Thursday 30 April 2020

SAD TRUTH REVEALED - THE ELDERLY MAY BE DYING FROM MORE THAN COVID-19

While it's common knowledge now that COVID-19 is taking the lives of the elderly in staggeringly disproportionate numbers to the rest of the community, with the obvious factor of a degenerating immune system at play, there may be much more going on.

Australia has been conducting inquiries into abuse and neglect within aged care facilities and while the majority provide a wonderful service, there are some where horrific situations exist. But - and we have discovered a big 'but' - there may be contracts and agreements in place which are exacerbating the problem of disproportionate deaths. And, this applies to aged care in hospitals and in palliative care as well.

We do not know the details of agreements in Australia regarding end-of-life care but have come across a letter from a much experienced paediatrician in the US. No doubt similar issues apply to Australia. His letter is published after this excerpt from today's article in the New Daily......


Another resident has died at the Newmarch House aged-care home in Western Sydney after contracting coronavirus, prompting the NSW Premier to condemn the situation as “horrific” and “unacceptable”.
A 74-year-old man died on Thursday afternoon, bringing the death toll at the facility to 13 after a staff member caused an outbreak by working six shifts despite having mild COVID-19 symptoms.
“The coronavirus has had a devastating impact on all our residents and families,” Anglicare, which operates the facility, said.
Premier Gladys Berejiklian told the ABC the situation at Newmarch House was “horrific” and she has called on the federal government to intervene.
“The federal government [has] involved the [National Aged Care Advocacy Program] to deal with the matter,” she said.
“Because what’s happening there isn’t acceptable and unfortunately you do notice a difference in the way people who run these aged care homes across the nation are dealing with the issue.
“This particular operator has been left wanting on a number of levels.”
The National Aged Care Advocacy Program supports the elderly in aged-care facilities by helping them understand their rights and to make informed decisions while in care.
Thirteen of the home’s residents have died, and many more are infected. Photo: AAP
READ IN FULL HERE: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/coronavirus/2020/05/01/newmarch-house-virus-federal-govt/ 


THE SITUATION IN AMERICA by Dr. Paul Byrne. [As published on the Abyssum site]....

IT SHOULD NOT COME AS A SURPRISE TO LEARN THAT ELDERLY PATIENTS IN NURSING HOMES ARE LIKELY TO DIE OF THE CHINESE CORONAVIRUS, IT IS NOT SO MUCH THAT SUCH PATIENTS USUALLY HAVE COMORBIDITIES AS IT IS THAT PATIENTS IN MANY NURSING HOMES ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN AGREEMENTS FOR PALLIATIVE CARE AND DNR ORDERS.

