reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker discovered a nursing home was giving her unauthorized sedative pills, leading to her removal. The facility then gave her an inappropriate antipsychotic drug, claiming she had schizophrenia. A doctor warns of the dangers of unnecessary antipsychotic use in nursing homes, which can increase the risk of cardiac issues and falls. The misuse of these drugs in nursing homes has raised concerns due to the serious health risks they pose.

I found out there was a do not resuscitate order for my grandmother after she passed away. The order had my name on it, but it wasn't my signature. The care home had discussed the possibility of a DNR with me, but I had clearly stated I did not want one. The DNR form was incomplete because the section asking if the patient was aware of the order was left blank.

Speaker 0 describes repeatedly witnessing what they say is deliberate killing and gross medical mismanagement of hospitalized COVID patients, saying “nobody will listen.” They compare the situation to Nazi Germany putting Jews into gas chambers, and say they are told “you can't save everybody” even though they insist the patients are “not dying from COVID.” Speaker 0 gives multiple examples: an anesthesiologist intubated a patient incorrectly, with only one side of the chest inflating; after about five hours waiting for a chest X-ray, the patient died. A patient with a heart rate of 40 in a stable bradycardic rhythm received chest compressions by a resident, which Speaker 0 says was not appropriate; Speaker 0 ran in to stop him, but the resident then “pushed epi,” placed defibrillation pads, and defibrillated, and the patient died. Speaker 0 says they repeatedly tried to get the director of nursing to stop the actions, but the patient was still killed. They also describe nurses placing an NG tube into the lungs and filling lungs with tube feeding, and confusing long-acting insulin with short-acting insulin and giving 30 units of fast-acting insulin, which they say killed the patient. They claim patients are “just going to let them rot on the vent” and that blood transfusions are not provided even though, they say, COVID patients “all eventually need a blood transfusion,” because vent settings do not work without adequate oxygen-carrying capacity. Speaker 0 describes staffing and procedural failures: a nurse reportedly fell asleep and norepinephrine ran out while a patient had no blood pressure and was not perfusing the brain; Speaker 0 says the same nurse is now running a CRRT machine “that she has never done before.” They say nurses were not swapped even though a nurse who knows the machine could handle it, and they predict the patient will die soon. They also say some patients are on only sedation or not truly treated for COVID, including a woman on a trank (tracheal vent-related mention) who is not “even cognizant,” and who only receives breathing treatments (albuterol) and insulin. They describe a cycle of vent and sedation management: day shift weans sedation to minimum, but at night the same residents increase sedation again, undoing day shift work; day shift attending rounds and says synchronization problems required turning sedation up, while Speaker 0 says the issue is the event mode being wrong. Speaker 0 says attempts to contact advocacy groups were unsuccessful, and they feel out of ideas. Speaker 0 further claims patients are not properly assessed: they say nobody listens to lungs, even with disposable stethoscopes, and that they have seen patients already in body bags with no knowledge of how long they had been dead. They say they were told a patient was acidotic and should be treated, but instead the patient’s condition was allowed to worsen, kidneys shut down, and then bicarb was run late; Speaker 0 says the patient became overloaded with fluid, developed heart failure, and died. They also describe witnessing procedures resulting in death, including an ET tube placed incorrectly causing choking on blood, and a central line complication where a doctor allegedly ruptured a subclavian vein and the patient bled to death. Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss that Speaker 1 is also “not a doctor,” while Speaker 0 maintains that actions like defibrillating a patient with a heart rate of 40 in a stable rhythm constitute “murder.” Speaker 1 adds that “nobody cares” and makes comments about “minorities” and “the hood.” Speaker 0 says a prior lead who advocated for patients was moved to a different hospital and had warned Speaker 0 there would be problems. Speaker 0 ends by saying they will go back to the unit and “see how they kill him there,” urging people to stay safe and “stay out of NYC for your health care.”

Grace's death certificate listed COVID-19 pneumonia as the cause of death, but her family believes she was actually murdered. The hospital increased her medication dosage significantly, refused to resuscitate her, and put a do not resuscitate order in place. Despite pleas from her family, nurses did not intervene, claiming Grace was a do not resuscitate patient. The family suspects foul play due to the sequence of events leading to Grace's death.

