All Episodes
Previous Next
June 26, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
46:46
When Killing Becomes Legal - Kate Shemirani & Stuart Wilkie with Polly Tommey on CHDTV
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
opinions expressed by the host and guests in this show are not necessarily the views of children's health defense.
Thank you.
Good morning, CHD.
It is Wednesday, the 25th of June, 2025.
We are live here at CHD TV.
Well, this morning we are going to be having quite a strong show.
So, I'm warning you now, if this is not for the faint-hearted, we have the amazing Kate Shiumani and we have Stuart Wilkie coming on with us this morning.
So, welcome to the show, both of you.
Let's bring you both on before I read the headlines.
Good morning, good morning, and welcome.
I will say Stuart is off-grid, people, and so we may have a little bit of a connection issue there, but we do appreciate people's off-grid.
Do you hear the birds very loud and strong as well, coming from England?
All right, we have some headlines for you.
Let's read these headlines and then let's go to our guests for this.
UK Parliament bans women from being prosecuted for late-term abortion.
So, that meaning that you can kill your baby up until the time that it's born.
I'm assuming Kate and Stuart, we're going to go to you for that in a second.
But first, let's read the other two and then we'll discuss all of these things.
Next one is about assisted dying laws.
And again, there's a lot of coverage on that.
I don't know why I've chose the BBC, which is possibly the worst of them all.
And then we've got UK to DNA test all newborn babies in plan to predict and prevent disease.
So, we're going to discuss all of these three things in 30 minutes.
And I'm going to go straight to Kate and you, Stuart, to talk us through those things because this is alarming stuff.
Well, I'll start with the two baby things, and then I will leave Stuart, who will speak eloquently about the assistive dying bill, because that's he's excellent.
And I just want everyone to know, Stuart and I work together exposing medical crimes.
Shimeroni and Wilkie, you're Mulder and Scully.
And a lot of what you see me find to the public is the hard work of Stuart, who works tirelessly in the background.
So when you talk, first of all, about the law that's been changed, it's not really been changed, it's just the decriminalising of women who choose to take an abortive, a substance to end their pregnancy right up to the baby being born.
And this has been decriminalised.
Well, what does that mean?
There's been six cases in three years of women being found, you know, facing justice for doing this.
So clearly, clearly, it has worked as a deterrent and has been working with so few cases.
When you start to lift the criminalization of it, there is no deterrent at all.
And we can be very guilty as of a country of being critical of other countries that have very, very strict regimes, such as Singapore.
There was very little crime on their streets.
And many, many years ago, there was a young man, I think he was 16.
He was the son of a diplomat or a government official in a United States.
And he'd, for the second time, vandalized cars.
And the deterrent for that, if found guilty, was lashings.
And they came out and fought ferociously and said, this is terrible.
But my point here is you don't see a lot of that in that country because the deterrent is there.
But you do see that in countries where there's no deterrent.
So now we have babies.
The most dangerous place for a baby is in the womb.
If I were to drive my car, which I would not, and I was under the influence of an illicit substance and I had a road traffic incident and the driver of that car were 25 weeks pregnant, 26, which is recognised as the time you can't have a termination over 24 weeks unless it's for absolute strict reasons and medical reasons.
But that child could live, would be able to survive outside the womb, even though children have been born earlier, yes, and survived.
That crime, it's not just the injury to the woman driving.
You could then be in trouble for manslaughter because you've caused the death of that child.
However, it doesn't seem to be manslaughter or any criminal act if you take an abortive and do this yourself.
And there have been those who have shown a lot of interest in this case who have hypothesized that we are going to see hundreds and hundreds of percentage.
I can't remember the exact percentage.
I think it was in the thousands.
They said like a 10,000% increase in this happening by decriminalizing it.
So this is quite horrifying.
And my very first job was in a gynecology ward and we carried out suction termination of pregnancies up to 12 weeks.
After that, they went and they would have a different termination.
Later, I've spoke about this very graphically.
And we are told that those babies don't feel pain, but we will tell you later in the show, yes, they do feel pain.
I'll let Stuart talk about that.
So that's a lie.
They don't give them the painkillers because it would then be infanticide because you're acknowledging they feel pain.
