for maximum spread without those carrying them out noticing, you can't tell them to wear no PPE at all, they'd catch on right away, you do it in the manner explained by the nurse in your video, give them the idea that the protocol is sufficient, when it's not).

Didn't Boris Johnson got fast-tracked to the IC just so they could give him HCQ without violating the protocol that says this drug can only be given when it's too late (i.e. when patients go to IC)? Why did he get it at an early stage of his disease when everyone else is denied this treatment when it matters (at an early stage)?

You were justifying (or arguing in favor of) the habit of voting by the way. So, if like you admit, there's no need for you to do so, why do you do it? Because I implied that voting makes you partly responsible (part of the cause) of everything whoever you voted for, and those they hire and/or protect, does or neglects to do (causing harm by doing nothing, remaining quiet, or going along with the system, carrying out policies and protocols, not letting people know when they are clearly wrong and designed for maximum spread of corona, and worsening the fatality rates, in order to justify the need for the development of medicine and vaccins, when a perfectly unpatented drug to treat corona has been available and well-established since March 9 - 17; when all the key studies came out*).

*: See 15:11 below for the relevant timeline of events concerning HCQ:

One last note, I asked "didn't you" to indicate that I was guessing (based on your arguments in favor of voting and based on likelihood, not stating something that I already believed to be so), not assuming (as in stating something that I believe to be so, and stating it in such a manner as if it's a fact/certainty). I did the same thing concerning my question about Boris Johnson, the way it's phrased there I'm not sure if that's the way it happened, hence the question that starts with "didn't ...?" Cause I'm not sure, I'm guessing and thinking about a possible reason based on what I've heard about it. It's an invitation to argue that he wasn't fast-tracked to the IC, or for that reason (you can seperate it into 2 rhetorical questions like that). The follow-up question there is me thinking out loud about the first question, concerning other possibilities (as well as an invitation to propose other possibilities and reasons than the one I suggested as a possibility).

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: whereislogic

Inaction -- including in the form of not voting -- is a choice to allow evil to flourish.

Not voting has nothing to do with allowing evil to flourish. And people have done nothing with their votes to fight evil. Sue the government (litigate), don't vote, at least that has had positive results in the past:

The video is part of your reply.... so unless watched and heard will be missed

I found the information very interesting and informative.....and a great addition (as a reply) in the discussion.

a reply to: Itisnowagain
I'm afraid it's a bit too off-topic though. One of the reasons I didn't really want to have a debate on the merits of voting. So in my last comment I tried to tie it back into the discussion about policies and protocols concerning treatment (and HCQ). By the way, for those under the illusion that HCQ has not yet been sufficiently proven to be effective, don't be fooled by the VA marketing report that they keep on presenting as a scientific study in the media, Fox or CNN:


Latest statistics from his hospital in Marseille concerning that treatment (HCQ + Azithromycin):

COVID-19 – IHU
Positively tested patients treated with HCQ+Azithromycin there: 3241
Deaths: 17
Fatality rate: 0.5%

Positively tested patients for all of France: 170,551
Deaths: 25,531
Fatality rate: 15% (30 times as bad)

Murderers. At least, unlike in my country, they haven't been able to stop him and his team from curing their patients. But they've sure done everything to discredit him (the bureaucrats in France, the pro-government and pro-system 'experts' on TV, the journalists, physicians, etc.; all murderers with their promotion of the Agnostic Code concerning HCQ's effectiveness, as if it isn't clear that it works, and not just a minor benefit either).

edit: oops, I already shared those videos on the previous page, ah well, they're worth repeating and emphasizing seperately.

Why did Trump never present hydroxychloroquine as a proven efficient treatment for corona but rather categorize it under "promising" right along with patented highly toxic snake-oils such as Remdesivir and the Japanese drugs (lopinavir and ritonavir) that they want to sell and market*?

Why was Fauci always never far behind Trump to downplay the proven effectiveness of HCQ (primarily that it was "proven" or "well-established")?

Why doesn't Trump expose Fauci for what he is as he's standing right besides him in press conferences?

You do realize that WWE wrestling is fake right? (that's a general "you", as in everyone reading this)

*: also, regarding the blood plasma treatment (with antibodies):

Come to think of it, when did Trump mention HCQ for the last time in corona-related press conferences? Does anyone know that? It seems that the subject has died down a bit since Remdesivir was hailed as an effective treatment shortly after the "VA study" (marketing report actually) discussed in my previous comment (and accompanying marketing report for Remdesivir discussed in the 2nd video with Dr. Raoult).