Paul A. Byrne, M.D. column
Coronavirus (COVID-19) in nursing homes

Paul A. Byrne
Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
April 29, 2020
We are in the midst of a Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Early reports included multiple, now more than 40 deaths in a nursing home in the State of Washington. Twenty percent of the COVID-19 deaths in New York and New Jersey are residents of nursing homes. Many other nursing homes have increased deaths. Is this because the COVID-19 virus is so virulent or other factors?
The Associated Press conducted its own survey in the U.S. and found there had been nearly 11,000 COVID-related nursing home deaths across the country as of April 24. However, just 23 stateshave been publicly reporting nursing home deaths.” https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-failure-covid-nursing-home-deaths.html (Accessed 4-28-20)
This is not surprising considering that patients in nursing homes are older and have co-morbidities and therefore, are more susceptible to succumb to an infection.
Most in nursing homes require assistance in living. A prerequisite for acceptance into most, if not all, nursing homes is an Advance Directive for Healthcare. It is common that the Advance Directive will include a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Order.
In addition some may have already unwittingly been put into Palliative care (PC). Most residents of nursing homes and their relatives do not have full and complete information about PC.
Triggers for PC are not limited to incurable diseases that are painful, but include declining ability to complete activities of daily living, weight loss, uncertainties regarding prognosis, limited social support and a serious illness (e.g., homeless, chronic mental illness), perceived psychological or spiritual distress of the patient or family. https://getpalliativecare.org/resources/clinicians/ (Accessed 4-28-20)
PC sets the stage for more deaths for the most vulnerable. How? PC focuses on alleged relief of symptom-burden, not necessarily treatment of the cause, i.e., the underlying medical conditions, treatment of which could alleviate the symptoms. For example, an elderly patient with cancer is noted to have a change in mental status. This could be a result of medication, a urinary tract infection, dehydration, or a myriad of other treatable conditions, not related to the cancer. Yet, in PC the symptom-focus response may be to give Valium-like drugs or narcotics to sedate the patient, omit evaluation and simple tests to diagnose the actual problem, and not provide common medications or interventions that could successfully treat the medical condition causing the symptom(s).
There are many concerns during this time of sheltering at home and social distancing. Separation of loved ones in nursing homes from family and visitors including clergy, done for their protection from COVID-19, was sudden and not predictable and raises other questions concerning care needs of these vulnerable persons.
Doctors and Death – Redefinitions and Participation
How did we get here? Medicine changed drastically and horrifically in 1968 with “brain death” when a Committee at Harvard published “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.” “Brain death” calls a person with a beating heart and circulation, “dead.” Everyone in coma is alive, nevertheless the Harvard Committee without any scientific or medical references, declared that someone unconscious in coma, on a ventilator without brainstem reflexes of the eye and ear, and unable to take a breath on their own, but many other signs of life including being warm with normal color, a beating heart, blood pressure, pulse, oxygen being taken in and carbon dioxide going out, can be considered “dead.” To call a person dead while there are many signs of life and then to participate in organ procurements by stopping the beating heart and removing it thereby making the person definitively dead was a major change in the direction of medicine. This change had and still has an impact on medical practice. Doctors were blinded to the most basic good of the presence of life itself and were now participating in causing deaths albeit with the intention of helping others live. Laws were passed to protect this new definition of death. In 1970 Kansas was the first state to pass a “brain death” statute. Judges and legislators from all 50 states became involved making it legal to call someone dead while the heart was beating with many other signs of life.
Advance Directives and Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) Orders
In 1990 Medicare and Medicaid were amended to require hospitals and skilled nursing facilities to inform patients of their rights to make decisions concerning their medical care and to periodically inquire as to whether a patient executed an Advance Directive and document the patient’s wishes regarding their medical care. As a result, when entering any hospital or nursing home the patient and/or those who represent the patient are asked if the patient has a Living Will or Advance Directive. This is commonly done by an admission clerk, not a treating physician. If the patient does not have an Advance Directive, quite commonly a “sample” is provided for consideration.
Every state had a “brain death” statute before a Living Will statute. A Living Will is a written statement detailing a person’s desires under some future, hypothetical, circumstances not to be treated. Decisions about non-treatment in the future violate two basic principles of medicine. The first is that a physician gathers all timely, relevant information about the patient before a diagnosis and plan of treatment are made. The second is that a doctor is expected to provide the most up-to-date treatments that can be most beneficial to the patient. Neither of these are available when a Living Will is executed.
Another form of Advance Directive is a Power of Attorney for Health Care. This allows one to designate someone to speak for him/her.
POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatments) is a type of Advance Directive designed to have patients choose to get less treatment and care and once signed by a physician becomes a legal medical order binding future caregivers from providing the care refused. The future, including the onslaught of a coronavirus, cannot be known by the person completing an Advance Directive.
Once society and medicine has accepted 1) calling people “dead” who are really alive, participating in their deaths, 2) advance directives that aim at refusing or limiting treatments and care, it is an easy step to 3) palliative care principles that further limit treatments with their focus on symptoms, not cures.
Then enter coronavirus especially in nursing homes. Everything is in place for those with weak or absent immunity to acquire the virus. Those with underlying disease are more likely to get sicker. Almost everyone in a nursing home has an Advance Directive in place not to be treated and receive less care.
People with disabilities and the elderly are considered to be more likely to die from COVID-19 and therefore they may be denied life-saving or life-sustaining treatments to enable a person who is viewed as more likely to survive to receive treatment.
Nursing home residents, relatives and friends are affected by the involuntary mandated imposition of no visitors. If a person, labeled a “client,” in a nursing home has an acute illness, they are subject to whatever is provided. Their Advance Directive is in place for non-treatment, even for unspecified imaginable illnesses. Many are frail; they are without relatives; treatment depends on whatever personnel in the nursing home provide. Their Advance Directive indicates that the person has chosen not to receive some treatments; thus, it is so easy to translate this into no treatment.
The palliative care movement, preceded by “brain death” and Living Will statutes, is another related change in medical care in our country. Palliative care involves a palliative care team (which can include physicians, nurses, social workers, and chaplains) that helps the family determine when the patient’s care should be shifted away from cure and toward death. Palliative care is less treatment and no care and is a major part of the System of Death that exists in Medicine, the Law and the Church.
The person in the nursing home and their relatives did not appreciate this. This was done before COVID-19. Now, nursing home residents, relatives and friends are stuck with it.
Shortly after the onset of COVID-19, the anticipated need for ventilators started the push to make more ventilators. However, patients in nursing homes with a DNR order will not get a ventilator, even if it might be a temporary treatment that would allow recovery from the virus. Is the death rate among the elderly higher because of their age and co-morbidities alone or because they will not be offered a chance to survive whether that be on a ventilator or possibly due to other innovative care strategies that may have a reasonable chance for even greater effectiveness and improved survival? The Advance Directive may be the mechanism to the ending of their life even if unintended by the patient.
In general, many patients seem to have the idea that ventilator use would mean a comatose existence on a machine indefinitely. How many are informed that ventilator use can be temporary and a means to continued living? The use of ventilator guidelines is being questioned for COVID-19 patients. Are death rates from COVID-19 higher in nursing homes because in the face of advance directives that limit potentially curative therapy, treatments, whether with a life-saving ventilator or with other modalities, are being denied to the elderly?
Palliative Care proponents want opioids to relieve breathlessness and pain. Opioids do not relieve breathlessness per se but make a patient sedated and breathe less because they decrease respiratory rate and volume. The patient too sedated to take hydration or nutrition, dies. They may appear more comfortable but if they are too sedated to respond, one does not really know how they feel inside. They could be motionless and still have nausea, itching, pain, constipation, dysphoria, feel unable to handle their secretions, and other undesired side-effects.
While attention is drawn to their age and co-morbidities in discussing the increased death rates among nursing home residents and while these are valid considerations, what is not discussed is how healthcare has changed to a system of death that does not aim for protection and preservation of lives of those considered a drain on society’s resources.
First came “brain death” with the goal to eliminate persons who needed ventilators. Next, came Living Wills and Advance Directives to discourage life-saving treatments, including ventilators, assisted nutrition and hydration, and even antibiotics. Then most nursing home residents have a “DNR – Do Not Resuscitate” order, which often results in, decreased treatments and care even if not directly related to resuscitation.
Add taxpayer funds to the push for PC for all, even if not dying or in pain. Enter Coronavirus-19 with sudden, social isolation for all, even those not sick. It is no surprise that elderly persons are more vulnerable to disease, but are they getting the care that protects and preserves their life and health and gives them their best chance of recovery?
A ventilator may or may not preserve the life of a person, especially when the person is older with co-morbidities and COVID 19, but denial of a needed ventilator associated with DNR in PC can shorten life and hasten death.

