TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

In the past 9 days, I have been working in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients. However, I have noticed some unusual medical phenomena that don't align with the expected viral pneumonia. The common understanding is that COVID-19 starts with mild symptoms and progresses to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). But based on what I have seen, I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. This misconception could potentially harm a large number of people in a short period of time. I fear that our current medical paradigm is incorrect and that we need to reevaluate our approach to COVID-19.

I am literally telling you that they're murdering these people, and nobody will listen to me. These people aren't dying from COVID. They don't care what is happening to these people. They don't. I'm literally coming here every day and watching them kill them. It's like going in the fucking twilight zone. Like, everyone here is okay with this. The only way I can kind of put this into context for everybody is an extreme example: He's like, if we were in Nazi Germany and they were taking the Jews to go put them in a gas chamber, I'm the one like, they're saying, hey. This is not good. This is bad. We should not be doing this. And then everyone tells me, hang in there. You're doing a great job. You can't save everybody. But these people aren't dying from COVID. Let me give you several examples here. An anesthesiologist intubated the patient’s right bronchus and of a patient, and they couldn't get the stats up. For about five hours, we were waiting on a chest x-ray to confirm that the placement was wrong. In the meantime, while we're waiting for that, and we've told the anesthesiologist that it was placed wrong because, like, literally only one side of his fucking chest is inflating, he dies. A patient had a heart rate of 40, and the resident starts doing chest compressions on him, which is not what you do. You just externally pace them or you give him some atropine. Then I run in there to stop him from doing chest compressions on somebody with the fucking pulse. And then he decides to push epi. He throws some pads on him to defibrillate the guy in bradycardia. Okay? He has a heart rate of 40 and a stable, you know, bradycardic rhythm. We just need to give him, like, somatropine and pace him. He fucking defibrillates him and kills him. I ran out of the patient’s room to get the director of nursing who was standing out there. And I’m like, can you stop him? He’s going to kill that patient. He’s going to kill that patient if he defibrillates him with bradycardia and a heart rate of 40. The director of nursing just shook his head, and I turned around, and he killed the dude. There was a nurse who placed an NG tube into some guy’s lungs and filled his lungs with tube feeding. There was a nurse who confused a long-acting insulin with a short-acting insulin and gave thirty units of a fast-acting insulin and killed the guy. It’s just here they’re just gonna let them rot on the vent. They’re medically mismanaging these patients. And, like, I’m not a doctor, but there’s basic standards of care. When somebody’s low on blood, literally on the brink of a critical low blood level, we should replace the blood. I asked the residents, and they’re like, does he have internal bleeding? And I said, no. Then they’re like, well, we’re not replacing the blood. In these COVID patients, they all eventually need a blood transfusion. Their blood—if you don’t have enough blood to oxygenate your body, the vent settings don’t fucking matter because you have no oxygen carrying capacity of your blood. We have a nurse who fell asleep at the nurses’ station while we were all in rooms, and her norepinephrine ran out. And the guy had no fucking blood pressure and didn’t perfuse his brain, and I’m pretty sure his brain dead. That same nurse is now running a CRRT machine, a dialysis-like machine, that she has never done before. She said she’ll figure it out. I’m pretty fucking smart, and I figure a lot of shit out, but I would never attempt to try and figure out a CRRT machine on the fly. We are adequately staffed. There’s a shit ton of staff in there, like, and we have a nurse who does CRRT in there. She has a different patient load. We told them, swap these nurses so the one that knows how to work this machine can work this machine, but they didn’t wanna do that. So I’m pretty sure that patient will be dead here in a couple hours. Nobody is listening. They don’t care what is happening to these people. They don’t. I’m literally coming here every day and watching them kill them. I mean, we’re not gonna save everybody. That’s fine. Like, come on, guys. We’re not God. Some of these people are just on sedation to keep them on the vents. Nothing else. I have a lady on a tracheostomy on a vent, and she’s not even fucking cognizant. She’s not even on sedation. You know what we give her every day? I give her breathing treatments, albuterol, and she gets insulin. And that’s it. We’re not treating the COVID, guys. For real, we’re not treating the COVID. You know, every day, we try and get these guys off the vents. Right? Because there’s criteria for weaning. Every day, the day shift nurse will wean them down to minimum sedation. Every night, we come in and we get the same two residents and they fucking max out all the sedation again and undo all the work from the day shift. Then the day shift attending will come in, and they’ll all do rounds. And they’ll be like, he wasn’t synchronizing with the vent. So we had to turn all the sedation on. And I’m like, he wasn’t synchronizing with the vent because it’s in the wrong vent mode. I even tried getting a hold of Black advocacy groups here. They just put me on hold or hang up on me. Tried talking to management. Now I got new units. And someone come up with some type of a solution for me because I’m kind of out of ideas. You know, I try and talk with some of the other nurses here, and they’re like, well, you can’t save everybody. And they all know what’s happening. They all agree with me and they all just shake their heads and I’m like, am I the only one who is not a sociopath to think that this is okay? I mean, guys, they literally don’t even know when they’re dead. Like, how many times have I told you they’ve assigned me a dead person? Like, how long have they been dead? Nobody knows. Like, how is anybody assessing anything without a stethoscope? Normally, we have disposable stethoscopes, but I brought my old chunky one. Nobody has listened to anybody’s lungs as long as I’ve been here. Even with disposable stethoscopes. I keep telling them that, you know, the guys are like, my patient’s going acidosis. We need to do something about this before his kidneys shut down. Then they run five liters of bicarb into a person who’s gained 20 pounds of water weight and completely throw him into heart failure, and he dies several hours later. That was one of my patients. So I let them know. They had me start the bicarb before I left one night. And by the time I came back the next shift, he was dead. And they assigned him to me, and he was already in a body bag. Like, guys, they’re not dying of COVID. I am literally telling you that they’re murdering these people, and nobody will listen to me. My lead at the other hospital warned me I’d have a problem and advocate for the patients too. They moved him to a completely different hospital. I tried reaching out, but he hasn’t texted me. I’m going to the unit. Let’s see how they kill him there. Okay? Stay safe. Stay out of NYC for your health care.