Sigh, I'm so tired of all the marketing/propaganda tricks and fake WWE wrestling between team Fauci (team CNN, team Cuomo) and team Trump (team Fox, team 'End the Lockdown') and trying to find a good way to explain it and point out to others what I'm seeing.

It's so obvious who's bidding he's doing (serving?):

No mention at all that it's highly toxic snake-oil that has no benefits regarding Covid-19 whatsoever. And way more damaging side effects than HCQ, which is a proven effective treatment.

originally posted by: Boadicea
This is worth a watch folks. She talks about Fauci, coronavirus and conflicts of interests, and so much more:

In fact, it's worth its own thread if anyone has the time and inclination feel free to make it so...

Well that video didn't last long on youtube. Did the youtube hypnotic ban hammer strike again?

Lol, apparently they can't touch Dr. Raoult or pressure him into silence.

originally posted by: FredT
...
Hi-Flow nasal Canula, CPAP, Bi Pap etc are all nice bridges and can help hold off a vent but only to a point. Typically if you wait for total failure to intubate then you are too late. Its about early optimization of outcomes. And yes those modlaities spray droplets everywhere. We often put our asthmatics on continuous nebulized albuterol and that mist goes everywhere so its not a stretch that you want to avoid that. Vents also have to have an filter on the exhaust circuit otherwise that air goes into the room
...

There is widespread concern that using HFNC could increase the risk of viral transmission. There is however, no evidence to support this fear. HFNC is a better option for the patient and the health care system than intubation and mechanical ventilation. CPAP/BiPAP may be used in select patients, notably those with COPD exacerbation or heart failure.

Source: Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf - Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS), Norfolk, Hampton Roads

The term "coward" that the nurse used from 7:09 - 8:31 (7:29 to be exact) takes on whole new dimensions in light of the bolded information and reality/certainty/truth/fact above:

I hope they don't take down her video as well. She speaks the truth.

originally posted by: Boadicea
...

Doctors Face Troubling Question: Are They Treating Coronavirus Correctly? (video)

Do CoVid-19 Vent Protocols Need a Second Look?

(I wanted to post the video that inspired this ATS thread, but it's been removed by YouTube for violating "community standards": Nurse Labels Virus as a Lie

Whas it this one? Or was that at least the same nurse? (it is the nurse the other female nurse in the first video is speaking about I think):

If that's the video, maybe Youtube had a point on that one if it was titled with that title I spoke about before. Anyway, it would still be up then (since that video above is from his own channel it seems, and titled quite differently and more appropiately).

Probably wrong nurse again. Stop tantalizing us with some mysterious video that is hard to find or even identify man... I'm really curious now what the original message was in the video. I already find it hard to imagine any nurse actually labeling the virus itself as a "lie", as if it doesn't exist or isn't a virus.

Oh, and in regards to this thread title in comparison with the argument the Whistleblower NYC Nurse (female) is actually making or emphasizing, it's not the "ventilators" that are the problem (cause) here, or what they're doing referred to as "murder". Ventilators can't "murder". People who have placed their trust in the wrong types can end up doing that, by not doing something, not doing the right thing cause the protocol says so, popular opinion, especially amongst those they look up to and trust, perhaps even admire, steers them, and often self-interest is involved in a rather cowardly and apathic materialistic* manner (Dr. Ban says it better regarding the phrase "do no harm", it's in the OAN interview with him on the previous page, 2nd or 3rd part, I'm not so eloquent and polite about it).

*: worrying about their job, their reputation, respect, future career prospects, their livelihood, legal ramifications, getting in trouble with their 'superiors' (and I use that term only in a corporate hierarchal sense) or authorities (the bureaucracy); and for some people, it's just...

I mean how long does it take to catch on that HCQ works great and has great potential for prophylactic use so nobody has to get anyone else sick because of carelessness and blindly following terrible protocols? You couldn't do your research before March 19 when a certain attention-seeking guy shut down all serious evaluation of this drug in any health care worker, researcher, virulogist, etc. that watches a bit too much CNN or similar 'news' (marketing and propaganda) or comedy channels, by mentioning it which was promptly ridiculed per another useful scheme to cloud or blur the truth/certainty of the matter? Almost as if that was by design for the purpose of delaying this realization in as many physicians, researchers, virulogists, etc. as possible. And setting up the coming Remdesivir marketing game hidden under the marketing banner "(independent*) science". *: as in no conflict of interest.