Dr. Paul A. Byrne is a Board Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He is the Founder of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis, MO. He is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Toledo, College of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars.

Dr. Byrne is past-President of the Catholic Medical Association (USA), formerly Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University in St. Louis, MO and Creighton University in Omaha, NE. He was Professor of Pediatrics and Chairman of the Pediatric Department at Oral Roberts University School of Medicine and Chairman of the Ethics Committee of the City of Faith Medical and Research Center in Tulsa, OK. He is author and producer of the film “Continuum of Life” and author of the books “Life, Life Support and Death,” “Beyond Brain Death,” and “Is ‘Brain Death’ True Death?”

Dr. Byrne has presented testimony on “life issues” to nine state legislatures beginning in 1967. He opposed Dr. Kevorkian on the television program “Cross-Fire.” He has been interviewed on Good Morning America, public television in Japan and participated in the British Broadcasting Corporation Documentary “Are the Donors Really Dead?” Dr. Byrne has authored articles against euthanasia, abortion, and “brain death” in medical journals, law literature and lay press.

Paul was married to Shirley for forty-eight years until she entered her eternal reward on Christmas 2005. They are the proud parents of twelve children and have thirty-five grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.


© Copyright 2020 by Paul A. Byrne, M.D.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/byrne/200429 

THE N.W.O. LEADERS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THOSE WE ELECT - IS THIS THEIR PLAN?

THE TERM "OLIGARCHS" IS OFTEN USED THESE DAYS TO REFER TO THE RULING ELITES. THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY THOSE IDEOLOGUES WITH VAST WEALTH - AND HENCE POWER - WHO OFTEN SET THE AGENDA MORE SO THAN OUR ELECTED LEADERS. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN IDEAS ABOUT HOW THE WORLD SHOULD BE AND THEY WORK TOWARDS BRINGING IT ABOUT. THEIR INTENT CAN LOOK HONORABLE BUT THEIR PLANS FOR A NEW WORLD ENTAIL RE-DESIGNING IT THROUGH REDUCING THE POPULATION - IN OTHER WORDS IT'S GENOCIDE IN DISGUISE.

Several items have crossed my desk at once which speak to the plans of the elites when they are considered together. First, these "elites" - for want of a better term, are not acting separately, but are pooling their ideas, wealth and power to change our culture and the constitution of our society. THE COMMON THREAD IN ALL REPORTS ARE [1] VACCINATION, ABORTION, REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH  [CONTRACEPTION], and [2] DEPOPULATION. Of course there are many other so-called benevolent aims that they put forward and these can be encapsulated in the U.N. Sustainability Goals, i.e. AGENDA 21/30.

This is not a primer in the NWO and the UN and affiliate's agendas. I presume the reader has some knowledge of these matters. The following concerns some articles and news that just came out. I'll get on with it. You will know the names that come up - the ultra powerful men posing as "philanthropists" to solve the world's problems [that we didn't know we had until they told us].