The speaker refused a ventilator and remdesivir, citing concerns about their effects. Despite feeling fine, a doctor told them they would die. The speaker demanded a new doctor and criticized the lack of water and nutrition provided. They questioned the logic of being denied water but given water with MiraLAX. The speaker felt pressured to increase oxygen levels, which they believed was harmful. They were mistakenly labeled as "do not resuscitate" and had to clarify their code status to medical staff. Translation: The speaker rejected certain treatments, expressed dissatisfaction with medical care, and clarified their resuscitation status to healthcare providers.

The speaker expresses concern about the treatment of their father in a care home. They received a picture showing their father with injuries and were shocked to learn that he didn't receive a brain scan for those injuries. The speaker also mentions a phone call informing them that their father was failing and that end-of-life medication would be introduced. They were allowed to visit their father but only from the door. The speaker questions the reasons behind these restrictions.

Speaker 0 expresses concern about residents in care homes signing DNR forms without proper understanding or capacity. Speaker 1 discusses how COVID patients in hospitals may develop pneumonia due to prolonged bed rest. Speaker 2 warns about confusion between the generic name Remdesivir and the brand name Veclery in hospitals.

The speaker, a former health care administrator, states that many hospitals now include waivers in admissions paperwork that, once signed, give the facility permission to give the patient any medication they want to give, without requiring additional consent and without even informing the patient. The speaker emphasizes that this is a concern for individuals who did not take the relevant medical intervention and do not want it, and who wish to avoid being medicated without awareness. Advice provided: - Before admission, demand the admissions paperwork in paper form. They may push back, but you should insist on a printed form. - Read through all the admissions paperwork thoroughly, even though it may be tedious. - When you reach the waiver that allows giving medications without needing to tell you, circle all of that content and write boldly through that section: "I do not consent." Sign it, date it, and demand a copy. Do not let them rush you through the process. - After signing, tell them you will not proceed further until you have the printed copy of the form. - Upon arriving on the floor, inform the charge nurse: "I do not consent. Here's my printed copy in case you wonder." Also tell every attending nurse. - Communicate this explicitly to every attending nurse on every shift (every twelve hours), rather than assuming notes will suffice. - If you receive any feedback from the floor staff, notify the house supervisor. - If you encounter any feedback from the house supervisor, consider consulting a lawyer. In summary, the speaker urges patients to obtain and review printed admissions paperwork, explicitly deny consent for waivers allowing unnotified medication, and consistently communicate this denial to all floor staff and supervisors on every shift, with legal counsel as a potential next step if needed.

This is wrong. Being in hospitals since 16, I know calling a patient DNR without orders is wrong. Many nurses agree but fear speaking out. Intubating people unnecessarily is a big issue. A patient was fine on oxygen, then intubated, leading to his death. Negative tests shouldn't result in intubation. It's seen as murder.

The speaker discussed the topic of "do not resuscitate" orders in the Scottish Ambulance Service. There were discussions about age grouping for limiting resuscitation attempts, with rumors of reducing the age limit to over 50s. This caused stress and uncertainty among paramedics.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health informing them that the CDC was changing the way death certificates were completed. They were now allowed to list COVID-19 as a cause of death, instead of just listing it as a contributing condition in the designated box. The speaker disagreed with this change, as they believed COVID-19 should be listed in the contributing conditions box, along with other conditions like emphysema, asthma, and influenza.

They are witnessing medical negligence and deaths in a hospital, with patients not dying from COVID. Instances include incorrect intubation, wrong medications, and lack of proper care. Despite efforts to advocate for patients, the situation remains dire. The speaker expresses frustration at the lack of action and concern for the patients' well-being.

A patient who looked like he was dying was given morphine despite having zero pain, according to the pain score. Insulin was also administered even though his glucose was fine, and he died three minutes later. The speaker reported this case to the medical board after reviewing the chart, but they did nothing. The speaker states that this definitely went on during COVID. The speaker refers to this as euthanasia, though it is not called that. The speaker offered to send the record that was reviewed.