Why did Trump never present hydroxychloroquine as a proven efficient treatment for corona but rather categorize it under "promising" right along with patented highly toxic snake-oils such as Remdesivir and the Japanese drugs (lopinavir and ritonavir) that they want to sell and market*?

a reply to: whereislogic

Because it was not proven at first, and he did champion the Drug as much as he could . The problem is Hydroxychloroqune showed promise so the MSM immediately began calling it Snake oil.

Again it was the Media not the POTUS.

The lack of use of NIV pre-intubation is criminal, imho.

There are filters that could be used, different mask configurations. Could also drill a hole in the nasal mask & run an oxygen line directly to the mask.

Take care of the people for God's sake. Seal up the room with plastic, whatever. Having most of them die on vents is unacceptable and intolerable.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
I went through that already and why it was proven and well-established as an effective treatment in the period March 9-17. Trump first mentioned HCQ on March 19. See the video about the supposed "shortage" of HCQ by Dr. Ban's wife (4th comment of mine on this page). By then it was already conclusive that HCQ had great beneficial effects on treating Covid-19 at an early stage of the disease (Chloroquine was already proven before that, and they do the same corona-related antiviral and prophylactic functions I explained in this comment in another thread, the key function explained there as keeping the virus outside of the cell, not just lowering the replication rate of the virus).

Spare me the pomotion of the philosophy of vagueness for profit. I've spoken extensively about it in this thread and this thread. Which you seem to be ignoring with your comment, doing exactly what I was talking about in one of those threads ('oh, it wasn't clear yet', 'it wasn't proven yet'; that's simply not true if you're talking about Trump's mention of HCQ on March 19 and the way he presented it as discussed before in this thread). Are we seeing any change now regarding the use of HCQ vs Remdesivir, now that you and me at least are not in disagreement about whether it has been conclusively established to work (HCQ that is)? And what about its prophylactic potential when there is no shortage, or any shortage can easily be fixed by increasing production, for which you are NOT dependent on India or China (or Sanofi who sells HCQ under the brandname Plaquenil), unlike what some people would have you believe by starting a whole story about Trump pressuring India to release HCQ for export to at least the US (playing on people's selfishness again)?

If Dr. Ban could figure out the first problems with the protocols, policies and guidelines (concerning treatment or otherwise) on March 1, why couldn't anyone on team Trump? Check out some of the points made after 8:30 (the first clues that these protocols, policies and guidelines were designed for making the problem worse, on purpose cause some people are not as incompetent and stupid as they are made out to be as a way to hide that it was on purpose, including pretending that HCQ wasn't proven to be effective up until this very moment; withholding details about its corona-related functions from those who are supposed to know this stuff, physicians that actually treat people, including general practitioners):

Dr. Ban had no doubts about HCQ's effectiveness compared to untested drugs (at the time) like Remdesivir and the Japanese HIV drugs either on March 20:

And he certainly wasn't the first to catch on what was wrong concerning the system in relation to HCQ and Chloroquine.

Here's me talking about HCQ for the first time on ATS (that's not to say I wasn't aware of it before that, but the topic came up because I was responding to someone who said "What is the obsession with testing for a virus that isn't treatable?" and "There's no cure for this disease."):

Comment from whereislogic about HCQ's effectiveness and usefulness on March 31.

It's in the 2nd halve of that comment. There is a strategy concerning the combination of testing with a prophylactic usage as well as treatment usage of HCQ, hinted at in that thread (in combination with my commentary that came before that), that would be perfect in containing the spread of the virus, cheap, and easily achievable. Would have worked better earlier than later. It involves the use of HCQ with the tests not far behind to confirm if the regime needs to be maintained prophylactically based on positive tests and contact tracing. For example:

- you get a positive case of corona.