Now, there's the very famous video as well of the silent scream where an abortion doctor was talked into doing sonography at the same time as he was doing the abortion.
And when you see the suction catheter gripping the child's rump, the child's mouth opens, it's screaming, it's trying to scramble away from the apparatus.
and it was a very small fetus.
Babies are perfectly formed by 12 weeks.
They're this size, they look like perfect babies.
They just have to grow in size and lay down body fat, brown fat, and white fat.
So, when we move on from this, late terminations is where you will be taking drugs so that you go into labor.
And they will give you drugs that are pretty horrific.
And those drugs indeed are used on death row.
This particular drug, and I'll tell you now, I'll read you something that I've just posted.
Potassium chloride is the final drug used in lethal injections to stop the heart, but if the sedative before it fails, experts warn the inmate experiences agonizing, searing pain if the sedative before this drug, well, these babies aren't given a sedative, they're just given this drug.
And they experience searing, agonising pain.
It's like a burning cocktail surging through the veins, stopping the heart while you're fully conscious.
Now, imagine the same drug being injected into the beating heart of a baby in the womb, because that's exactly what happens in many late-term abortions.
No sedation, just a needle in the heart and a chemical execution before labour is induced to deliver the dead baby.
The medicine, it's called fetal demise.
In justice, it's called capital punishment.
In truth, it's the same act, just performed on a baby instead of a prisoner.
If potassium chloride is too cruel for murderers, why is it legal for innocent children?
And one has to remember that often these babies are born alive and they're left to die in the sluice until they go down to the mortuary.
It's very horrible when you then link it to your second point about genetic testing on babies.
All newborns in the United Kingdom are going to be tested for 62 genetic disorders when tested in the hospital.
And those genetic disorders, and if the baby is then over two months, those babies can be used for organ donors and they can be used for entire systems for organ donors.
Now, how do they measure this?
Well, if a child has what they call a terminal disease, it can be placed on this, but also a life-limiting disease.
And the life-limiting diseases, HIV, TB, epilepsy, Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
I personally know a young man who's 25 with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
If we're told and we're led to believe that we only live until our mid-70s, then are we going to terminate a life and not allow that newborn to have at least 25 years?
So one has to look at then the documents about the National Organ Retrieval Service.
So if these babies are going to be organ donors, you cannot take an organ from a cadaver.
You cannot take an organ from a dead body.
That person has to be alive.
The best organ donors are under 30 with a beating heart and a circulation, ideally on a ventilator.
In the documents, and when Stuart gets onto his, I'll post them.
In the documents, it does state that there are recognized 50% of those giving organs will have what they call reflexes, and it could be opening their eyes,
turning their head from one side to another, turning their body away, putting their arms over their chests, arching their back off the table, raising their legs, extending their legs, raising their big toes up, extending their arms out, opening their eyes, sweating profusely, a raise in blood pressure, a raise in pulse.
We're told that this is spinal reflexes and that the people are dead.
I spoke to a pathologist and I said, how many of your candidates, when you're taking them for dissection, have you seen wake up during?
And this pathologist said that they were having nightmares when they were doing their training.
This would happen.
Pathologists work for approximately 25 years.
I said, okay, so how many of your candidates have you seen doing any of these things while you dissect them for autopsy?
And they said, zero, none.
They haven't seen any.
And I said, why is that?
And they said, because they're dead.
I said, so why would 50% of those that we are told they are brainstem dead or circulatory dead be moving?
Because they're alive.
And on one of the documents, it actually states that should the person's heart be beating strong enough to perfuse the brain with oxygen, which if you were outside in an accident and you saw that happening on someone you thought were dead, you would immediately start to sustain life.
You would ventilate them.
You would get lots of oxygen with a trauma mask.
You would want an airway in.
You'd maybe want an endotracheal tube in.
You would do everything.
You would get a drip up.
You would get wide ball cannulas and you'd be doing everything to save them.
However, if this happens when you're retrieving the organs, you're told to switch off all ventilation.
You're told to step back from the table, call the National Organ Retrieval Service and the SNOD nurse who liaises and gets it all together.
And when they come, they may then call for an anesthetist to anesthetize this person to stop them from suffering.
I thought they were dead.
They couldn't suffer.
And also to give even more of the paralytic drug that paralyze you so you can't move that they use on death row.
