American doctors admitted to risking lives during the pandemic by putting patients on ventilators which killed 50% of those ventilated

A jaw-dropping article published by The Wall Street Journal in December 2020 has resurfaced.  In it, American physicians admitted to ventilating patients who did not need it as a step in their protocol.  It was done not as a treatment that was likely to benefit the patient, but rather as a fruitless and callous way of attempting to stop the spread of covid-19.

Doctors are treating a new flood of critically ill coronavirus patients with treatments from before the pandemic, to keep more patients alive and send them home sooner.

Before the pandemic, between about 30% to more than 40% of ventilator patients died, according to research … As the pandemic grew, hospitals in the US reported death rates in some cases of about 50% for ventilated covid-19 patients.

Hospitals Retreat from Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics, The Wall Street Journal, 20 December 2020

Add to the fact that up to 50 per cent of covid-19 “cases” were just “PCR positive” false positives, wrote James Lyons-Weiler. “Euthanising humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients.”

Did Protocolists Euthanise Covid-19 Patients with Ventilators and Sedatives “To Save Other Patients”, >50% kill rate? Up to 70% of covid-19 Deaths Due to Ventilators

By James Lyons-Weiler

TRIGGER ALERT: If you lost a loved one to covid-19 and the doctors tried to ventilate your loved one early, please do not read any further. Have someone close to you read this, read the full article, and describe the article to you in a calm, quiet setting. You will need a friend to help you through this.

If you are a doctor who has been persecuted for doing the right thing, perhaps you lost your license or it is being threatened, send this Wall Street Journal article to your lawyers – and thank you for not acquiescing to the demands that you kill patients on ventilators and with strong sedatives.

Either way, I encourage PR readers to read the WSJ article yourself and see if you agree or disagree.

WSJ Article: McCullough, Kory, Lyons-Weiler, and Others Were Right

In a jaw-dropping article published by The Wall Street Journal – ‘Hospitals Retreat From Early Covid Treatment and Return to Basics’ – physicians admit to ventilating patients who did not need it as a step in their protocol – get this – not as a treatment that was likely to benefit the patient, but rather as a fruitless and callous way of attempting to stop the spread of covid-19.

Last spring, with less known about the disease, doctors often pre-emptively put patients on ventilators or gave powerful sedatives largely abandoned in recent years. The aim was to save the seriously ill and protect hospital staff from Covid-19.

Now hospital treatment for the most critically ill looks more like it did before the pandemic. Doctors hold off longer before placing patients on ventilators. Patients get less powerful sedatives, with doctors checking more frequently to see if they can halt the drugs entirely and dialling back how much air ventilators push into patients’ lungs with each breath.

“We were intubating sick patients very early. Not for the patient’s benefit, but to control the epidemic and to save other patients,” Dr. Iwashyna said “That felt awful.”

Yes, euthanising humans is illegal. Especially for the benefit of other patients. It should feel awful.

Last spring, doctors put patients on ventilators partly to limit contagion at a time when it was less clear how the virus spread when protective masks and gowns were in short supply. Doctors could have employed other kinds of breathing support devices that don’t require risky sedation, but early reports suggested patients using them could spray dangerous amounts of virus into the air, said Theodore Iwashyna, a critical-care physician at University of Michigan and Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals in Ann Arbor, Mich.

Subsequent research found the alternative devices to ventilators, such as delivering oxygen through nasal tubes, weren’t as risky to caretakers as believed. Doctors also gained experience with covid-19 patients, learning to spot signs of who might suddenly turn seriously ill, some said.

The WSJ article describes a study conducted that now allows doctors to predict who needs a ventilator and who does not:

It found more doctors now follow the pre-pandemic protocols, which have reduced the number of deaths and shortened the time patients spend on ventilators, HCA’s chief medical officer said.

Before the pandemic, between about 30% to more than 40% of ventilator patients died, according to research. Numbers were sharply higher in the pandemic’s early hot spot in Wuhan, China. As the pandemic grew, hospitals in the US reported death rates in some cases of about 50% for ventilated covid-19 patients.

(25.6 – 7.6)/25.6 = 70% of Covid-19 Deaths Due to Ventilators? Up to 50% Who Died in Hospital Did Not Have covid-19?

One study of three New York City hospitals found the death rate for all covid-19 patients dropped to 7.6% from 25.6% between March and August after accounting for younger, healthier patients in the summer. Hospitals in New York were less crowded in August than during the April surge, which could increase mortality, the study’s authors wrote in October in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. The study also suggests patients may have benefited from new medications and improved treatment, they said.

Add to the fact that up to 50 per cent of covid-19 “cases” were just “PCR positive” false positives. This means under protocolists’ “care,” perhaps as many as 50% of people who died with a PCR positive test result died because of a false positive PCR test. They either never had covid-19, or they became infected in the hospital after going home for ten days with a respiratory ailment other than covid-19 that, if tended to properly with outpatient care, would never have led to hospitalisation.

Perverse Incentives to Ventilate Patients

In a remarkable rarity of “fact-checking” gone right during the heyday of covid-19 disinformation, USA Today actually verified Dr. Scott Jensen’s reports that hospitals were receiving financial incentives that he considered “gaming the system,” citing numerous independent so-called fact-checker opinion websites.

“We rate the claim that hospitals get paid more if patients are listed as covid-19 and on ventilators as TRUE,” they reported in April 2020.

“Hospitals and doctors do get paid more for Medicare patients diagnosed with covid-19 or if it’s considered presumed (sic) they have covid-19 absent a laboratory-confirmed test, and three times more if the patients are placed on a ventilator to cover the cost of care and loss of business resulting from a shift in focus to treat covid-19 cases.”

It’s REAL Early Treatment, Stupid

We were right. So many of us were right. Protocolists should have listened.

Further reading: Who Are the World’s Leading Authorities in covid-19 Treatment? James Lyons-Weiler, 27 September 2021

Immeasurably Callous: Now That the Vaccinated Are Being Hospitalised Far More, “Guidelines are just guidelines”

From the WSJ article: “Researchers and doctors continue to study covid-19 patients who require ventilators, and some experts have called for flexibility from pre-pandemic standards for doctors to decide how to calibrate ventilators. ‘It’s personalisation, that’s the key word,’ said John Marini, a professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota. ‘Guidelines are just guidelines’.”

Anyone paying attention to the Public Health takeover of allopathy understands the reality that guidelines are only guidelines until someone in HHS or the White House decides to shut you down on personalised medicine.

We need harsh, hard investigations with consequences – and activists need to write bills tying the hands of protocolists to prevent them from ever again killing one patient to hypothetically save another – under threat of a murder charge.

We need legislation for “on-demand” scripts for off-label medicines that patients want for potentially deadly infections – regardless of “FDA Approval” – FDA does not, by definition, have to “approve” off-label scripts.

Also: there are helmet-based ventilator options – that are far less invasive, patients do not feel they are being attacked or strangled – and they come with free training.

About the Author

James Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and author of ‘Cures vs. Profits’, ‘Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism’, and  ‘Ebola: An Evolving Story’.  He regularly publishes articles on a Substack page titled ‘Popular Rationalism’ which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.