I have three friends who had stage 4 cancer, and now they are cancer-free. They used treatments like Ivermectin, Fenbendazole, and methylene blue, which was originally a textile dye but has shown significant benefits for mitochondria. It's surprising to see effective treatments being overlooked, raising questions about the medical industry's priorities. Why are cures that aren't profitable often ignored or demonized? This situation highlights a failure in our medical institutions to promote genuinely effective solutions.

Many nurses witnessed patients dying not from COVID, but from medical mismanagement like using remdesivir and ventilators. One nurse highlighted the lack of feeding tubes for ventilator patients. Placing patients on ventilators without feeding tubes led to starvation and death. The focus on ventilators instead of proper care caused harm, with many patients not surviving the treatment. Early intubation was pushed to contain the virus, resulting in high mortality rates for ventilated patients. The situation in hospitals was distressing and poorly managed.

It's frustrating that effective treatments used globally aren't considered here. A doctor mentioned that many treatments don't work, and with a high mortality rate, there's little to lose by trying new options. Patients often present with severe breathing difficulties and thick mucus in their lungs, visible on X-rays. Proven treatments exist, like high-dose IV vitamin C, which has shown success in trials, but these are often dismissed. Instead, patients are frequently sedated and placed on ventilators. Despite the historical skepticism surrounding vitamin C, it has potential benefits that are overlooked, leaving many to question the current medical approach.

Patients are dying not from COVID, but from treatments like remdesivir causing organ failure. One person's mother died after being given remdesivir against their wishes, leading to organ shutdown. There was a financial incentive for hospitals to admit patients and put them on ventilators, resulting in unnecessary treatments and deaths.

Noninvasive ventilation like CPAP or BiPAP is not being used in some New York City hospitals due to COVID. Patients are quickly put on ventilators, neglecting other treatments. Nurses report patients being left to die without proper care or family support. Ventilators cause lung trauma, with high pressure and sedation protocols. Traditional treatments like hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and vitamins are not being used, despite patient consent being obtained without full understanding.