Every organ receives a passport.
Every organ.
The documents from June 1st, 2021, May 20th, 2020, everyone in the United Kingdom became an organ donor.
On June 1st of 2021, there's a document, I think it's the critical care document that Jeremy Hunt's signature is in there, and it states that the United Kingdom is going to become the biggest organ donors in the world.
And we would be supplying organs to all of the Commonwealth countries.
Those organs come from predominantly white people because black and ethnic minorities generally do not want to be organ donors.
They have seen an exponential rise since everyone became an organ donor unless you opt out.
So now you say, well, who would want these organs if these children have got something wrong with them or an adult that's got something wrong with them?
Well, that's easy.
Not every country has the same bar.
So some countries will accept organs from diseased bodies or what we say are genetic disorders.
And you can still give up different organs, all different parts of your body, even if you're diseased.
So now there's a big price tag on your head, over a million and a half pounds.
And so one has to then ask, when the helicopter comes out with the National Organ Retrieval Service, the NOWS team, and we know that they are in the helicopters because there was a scouting, scouting expedition,
scouting is their word in the document, I believe in 2015, which Stuart might correct me on in a minute, where Jeremy Hunt, another one of the names that you've all seen, Jeremy Hunt wanted to make sure that they were getting these organs as quickly as they could.
So the organ retrieval teams went out.
The SNOD nurse, she's the specialized national organ retrieval nurse, is embedded, their words, embedded into every intensive care unit.
And she's not employed by the hospital, she's employed by the National Organ Retrieval Service.
She's employed by them, the organ and blood transfusion service, I should say.
You can't see who she or he is.
Their job is to peruse, like a vulture, I say, who is a potential organ donor.
They're not supposed to approach the family until it's been declared that they're organ dead.
But how much work is going on behind the scenes?
I would also go as far as to ask the question, is the possibility of taking my organs that are worth a lot of money going to determine whether I am saved or I am left to die?
My treatment for saving my organs is very different from the treatment to sustain life.
What if I have comorbidities?
Who is making such a decision?
Now we're into ethics if we weren't before.
So I think this is all very much linked.
And one has to ask straight away right now for yourselves, for the listeners, for the viewers, what are your beliefs?
When does life begin?
For me, it begins at conception when that energy is generated.
That is life.
When does life end?
For me, life ends with a cessation of the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, and the neurological system, because only then does decay begin.
If you have a beating heart, you are metabolizing fluids, you are metabolizing a liquid feed, you are producing urine and feces, you are alive.
You may not be able to exhibit any brain function on a test because the drugs that you are given will suppress brain function.
And if you're having a lot of drugs, are they testing everyone's kidneys and liver to make sure those drugs are out of the body before they switch the ventilators off?
From my personal experience with my own daughter, no.
Kate, it's so horrific.
Thank you for explaining that so eloquently to us.
And it's so, to me, so evil.
And I agree with absolutely everything you've said.
Let's bring Stuart in now to talk about the euthanasia situation because, Stuart, I just want to say I have a 29-year-old son with a vaccine injury, severe.
And my worry is they're going to come for our kids.
Yes, that is indeed a concern, especially if he's classed as life-limiting because of that concern.
I should explain that our parliament knew back in 2020, in December 2020, and even before that, September 2020, about the vaccine damage, particularly from the AstraZeneca jab.
They knew about the there were two conditions, one which was a vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia on thrombosis, VIT, B-I-T-T.
And you can look that up online.
And there's a lot of research being done on it.
They knew this in our parliament.
I have a parliamentary post which shows that our government knew about this back in September and December of 2020.
So that these conditions were well known that they would cause harm, but they carried on regardless.
Those conditions, when it was talked about in the next county to, well, within the same county as Cape in Lewis by a government minister, said that they would allow this to carry on, basically, knowing that there were these harms, but they didn't make it known to the public, but the parliamentary post made it perfectly clear that there were these harms.
Now, we're entitled in informed consent to have full knowledge of all side effects and adverse reactions, and they withheld that from the public.
Our parliament and then the American Parliament withheld that from their citizens.
So that's a crucial matter that needs to be exposed.
And other conditions, caused neurological conditions, were well known as well in advance.
It was not safe and effective, and we have to be disclosed that information.