A lawsuit is in jury trial regarding hospital protocols where a young woman with Down syndrome was allegedly euthanized. According to the speaker, the hospital gave her a DNR order, even though she didn't have one. The speaker claims this is because the hospital needed the bed and believed she was going to die anyway. The patient was in the hospital for COVID. The speaker alleges that hospitals gave patients morphine and insulin to kill them. In this specific case, the hospital gave the patient a DNR, meaning if she appeared to be dying, no action would be taken. The family is suing for battery to circumvent the PREP Act, which protects doctors and hospitals from wrongdoing during COVID. The trial started in Wisconsin.

Updating anticipatory care plans during the pandemic was challenging due to families wanting hospital treatment for their loved ones, but facing restrictions. There was a push by the NHS to implement DNA CPR in care homes, causing access to care to be limited without much public discussion. Translation: During the pandemic, updating care plans and implementing DNA CPR in care homes faced challenges and restrictions, impacting access to care without widespread public awareness.

The speaker shares a disturbing experience where patients died and their bodies were stacked in freezer trucks, but not from COVID. Autopsies were banned and there were price hikes for ventilators and deaths. Feeling unable to speak up, the speaker decided to go undercover and recorded conversations for four weeks. They play a clip of a doctor who didn't properly care for a patient, wrote her death certificate before she died, and lied to her family. The speaker believes it's important for the public to know about these unethical practices. They question why the hospital staff didn't act differently if family or ethics committees were present. The speaker asks for opinions on what the right thing to do in that situation would be.

The speaker received an email from the Department of Health with a link to the CDC. The CDC advised physicians to adjust the way death certificates were completed. The adjustment meant that if COVID-19 was thought to be the contributing condition, it could be listed as the cause of death. However, the speaker disagreed and mentioned that there is a separate box on death certificates for listing contributing conditions such as emphysema, asthma, and influenza. They were being told that with COVID-19, it could be listed as the cause of death.

The speaker received a call from a care home stating her father had fallen and was agitated, and would be given morphine. She was shocked he was on an end-of-life path of injecting to stop his issues. She later learned midazolam, one of the medications being used, is considered by some practitioners to be like being waterboarded because it floods the lungs. The speaker was not advised about a specific end-of-life care plan for her father. She expressed concerns to the care home manager about what she had seen and the way end-of-life care was being administered. Despite a DNR in place from the first care home, she learned her father had been mobile and trying to get to the toilet. She felt it was a random decision to keep him quiet, in isolation, in a comatose state.

The speaker's daughter was almost put on a ventilator based on incorrect test results. The speaker challenged the doctor's decision and discovered the numbers were inaccurate. The daughter was not given certain treatments and the speaker was removed from the hospital for questioning protocols. The daughter's oxygen levels were misrepresented, leading to her death from respiratory failure caused by a sedation drug. The speaker's advocacy was absent for 44 hours, during which the daughter's sedation was increased, ultimately contributing to her death. The hospital's negligence led to the daughter's death.

The speaker's brother, James, died in Ninewells Hospital in May 2021 at age 41. She describes him as a healthy, kind chef. After being taken to the hospital, she believed he was in the best place. However, she later learned from his medical records that doctors tried to put him on a ventilator, which angered her because this wasn't communicated to her. She communicated with her brother via text for the first few days, but then he was given lorazepam and ventilated. The family didn't want him on a ventilator due to low chances of recovery. He developed ventilator-associated pneumonia, which she discovered later in his records. The death certificate cited SARS COVID-2 as the cause of death. She noted a discrepancy in the time of death, raising questions about resuscitation. She requested investigations into his death, focusing on his participation in a trial where the signature on the consent form didn't appear to be his. She questioned whether trial drugs caused an allergic reaction. She also discovered he was prescribed toxomolobab, an immune suppression drug, making him more susceptible to hospital-acquired infections. She claims doctors and nurses lied to her daily.

Four days after ordering a deadly injection, Dr. Picchu allegedly ordered the removal of the COVID-19 vaccination record from the patient's medical file. The speaker claims any doctor would know not to vaccinate an ill patient, especially one recently off a ventilator. The head of the ICU ordered an mRNA injection for COVID-19 for a patient less than a week removed from a mechanical ventilator. The patient died later that week. The speaker states that Dr. Picho, head of the ICU in British Columbia, still has his medical license.