We ended our previous episode with our COVID pyramid, build layer upon layer of lies, deceit, fraud, scandals. Now, by now you’re wondering how so many hospitals, doctors, and health care workers went along with all of the above. We have reached the capstone of our nauseating COVID pyramid. Pyramid. We shall name the capstone M and M, money and murder in hospitals. Shocking as it may sound, we’ve seen it before. Remember the unjust administering the killer drug midazolam in The UK as shown in part 19? Well, The US and many other countries had their own version called remdesivir. Here’s what happened. Hospitals were given incentives, as in money, for each and every COVID casualty. According to whistleblowers, investigative journalists, lawyers, and specialists, Hospitals in The US have been receiving $13,000 for every admitted COVID patient. There have been financial extras for every COVID test, for every positive outcome. If patients were treated with the only prescribed drug, remdesivir, the hospital received yet another bonus: 20% of the entire hospital bill of the patient. Then for every patient put on a ventilator, the hospital received $39,000. And if that patient officially died of COVID nineteen, they got yet another $13,000. That’s a lot of money. According to attorney Thomas Renz and CMS whistleblowers, the hospitals receive approximately $100,000 per COVID casualty if the above protocol was followed. Now the thing is, the American hospitals received this money in advance based on the COVID predictions, based on the flawed models of people like Brooks. If the hospitals didn’t actually meet those models, they had to pay that money back at a later stage. And we’re talking millions of dollars here. So what happened? Everybody who was admitted to a hospital, for instance because of a car accident or because of cancer or diabetes or kidney failure, everybody got a PCR test to start with. Due to the ridiculous amount of cycles, there was an abundance of false positives. False positives equals positives equals COVID patients equals money. Hence, the sunrise in COVID patients. Then remdesivir left its detrimental mark just like midazolam had done in The UK. You see, remdesivir is not a new drug. It was used in 2018 during the West African Ebola outbreak. It was known to have severe adverse effects such as kidney damage, liver damage, and even death. Yet in 2020, Anthony Fauci directed that remdesivir was to be the drug hospitals used to treat COVID nineteen, hence the incentives. So what happened next? Those poor patients only got worse, after which they were put on a ventilator. After all, that was yet another bonus of many thousands of dollars pouring straight into the pockets of the hospitals. Now the problem with ventilators is that the patient is put into an induced coma. His or her breathing is taken over by a machine that puts extra pressure on the lungs called barrow pressure. In the case of damaged lungs due to for instance pneumonia, those lungs will only get worse. The chances of that patient recovering, of being able to be taken off the ventilator and to start breathing by himself are very, very small. Combined with organ failure as a result of remdesivir, the chances of that patient ever leaving the hospital alive are next to nothing.

A nurse describes conversations with colleagues about COVID protocols and says they’re afraid to speak up because they fear peer rejection and job loss. They claim that the protocols were killing people and that patients died in the hospital from the protocols, not from COVID itself. The nurse recalls that in March 2020, one of the most published ICU doctors in the United States, Dr. Pierre Corrie, and a colleague known nationally for intensive care, spoke out publicly. They argued that everyone who has COVID is responding extraordinarily well to high doses of IV steroids, and that this made perfect sense. The nurse, who worked in the ICU for over ten years, notes that COVID caused more inflammation in the human body than any infectious disease they had seen, evidenced by lab measurements. They mention CRP levels as a marker of inflammation, stating that CRP was more than double what they had ever seen, and that the ICU intensivists’ recommendation was to give high-dose steroids because they would immediately reduce the inflammatory response. The nurse emphasizes that steroids are an anti-inflammatory and correct the inflammatory response. This stance, they say, was voiced in March 2020—before vaccines or other interventions were available. The nurse asserts that there was an effective tool for managing the inflammation of COVID, but the CDC and leadership for the health industries in the United States completely shut that down.

