“You got a cash bonus when someone died from COVID. It was an incentive to kill people, and it worked incredibly well.
The U.S. Federal government incentivized “not people recovering from COVID but people dying from COVID,” testified attorney
Tom Renz to the Pennsylvania State Senate. “You got a cash bonus when someone died from COVID. It was an incentive to kill people, and it worked incredibly well.”
One of the most objectionable protocols for treating COVID was the widespread use of a drug (Remdesivir) so infamous that it earned the nickname “Run Death Is Near.”
“The experts claimed that Remdesivir would stop Covid; instead, it stopped kidney function, then blasted the liver and other organs,” wrote Stella Paul in this piece.
Excessive morphine administration was another issue. A hospital pharmacist blew the whistle to attorney
Tom Renz that the floor she worked on made a habit of going “up on the morphine drip” to “take care of business.”
Within weeks of the pandemic outbreak, it had become apparent that the standard practice of putting COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation was a death sentence.
76.4% of COVID-19 patients (aged 18 to 65) in New York City who were placed on ventilators died. Among patients over age 65 who were vented, the mortality rate was 97.2%.
The recommendation to place COVID patients on mechanical ventilation as a first-line response came from the World Health Organization, which allegedly based its guidance on experiences and recommendations from doctors in China. But venting COVID patients wasn’t recommended because it increased survival. It was to protect health care workers by isolating the virus inside the vent machine.
Data suggest around 10,000 patients died with COVID in NYC hospitals after being put on ventilators in spring 2020. Other metropolitan areas also saw massive spikes in deaths among younger individuals who were at low risk of dying from COVID. It’s possible many of these deaths were the result of being placed on mechanical ventilation (see graph below).
“No one told the patients, hey, you’re going to be put on this vent. It’s probably going to kill you, but it may protect the healthcare workers,” remarked attorney Renz. “No one told the families that.”
“And by the way,” he continued, “we actually had whistleblower testimony from a yet-to-be-unmasked whistleblower … who worked for CMS. I’ve got data from CMS that showed in a number of Texas hospitals, as high as 90% of patients put on the vent died. 90%.”
“Now, they wouldn’t let you try ivermectin, but they were more than willing to put you on the vent where you had a 90% fatality rate,” attorney
Tom Renzdenounced. “You tell me that they didn’t notice? I can’t say all doctors are created equal. [Peter] McCullough is ahead above most. But you got through med school. I would think you would probably be smart enough to notice when nine out of ten of your patients, when they’re put on the vent, die.”
“At least maybe you should ask the question, is there a better way? Why not let someone try ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine if you have a nine out of ten chance of dying anyways?”
So, why did most doctors not opt for alternative treatments instead?
Following the money will give you the likely answer, as Federal funds encouraged a specific course of action. Attorney Renz detailed the “perverse” incentives in place during his Pennsylvania State Senate testimony last year. “We have incentivized the murder of patients rather than incentivized treatment.”
PERCEPTION RESET 