Also, in terms of compensation, these conditions would have to be excluded from any payments from the public purse and should be recovered from the company itself that made the vaccines.
And that applies to Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca.
So going on to the assisted dying, we have got to a stage, we've gone back two and a half thousand years to the eugenics of the Spartans, because they decided that they would end their lives at birth or even later on during training, military training, if you Did not achieve the standards required.
If you weren't basically perfect, so if you had any disability, you could be terminated at birth.
Babies would either be left beside the sea for the tide to wash them away, or that they would be, and that's just if they had a missing digit or a slightly clubbed foot, that was sufficient to have them killed.
They also had the apothee, which is the place of rejection up on the hill.
And there's historical conflict over whether they were thrown into a chasm or just left for the wildlife to eat or just left to die of exposure.
Now, we're not that far removed from that now because we're going backwards.
We're saying that if you're imperfect, you cannot live in society.
And I think it's the measure of a civilised society to deal with people with disabilities.
I mean, otherwise, there wouldn't be a Paranalympics, for example, of people with congenital diseases.
And even if you say somebody loses a limb, are they then unworthy of life?
I don't believe so.
So the eugenicists have taken over in this country.
And of course, Britain, through Sir Francis Bolton, 1883, where the term was founded.
And then the Americans through Charles Davenport.
And then ironically, subsequently, Adolf Hitler perpetuated this.
It's never gone away.
Eugenics have carried on and exist in the genomics of this medical world.
And the drug industry also prey on those that are disabled.
So we have this assisted dying bill, which is supposedly voted on that a judge would be the final adjudicator and make sure everything was scrupulously done and that the people actually involved in the termination did not make the decision itself.
That was then immediately removed after they obtained the first vote, which should have negated and made that vote null and void.
But at the end of the day, you still have the methodology that they use and whether that is safe and humane.
And people think that they are going to go off in some, I don't know, euphoria or they're just going to be put quietly to sleep.
Unfortunately, with humans, it doesn't happen like that.
They use drugs like midazolam, which is also used on death row, haloperidol and the morphine.
The government is trying to do this as cheaply as possible and they don't care how long it takes you to actually die.
And most people die from asphyxiation, from their diaphragm being slowly slowed and from their central nervous system shutting down.
So people have been witnessed having gasping for air.
Air hunger is another term that's been used in American legal cases for the use of the midazolan.
And it's not a nice way to die.
It can take not just minutes or hours.
It can actually take hours to die through these processes.
So if people think that it's a swift, calm, peaceful death, you might not be able to move, but then that's because of the drugs that have been given to you.
But you can still hear and you're slowly being suffocated.
That is inhumane.
And that's how they're doing the assisted dying.
Going to the babies, with the termination, just to pick up on what Kate said, the drug potassium chloride, as Kate mentioned correctly, is used on death row.
They know the harm that that causes.
They know it causes pain.
And yet American surgeons that do operations on fetuses to correct abnormalities that can then give the child a healthy life, they use analgesia.
Why do they use analgesia if there's no pain?
In the UK and America currently, they claim that a child, until its brain is developed and literally until it's born, does not feel pain.
That is a nonsense.
They have known about a condition whereby the nerves in your body are formed sufficiently without your brain fully being sufficiently to respond to noxious stimuli.
And that ability is present in babies as young as 12 weeks.
And I believe that's a very good reason for reducing the term of abortion to at least 12 weeks and preferably less than that, of course.
But it should be reduced.
We're going in the wrong direction.
And this ability is known in babies.
And as Kate described also with the people who are having, literally being live dissected for their organs, their responses are very akin to what's present in the babies.
They may have some brain damage, but the term of brainstem death is a doctor's choice of description, not illegal.
And I would actually argue it's a correct medical term, because there are parts of the brain that can regenerate that they claim cannot regenerate.
And neurogenesis has been proven in recent years.
And also, as Kate also explained, the drugs that are used mimic brainstem death and will put you into a state that appears that you're in a comatose state, but that's pretty much what you're left in, a comatose state, not a true death state.
So they don't want you to be technically dead.
They don't mind if you're brain dead because that makes their operations easier.
But if you've just had a circulatory collapse and you start to recover, once that decision has been made, they will continue on you.