- The discussion opens with a critique of how public health authorities in the United States and much of the media discouraged experimentation with COVID-19 treatments, instead pushing vaccination and portraying other approaches as dangerous. The hosts ask why treatments were sidelined and treated as heretical to question. - Speaker 1 explains that the core idea was to stamp out “vaccine hesitation,” which he frames not as a purely scientific issue but as a form of heresy. He notes a broad literature on vaccine hesitancy and contrasts it with the perception of the vaccine as a liberating savior. He points to a Vatican €20 silver coin (2022) commemorating the COVID-19 vaccine, described by Vatican catalogs as “a boy prepares to receive the Eucharist,” which the speakers interpret as an overlay of religious iconography with vaccination imagery. They also reference Diego Rivera’s mural in Detroit, interpreted as depicting the vaccine as a Eucharist, and a South African church banner reading “even the blood of Christ cannot protect you, get vaccinated,” highlighting what they see as provocative uses of religious symbolism to promote vaccination. - They claim that the Biden administration’s COVID Vaccine Corps distributed billions of dollars to major sports leagues (NFL, MLB) and that many mainline churches reportedly received money to push vaccination, with many clergy not opposing the push. The implication is that monetary incentives influenced public figures and organizations to advocate for vaccines, contributing to a climate in which questioning orthodoxy was difficult. - The speakers discuss the social dynamics around vaccine “heresy,” using Aaron Rodgers’ experience with isolation and shaming in the NFL and Novak Djokovic’s experiences in Australia to illustrate how prominent individuals who questioned or fell outside the orthodoxy faced punitive pressure. They compare this to a Reformation-era conflict over doctrinal correctness and describe a psychology of stigmatizing dissent as a tool to enforce conformity. - They argue the imperative driving institutions was the belief that the vaccine was the central, non-negotiable public-health objective, seemingly above other medical considerations. The central question they raise is why vaccines became the sole priority, seemingly overriding a broader, more nuanced evaluation of medical options and individual risk. - The conversation shifts to epistemology and the nature of science. Speaker 1 suggests medicine often relies on orthodoxies and presuppositions, rather than purely empirical processes. He recounts a Kantian view that interpretation depends on preexisting categories, and he uses this to argue that medical decision-making can be constrained by established doctrines, which may obscure questions about optimization and safety. - They recount the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and discuss Sara Sotomayor’s dissent, which argued that liability exposure is a key incentive for safety and improvement in vaccine development. They argue that the current system creates minimal liability for manufacturers, reducing the incentive to optimize safety, and they use this to question how the system encourages continuous safety improvements. - The hosts recount the early-treatment movement led by Peter McCullough and others, including a Senate hearing organized by Ron Johnson in November 2020 to discuss early-treatment options with FDA-approved drugs like hydroxychloroquine. They criticize what they describe as aggressive pushback against such approaches, noting that McCullough faced professional sanctions and lawsuits despite presenting peer-reviewed literature. - They return to the concept of orthodoxy and dogma, arguing that the medical establishment often suppresses dissent, citing YouTube removing a McCullough interview and the broader pattern of silencing challenge to the vaccine narrative. They stress that the social and institutional systems prize conformity and punish those who deviate, creating a climate of distrust toward official health bodies. - The discussion broadens into metaphysical and philosophical territory, with references to the Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. They propose that elites—whether religious, political, or scientific—tend to prefer “taking care” of people through control rather than preserving individual responsibility and free will. The Grand Inquisitor tale is used to illustrate a recurring human temptation: to replace personal liberty with a protected, paternalistic order. - They discuss messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a central manifestation of Promethean or Luciferian intellect—humans attempting to “read and write in the language of God.” They describe the scientific arc from transcription and translation to mRNA vaccines, noting Francis Collins’s The Language of God and the idea of humans “coding life.” They caution that mRNA vaccines involve injecting genetic material and point to the symbolic and ritual power of vaccination as a form of modern sacrament. - The speakers emphasize that the mRNA approach represents both a profound scientific achievement and a source of deep concern. They discuss fertility signals and potential adverse effects, including myocarditis in young people, and cite the July 2021 NEJM case study as highlighting safety concerns for myocarditis in adolescent males. They reference the FDA deliberative-committee discussions, noting that some influential voices publicly questioned the risk-benefit calculus for young people, yet faced pressure or dismissal within the orthodox framework. - They describe post-hoc investigations and testimonies suggesting that adverse events (like myocarditis) might have been downplayed or obscured, and they assert that public trust in health institutions has eroded as a result. They mention ongoing debates about whether vaccine-induced changes might affect future generations, referencing studies about transcripts of mRNA in cancer cells and liver cells, and they stress the need for independent scrutiny by scientists not “entranced” by the vaccine program. - The dialogue returns to the broader human condition: a tension between curiosity and restraint, knowledge and humility. They return to Dostoevsky’s moral questions about free will, responsibility, and the limits of human knowledge, concluding that scientific hubris can lead to dangerous consequences when it overrides open inquiry and accountability. - In closing, while the guests reflect on past missteps and the need for integrity in medicine, they underscore the ongoing questions about how evidence is interpreted, how dissent is treated, and how society balances scientific progress with humility, transparency, and respect for individual judgment.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