You determin the most likely contacts and make a list in order of likelihood of contact with the virus. You treat these people with HCQ (+zinc) prophylactically in order of that list (as well as of course any positively tested cases, symptomatic cases still waiting for a result of a test even when they're not in this list, or priority given when they are lower on this list because everyone in the country or province should be on this list, depending on travel restrictions or not, the area gets larger if you refuse to use travel restrictions in the area where an outbreak has been detected, and again a clue that those who do so have no intention in stopping nor fighting this virus, cause they are not that incompetent or stupid, that's not a reasonable excuse but a distraction from their true motives). Then you follow up the same order with testing. The testing follows the HCQ and begins to shape who need to keep taking HCQ prophylactically cause you get a much better picture where the virus is, and you narrow the options of the virus as to where to jump to because HCQ works so well prophylactically (remember, it keeps the virus out of the cell, the only drug together with Chloroquine known to do this since at least before Feb. 2020; if you're not even counting the information concerning SARS-Cov-1, and forgive me for not being aware or having found any others spoken of by anyone I've listened to with an open mind but willingness to acknowledge truths/certainties/facts/realities when I notice them).

a reply to: whereislogic

Re Trump: I cannot explain Trump. Please don't ask me to!

Re Chloroquine: What I have heard is that it is not FDA-approved for these purposes -- that's the official reasons. For the true reason, I have no idea.

Re the "Nurse" video: I have looked for it again under a different title, and cannot find anything. You may be correct that the title used was deliberate and intended to discredit the video, and give cover for removing that copy -- and any copy of it.

The person in the video stated that he was a respiratory therapist, he was standing in what seemed to be a storage room for ventilators, and he stated that the ventilators were being used in place of other non-invasive methods -- the cannulas, CPAPs, BiPaps. There may be more quotes or at least paraphrasing of what he said in the other thread. That's all I remember though from the video. Since doing my own research, it's all blurred together now.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
...
You determin the most likely contacts and make a list in order of likelihood of contact with the virus. [edit: past and future, possible future contacts actually being more important than past; but assuming you are properly isolating positively tested cases and not sending them home to a family that isn't getting any HCQ prophilactically to protect them, nor any PPE cause they are not part of hospital staff, great selfish thinking there people, the past contacts become more important]

It's health care workers that are killing patients by using mechanical ventilation when HFNC and CPAP/BiPAP are still options, because that's what it says in the protocol and because they trust those who make the argument that using CPAP/BiPAP might put them at risk for infection. While they are wearing full PPE! Cowards, murderers. You know mechanical ventilation does more harm and is more invasive than HFNC or CPAP/BiPAP, or if you don't, you are supposed to know, stop killing people please. And you also should know that there is no evidence to support the fear of viral transmission from using CPAP/BiPAP (especially not when wearing full PPE), therefore, it's criminal negligence and involuntary manslaughter when you follow the protocol because of a deliberately dishonest argument that plays on your ungrounded fears and apathy regarding doing the research yourself as to how best to help your patients, while you nag about there supposedly being no evidence for HCQ's effectiveness (or not "proven"). You utter fool! You wanna think you're a hero for going to work and being a teamplayer? You're a murderer, staying quiet about all this for selfish reasons of covering your own ass as well as protecting your future career by not going against the grain and being a team player (while ignoring you're on team corona, headed by both Fauci and TRUMP!!! Yes, the very same guy endorsing HCQ as merely "promosing" before Fauci slams it down as "unproven", as a WWE tag-team).

There is a treatment, for every stage of the disease. Stop going along with the media-phrase: 'there is no cure' (giving an excuse for so-called "supportive care" when that is really "horrible care" as the nurse puts it, or "murderous care").

Most of Dr. Ban's videos that I used in this thread that were removed from youtube have been re-uploaded and added to this playlist:

Real frontline reports: Help with Corona/Covid-19 treatment: Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc(+Copper 10:1 ratio)+Azithromycin+vitC+D3

I'm feeling a bit lazy to figure out in which comments I used which video exactly. But perhaps you can figure it out based on the context concerning what I was talking about. Ah, a quick review made me notice that I haven't re-uploaded the 2 last Dr. Ban videos that I used in this thread. But I have the one I used when I mentioned (middle of this page):

*: See 15:11 below for the relevant timeline of events concerning HCQ:

That would now be near the start of this one:

It lists the relevant research into HCQ from March 9 - 17. When I said HCQ's effectiveness was proven. The time to start using it en masse and save so many lives that have now died and prevent so much lung damage in so many people (2-3 million? wild guess; it's more than the 300,000 - 500,000 deaths that weren't counted because they were never tested, nor cared for as they died at home and in nursing homes and either didn't qualify for a test or admittal to the hospital, talked into staying where they were or sent away again from the ER to let things get worse for them first).