A lawsuit is in jury trial regarding hospital protocols where a young woman with Down syndrome was allegedly euthanized. According to the speaker, the hospital gave her a DNR order, even though she didn't have one. The speaker claims this is because "they need the bed" and "they're gonna die anyway." The patient was in the hospital for COVID. The speaker alleges that hospitals gave patients morphine and insulin to kill them. In this case, the hospital allegedly gave the patient a DNR (do not resuscitate) order. The family is suing for battery to get around the PREP Act, which protects doctors and hospitals from wrongdoing during COVID. The trial started in Wisconsin.

The transcript centers on a set of 36 blackened documents, referred to as “海苔弁” (a term used for darkened papers or redacted files). The speaker notes that 8割 (about 80%) of the white areas are blacked out. The family involved is introduced: a 40-something woman living in Sapporo, Hokkaido, who is the wife of a man who taught at a cram school. He died after receiving a vaccine, and his death occurred at their home, after which the police prohibited autopsy. The wife wants to know the cause of death and asks to see the autopsy results from the northern region. The documents she received do not reveal anything conclusive. The narrative then moves to a specific case: a 42-year-old man who died six days after vaccination. The wife wants details about her husband. He received the first Pfizer vaccine on October 15, 2021. After vaccination, he experienced side effects, including arm pain and fever, which reached up to 38.5°C. The fever lasted about three days, and the wife confirms the fever occurred, but she notes her husband did not commonly discuss illness beyond that. Six days after vaccination, around 2:30 a.m., the wife heard noises on the first floor and went down to find her husband collapsed. He was coughing up white foam from his mouth and bleeding from the mouth, and he complained of difficulty breathing. He then suffered cardiopulmonary arrest and died. Medical opinions on the cause of death are summarized: the doctor(s) say, “Details are unclear; it may be the vaccine, but it could be something else; there is no evidence to confirm the vaccine as the cause.” The police describe the condition as an acute circulatory system disease, and multiple doctors mentioned possibilities such as acute circulatory system disease, heart conditions, coronary events, arrhythmias, cardiac failure, and aneurysm, but a specific cause could not be confirmed. One doctor notes that while the autopsy would help clarify, the evidence does not definitively point to the vaccine as the cause. The documents include statements from a party labeled as “investigative or consent-possible opinions,” including autopsy-related viewpoints and “acute circulatory system disease suspected” remarks. The final conclusion in the documents states that the death is “presumed to be acute circulatory system disease,” but the path to that conclusion remains unclear due to the blacked-out or redacted portions of the materials. The wife expresses regret that autopsy was not performed, saying she now regrets not having an autopsy. She was advised that delaying the return home would be an issue, and thus the autopsy did not proceed. She has continued to worry about why her husband died, given that the exact cause remains unknown, and she suggests that more proactive autopsies could reduce such unresolved cases in the future. The transcript notes that there are multiple fatality cases studied, with some families wishing autopsies had been performed to understand why death occurred. The account ends with the author noting ongoing questions about whether autopsies are being actively pursued in similar cases.

The speaker received a phone call saying their dad was feeling unwell. They were told that their dad was agitated and had been shouting for help. They found him on his hands and knees trying to get to the toilet. The care home said they would introduce end-of-life medication, which shocked the speaker. They were allowed to visit their dad, but only at the door while wearing full PPE. They were not sure if their dad was COVID negative or if the restriction was to limit staff exposure. They were only able to see their dad lying on his side in bed.

The inquiry anticipates hearing that people were pressured into DNR notices, were not resuscitated without a notice, and may have been neglected and left to starve. Families may not have been told the truth about the cause of death, and the usual death certification process was altered. A solicitor produced a DNR order with a name printed in block letters, not a normal signature. A witness stated they told the care home categorically that they did not want a DNR order in place for their grandmother. A care home manager said there was a push from the NHS to implement more DNRs. One home received DNR/ACPR forms for all residents who didn't have one. Challenges arose when families wanted their loved ones to receive hospital treatment for non-COVID ailments, but facilities wouldn't accept them. It was stated that GPs were said to have discussed DNR forms with families, but this didn't seem to be the case. The process was rushed, with a focus on who needed a DNR because they wouldn't be able to go to the hospital. There was no individual consideration, and care homes weren't asked about a resident's health when considering DNRs. Access to ambulances and hospitals was limited, leading to DNR decisions.