Many nurses witnessed patients dying not from COVID, but from medical mismanagement like using remdesivir and ventilators. One nurse highlighted the lack of feeding tubes alongside ventilators, emphasizing the importance of proper care. Patients were intubated early, leading to high mortality rates. The medical system's focus on COVID treatments caused harm, with nurses bearing the brunt of patient care.

In the past 9 days, I've been working in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients. However, I've noticed some unusual medical phenomena that don't align with the expected viral pneumonia. The common understanding is that patients start with mild symptoms and progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). But based on what I've seen, I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. This could lead to significant harm for many people in a short period of time. I fear that our current medical paradigm is incorrect and that COVID-19 is not the disease we thought it was.

Honestly, I'll tell you something. All my fellow doctors who were affected by Covid-19 have all taken chloroquine. So, it's hypocritical to say that we need to wait for studies to know what to do. I believe we should give every possible chance to the patients.

A nurse and a doctor discuss the use of ventilators in hospitals during the pandemic. The nurse reveals that some floors were carrying out actions that other floors refused to do, essentially causing harm to patients. The doctor mentions that ventilators were used to protect healthcare workers, even though they had a high fatality rate for patients. The lack of transparency with patients and families is highlighted, as well as the reluctance to explore alternative treatments like Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine. The speaker also mentions the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that led to unnecessary deaths.

I used to do breathing treatments in my office, and then I moved them to people's cars because there was so much, oh you're spreading the virus if you do breathing treatments in your office. But they weren't doing them in the hospital because they thought it would spread the spread the virus, but super effective. I don't know if, you know, if you've heard of Richard Bartlett. He's a doctor in Texas. He kinda got completely smeared for advocating for breathing treatments early on. He got pursued by the med the Texas Medical Board pursued him because he was claiming they thought he was making false claims about budesonide breathing treatments, but they were invaluable. I mean, all my high risk patients, recommended they get those in very low risk of issues with it.

Dr. Cameron Kyle Seidel, an ER and critical care doctor from New York City, shares his observations after treating COVID-19 patients for nine days. He questions the current medical paradigm of treating COVID-19 as a viral pneumonia, as he has witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with this assumption. He believes that COVID-19 lung disease is not a pneumonia but rather a viral-induced condition resembling high altitude sickness. Patients experience a gradual deprivation of oxygen, leading to anxiety and distress. Despite appearing critically ill, they do not exhibit typical pneumonia symptoms. Dr. Seidel expresses concern that treating COVID-19 as pneumonia may cause harm to many people.