By way of introduction I'll remind readers that with Trump retracting funding from the W.H.O. it is the Gates Foundation which now has become the major funder of WHO. That organization is headed by a nefarious Dr. Tedros said to also be in the pocket of China. Gates, WHO and China are setting the agenda during the COVID-19 pandemic. Remember then, this about Bill Gates .........

.

NOW, THIS FROM CHILD ABUSE RESEARCHER, CATHY FOX, POSTED OVERNIGHT.

Vaccinations. Are They Child Abuse?

Doctors learn very little about vaccinations. They are told they are safe and and effective and they learn the schedule…
Doctors are indoctrinated.
My Doctor lied to me.
When I asked him if he had watched Vaxxed 1, he said “Yes”
I asked what he thought. He said “It was antivaccination.”
He obviously did not watch the video, as Vaxxed made pains to make clear throughout the film, that they were pro safe vaccinations. He lied.
I was shocked.
My learning curve now included the fact that a Doctor was willing to lie to his patient… quite blatantly.
I could no longer trust my doctor…
People trust Doctors, because they assume that the system has ensured that they know about the products they are recommending, especially when they are supposed to improve the patients health.
Doctors are given a special trust as they are dealing with the health, and life or death of people.
Of course if a Doctor paints a film or a person as anti vaccine, they can say you are antiscience, they can say you are a conspiracy theorist and therefore some kind of lunatic or idiot and your opinion can be easily dismissed by them.
Far harder for them to take on board is the fact that they are the ones that are being conned, by medicine, by science, by the illuminati. However Doctors are one of the ones made comfortable by the system they live in and that is why they are paid handsomely.
So that they keep on doing what they are doing, and do not question the system that see them treated well …
You can see your medical notes in Britain if you do a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act, ICO Subject Access Request [22]
The Doctor even wrote in my medical notes “patient thinks they are a scientist”…
I am.
Two science degrees, but I chose not to tell the arrogant, condescending, ignorant doctor, content living a lie as part of the system from which he benefits handsomely.
I know how academia works, I know the scientific method, I know about research.
I also know that many child sexual abuse reports, paid for with public money were with academics and academic institutions (as well as Police, and city and county councils) and most of these were not available to the public. Academia sat on them, like the other authorities. Does this make them culpable for ongoing abuse?
Academic research is largely dependent on money from funders, they are largely part of the problem. I have released many child abuse reports to the public via FOI requests, but many more are still to be released.

NEXT: LOW AND BEHOLD, JUST ANNOUNCED THAT A VACCINE PRODUCTION DEAL HAS BEEN STRUCK FOR COVID-19. NEVER MIND THAT VACCINES TAKE MANY YEARS TO DEVELOP, TEST, AND TO BE APPROVED - THIS HAS ONLY TAKEN 3 MONTHS. A MIRACLE [WINK]

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca strikes deal with Oxford University to mass produce experimental COVID-19 vaccine for no profit - with first results from human trials expected in June

  • The agreement was announced this morning, with the details set to be finalised 
  • It will allow for rapid vaccination around the world, if the jab is proven to work
  • And it will provide the UK access 'as early as possible', according to Oxford Uni 
  • Human trials of the experimental ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine began last week 
  • Here’s how to help people impacted by Covid-19
 This article is more than 10 years old
Paul Harris in New York reports on the small, elite group of billionaire philanthropists who met recently to discuss solving the planet's problems
It is the most elite club in the world. Ordinary people need not apply. Indeed there is no way to ask to join. You simply have to be very, very rich and very, very generous. On a global scale.
This is the Good Club, the name given to the tiny global elite of billionaire philanthropists who recently held their first and highly secretive meeting in the heart of New York City.
The names of some of the members are familiar figures: Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner. But there are others, too, like business giants Eli and Edythe Broad, who are equally wealthy but less well known. All told, its members are worth $125bn.
The meeting - called by Gates, Buffett and Rockefeller - was held in response to the global economic downturn and the numerous health and environmental crises that are plaguing the globe. It was, in some ways, a summit to save the world.
No wonder that when news of the secret meeting leaked, via the seemingly unusual source of an Irish-American website, it sent shock waves through the worlds of philanthropy, development aid and even diplomacy. "It is really unprecedented. It is the first time a group of donors of this level of wealth has met like that behind closed doors in what is in essence a billionaires' club," said Ian Wilhelm, senior writer at the Chronicle of Philanthropy magazine.
SO THERE WE ARE FOLKS. MAKE OF IT ALL WHAT YOU WILL.
THESE ELITES ARE CONSPIRATORS. [And remember that pointing these things out will earn you the label of "conspiracy theorist", but also remember that that is a term invented by the CIA to quash evidence and information about actual nefarious activities that were never intended to be revealed].