And I've always been thinking that I would always be a donor, an organ donor, and I thought it was an altruistic thing to do.
Under these terms and under the present system, I wouldn't dream of it.
But that's my personal choice.
But having investigated it, I wouldn't agree to having organs removed whilst alive, personally.
But this change in law that they've done, it was 1861, the original Abortion Act.
And it's interesting, it happened to be the same year that potassium chloride was used as a fertilizer.
And then it was picked up by the medical industry in the 1950s.
And then that's also how they're killing the babies.
So we're using the same, I was going to say technology, the same dire methodology that kills death row prisoners who have committed murder, rape, and other heinous crimes.
And that is the way that we've decided, the government's decided to kill fetuses and infants.
And they say a repeal of a Victorian era law.
Well, they had morals in those days, and it was brought in for a good reason.
And whether it's infanticide or feticide, killing of a fetus, it's still murder.
I also question the fact that women who claim that it's their bodies are missing the point that the baby actually has a different combination of DNA.
So they're actually different beings.
And I don't believe they have an automatic right to terminate their lives because of that.
There are circumstances where a lady may be, her own life is threatened.
And that is a very difficult decision to make.
But putting that aside for the moment, where somebody has just been promiscuous and has a child and then just wants to get rid of it because it's not convenient, I don't think it should be, they should be allowed not to be called criminals if they terminate a life, because it's no different from 12 weeks on at least and arguably earlier.
And I also agree that life begins at conception, but certainly you have something that can respond to noxious stimuli at 12 weeks and we should not be terminating their lives thereafter.
And to cause them harm within their first moments of life to then extinguish it, I think is a terrible way for society to proceed.
I completely agree.
Thank you for that, Stuart.
So Stuart and Kate, what can we do?
What can the world do to help stop this?
Well, I think the first thing is we have to stop thinking that the governments are there as our mummy and daddy and that they love us and that everything is for our greater and higher good, which is simply not true.
We can no longer blame anything.
If you leave a tap switched on and it's dripping and you walk away from it, it's going to fill the basin.
Just because you're not looking doesn't mean it's stopped.
It keeps dripping and the basin will be full.
So for those people who go, oh, I don't know anything about politics, so I don't take any notice of that.
I'm too busy watching Netflix, going to football, going out for the weekends, going on my holidays to the Costa Brava.
You know, my fridge is full of alcohol and crisps and food and I'm just living my best life.
You know, life's there to be enjoyed, not endured.
Well, then you are part of the problem because if you don't, you get your house surveyed before you go and buy it.
You hopefully get your car checked before you buy one.
You go and have a second opinion on things and yet you're leaving your future of your own demise and your children's future and your children's children's future to the people in that big building on the Thames.
That's what you're doing.
And so you've just got your head in the sand like an ostrich.
It is not a tyrannical government that overthrows the people with such terrible laws.
It is us allowing it.
While ever we say nothing, it is called a tacit agreement in law.
We are tacitly agreeing to our own death, to the murder of our elderly and disabled, and to the murder of the unborn and to the murder of the infant.
We are part of it.
We're as good as pulling the trigger.
We can't blame anyone.
I think the fact that through history, you always see the very people that are entrusted to care for as in a great position of trust.
The nurses, the doctors, the pharmacists, the care assistants.
We've seen how they were coerced just in 2020.
And a lot of them were threatened or lost their jobs when they spoke out.
They were also threatened to have an untested, unlicensed, uninsured experimental injection.
So a lot of these people did lose their jobs.
A lot of the care assistants lost their jobs.
So the threat of you won't be able to take care of your own, pay your own rent or mortgage, put food on the table for your own children is exactly what has been used through history.
This is why we saw people doing very heinous crimes.
And people only talk about, you know, what happened in the 1930s and the 40s.
Well, let's take a look at what happened in Srebrenica.
And we saw, you know, all young men, and there were very young teenagers in that, marched from a town and executed thousands of them.
And that's certainly in my adult lifetime.
Well, how could that possibly happen?
Why did people allow that?
Because they did.
They did.
Many people would see their neighbours.
Their homes would be chained and the doors couldn't be opened.
And there would be children in that home.
And the neighbours closed their curtains and looked away as that house was torched.
We are talking about the 1990s here in former Yugoslavia.