The dialogue centers on treatments and outcomes for COVID-19, with concerns about what is being used and what might work. One participant remarks on the reluctance to use certain treatments that are successful worldwide, recounting a conversation with a doctor. Another asks what kinds of treatments are being tried, noting that some approaches “are coming out with different things that are in the testing phase.” A third person criticizes a platform they believe “kills more people than actually save,” and another agrees that “they don’t work anyway,” questioning the harm in trying alternatives when current efforts aren’t effective. A key exchange discusses expectations for patient survival. One person says, “I don’t expect any of these people to survive. Ninety percent of them would die,” while another adds that if patients are “already dying anyway,” it may be reasonable to try additional measures rather than do nothing. There is debate about whether trying unproven treatments is appropriate; one participant notes that without a scientific basis, extra attempts can make patients worse, while another concedes that they would try anything to save their life. The conversation then shifts to clinical presentations and treatment strategies. With COVID patients who cannot breathe, X-rays show “the lungs are white,” indicating affected lungs with very thick, white secretions. The question arises of what “white lung” means—whether it is mucus and coating that fill the lungs and impede oxygen transfer. In response, the discussion distinguishes between early-stage treatments (like hydroxychloroquine and zinc) and later-stage interventions. It is stated that once lungs are severely affected, certain proven treatments exist that have passed trials in Asia through Dr. Chang, described as a US-board-certified physician. Specifically, extremely high-dose IV vitamin C is claimed to be successful in treating patients, providing the lungs with antioxidant support to help expel the infection, alongside IV antibiotics to treat the infection while avoiding reliance on ventilation and sedation. There is a contrast drawn between approaches in different regions. The dialogue notes that high-dose IV vitamin C has passed three trials in Asia and is reported as effective, while in the speaker’s locale, there is hesitation or reluctance to adopt this method. The discussion ends with a remark about how some people might attribute success to “good genes,” implying a belief that genetics may influence susceptibility or outcomes, though this is stated rather than argued as a scientific conclusion. Overall, the conversation emphasizes that several participants are wary of conventional treatments, advocate for exploring high-dose IV vitamin C as a therapeutic option, and describe the characteristic radiographic and clinical features of severe COVID-19 lung involvement.

In this video, the speaker shares their frustration with their hospital's restrictions on using off-label drugs like methylprednisolone and vitamin C. They criticize the hospital for not allowing the use of vitamin C, which they consider a basic and safe drug. Instead, the hospital promotes the use of Remdesivir, despite its known risks. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Remdesivir increases the risk of kidney failure by twentyfold and the risk of death by about 4%. The speaker believes that hospitals prioritize industry interests over patient well-being, as they receive a 20% bonus for prescribing this toxic medication.

The speaker discusses the use of ventilators in treating COVID-19 patients. They mention that the concept of using ventilators came from China as a way to protect healthcare workers. However, they point out that many patients put on ventilators in New York City were dying, with a 90% fatality rate in some Texas hospitals. The speaker questions why alternative treatments like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine were not considered when the chances of survival were so low. They also mention the incentivization of using certain drugs and protocols that may have contributed to unnecessary deaths.

A doctor recounts moving breathing treatments from their office to patients' cars due to concerns about virus spread, despite hospitals also avoiding them for the same reason. They mention Dr. Richard Bartlett, a Texas doctor who faced criticism for advocating budesonide breathing treatments early in the pandemic. The speaker claims Dr. Bartlett was smeared and pursued by the Texas Medical Board for allegedly making false claims. However, the speaker maintains that these treatments were invaluable and recommended them to high-risk patients, noting a very low risk of issues.

According to the speaker, hospital protocols differed for vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, with more aggressive protocols used on the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated patients interviewed were often given remdesivir, a repurposed drug from a failed Ebola trial where about half the patients died. The speaker claims the efficacy data for remdesivir was "sketchy at best," but hospitals received large reimbursements for its use. The speaker alleges that patients would then be put on oxygen, then mechanical ventilation, then ICU, and finally, if they resisted, a cocktail of sedatives and sometimes four-point restraints to prevent them from leaving. The speaker states that "a lot of the patients died." The speaker claims that at each step, the hospital received more reimbursement, and there was "lockstep adherence" to the protocol.

In the past 9 days, I have worked in an intensive care unit for COVID-19 patients and witnessed medical phenomena that don't align with the expected symptoms of viral pneumonia. While hospitals are preparing to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), I believe we may be treating the wrong disease. The patients I've seen and the condition of their lungs indicate that COVID-19 is not following the expected pattern. I'm concerned that our current approach may cause significant harm to many people in a short period of time.

Although I am not a doctor, I’m a nurse. On the front lines we knew what was happening. When we asked for ibuprofen, they said no. When we asked why we weren’t giving steroids, the answer was “we’re just following orders.” Following orders has led to the sheer number of deaths in these hospitals. I didn’t see a single patient die of COVID. I’ve seen a substantial number die of negligence and medical malfeasance. When I was on the front lines of New York, I became globally known as the nurse in the break room sobbing, saying they were murdering my patients. Pharmaceutical companies had gone into those hospitals and decided to practice on the minorities, the disadvantaged, the marginalized populations with no advocates, because the very agencies that should protect them were closed while we were sheltering in place. While I was there, pharmaceutical companies rolled out remdesivir onto a substantial number of patients, which we all saw was killing the patients. And now, it’s the FDA-approved drug that is continuing to kill patients in the United States. As nurses, we’ve collected a descriptive amount of information that you may not get from the doctors. Doctors do quantitative data; we do qualitative data with a humanistic, phenomenological approach in nursing research. We’ve collected data from patients across the country for which we’ve helped patients through the American Front Line Nurses and the advocacy network so nurses could advocate for these patients. This data pool shows that as these patients get remdesivir, they have a less than twenty-five percent chance of survival if they get more than two doses. Now they’re rolling it out on children as well and into nursing homes or skilled nursing facilities as early intervention, even though doctors Pierre Corre and Merrick have demonstrated that there are cost-effective medications out there, and we are going to see the amplification of death across the country. We haven’t even touched on vaccines, which our expert panels have described; I won’t touch on that since many are far superior to me. Two days ago I flew out my first 10-year-old with a heart attack and had to fight the ER doctor because he said, “ten-year-olds don’t have heart attacks.” I argued for thirty minutes to force his hand to get an EKG and found a STEMI; the 12-lead EKG lit up. He said it wasn’t possible, and I said, “was just vaccinated yesterday. It is very much possible.” People contact me and the nurse advocates at American Front Line Nurses to help advocate, because there’s victim shaming—“it’s anxiety,” “it’s this.” But if they acknowledge it as a vaccine injury, the physician, the corporation, the hospital, the clinic may not get reimbursed, so it’s labeled as anxiety, neuropathy, or Guillain–Barré syndrome, when it’s very realistically a vaccine injury. I’ve traveled to South America, India, and South Africa, working in hot zones, stopping the spread of the virus and doing early intervention. Nowhere in developing nations do I see these issues that we see here in the United States. I’m a very proud American citizen from a family of immigrants. Our level of health care has deteriorated to substandard third-world-nation health care. You are better off in South America in a field hospital than in level-one trauma designer hospitals in the United States. As nurses, we are getting reports across the country from American frontline nurses about patients not getting food, water, or basic care. How come a patient hasn’t been fed in nine days? Why do I need a court order to force a hospital to feed a person who isn’t intubated and who would like food? If they’re on a ventilator, they’re not given water or basic care. We’re not allowed to take a BiPAP mask off to help someone eat. I’ve had patients who haven’t been bathed, haven’t been fed, and haven’t been given water, or been turned. This isn’t a hospital; this is a concentration camp. Nowhere in the United States do we isolate people for hundreds of hours with no human contact; it’s not allowed even in prisons. In hospitals, we isolate patients from their families for days, and you have to say goodbye over an iPhone, or you have to shuttle people in to see them. I was fired for sneaking a Hispanic family in to say the last rites to their family. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for giving nurses the opportunity to represent our patients, because we’re not often thought of as leading professionals, though we are the missing link between the doctors and the patients. Thank you for this time. Thank you for being a nurse.

In my 20 years of military and ER experience, I witnessed the challenges of dealing with a novel virus. As healthcare professionals, we made mistakes due to outdated knowledge and assumptions. We intubated patients unnecessarily and didn't consider alternative treatments. Families suffered as they were unable to be with their loved ones during their final moments. I held dying patients' hands, knowing there was little I could do. The government exacerbated the situation by interfering with healthcare decisions and keeping families apart. We shouldn't rely on the government to solve problems it created.