Why would they do that?
Because they would be fearful that they would come for them next.
This is why.
And so I think we need to appeal to humanity because what we now see is a healthcare system that's so big that is employing so many overseas staff who are on a work visa, who bring their dependents with them, and will only do as they're told, or they will lose their right to stay in the country that they're working in.
So what we're seeing is protocol-driven medicine, where it's not done in the person's best interests.
Even if the doctors don't want to do that, they will do it because that's the protocol.
And if they don't follow the protocol, they'll be out of a position, out of a job, not insured, should it go wrong or should anything happen.
So we have protocol over patient care, basically.
And then we have people who will do it for fear of being ostracized.
We've seen what happens to whistleblowers.
And so now you have a system that is so corrupt.
And then these people are paid great pensions and pay rises, food parcels.
We saw the TikTok dancers.
We're not talking about, oh, this is five years ago.
We're talking about the extermination of many elderly in care homes by using five times the dosage of midazolam with morphine.
That was what was used.
We got through 9.9 million milligrams of midazolam in two years, which would be used in anesthesia and end-of-life care.
And it would typically last two years.
We got through it in nine months.
And this is what these people were given.
So why people would think that this is not going to go anywhere else when we've already seen this?
How many elderly people are going to reach the criteria and have a doctor in their life?
And it could be a criminal act, what's just happened, but no one's going to know because if you choose a sister dying, it doesn't have to be reported to the coroner.
Kate and Stuart, do you think, because this is what I think, that one of the most dangerous places you can go with your loved one, or certainly with my Billy with the vaccine injury, is a hospital right now?
Absolutely.
It's not all doctors and nurses are bad.
They're not.
There's some fantastic, amazing ones.
The same as not all cops.
There's amazing cops out there.
This is not an attack.
It never was.
And people keep saying that about me.
We're talking about those that are guilty by their omissions.
They will look away.
And those who are guilty by their acts, their acts and omissions.
I think they're very dangerous places.
I agree.
I just want to come in on that.
You've got wards that are actually trying to give life to babies through IVF treatments.
And literally adjacent to that, you've got an award where they're killing babies through abortion through the most heinous of ways.
Surely those two members, those two staffs could talk together and get the babies to the women that want babies.
That's one thing.
In terms of going into a hospital, of course they know how to do things correctly, but they're more worried about their reputations and the doctors being prosecuted.
25 years ago, the doctors actually prevented and talked and ran it out of time a bill called the Anti-Euthanasia Bill.
So something that was already a criminal offence, euthanasia and still is an offence.
It was the anti-euthanasia bill by Anne Winterton in 2000.
And it was talked out of time.
They were more concerned with that they'd be looking over their shoulders if that law was enacted, despite the fact that it was unlawful.
The assisted dying in every country, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, and in the UK has taken place unlawfully first.
And it did the same in America and in Canada.
We are copying with the worst protocols.
We are copying the MAID program in Canada and we are going to lower the standards as the years go on and all the safeguards will be gradually removed.
There'll be a truncation of the time between the time for making decisions and the doctors will always make the decisions.
And then you have some very, very bad doctors.
With the bill, the Kim Libbetta bill there, they want to be able to proactively go after people.
That was rejected.
The bill to try and prevent that, there was an amendment put in to try and prevent that from happening and that got voted against.
So in other words, they want doctors to proactively look out like vultures to get people to be put onto these end-of-life pathways.
In 2013, we had the Liverpool Care Pathway.
The public were told it was abolished and scrapped because of killing too many people.
At that point, it was 29% of all elderly that went into hospital were targeted to be killed.
That increased during COVID to 83%, and that came from a study with 144 hospitals.
And the vice chief medical officer in the UK, Jonathan Van Tem, did a study.
And it was 83% of those people given end-to-life drugs, the morphine, midazolam, and cocktail.
So they deliberately bought in these drugs in advance.
So they knew exactly what they were doing.
It wasn't a reaction.
It was a proactive thing to get these drugs in.
And when America, who was supplying us with some of the drugs, Pfizer were providing Lorazepam, Atiban, as you will know it in America, when they ran out, they sent supplies over from Canada, doubled the dose and gave those to people in care homes.
And they even got non-medical staff to give these Lorazepam tablets, pop it under their tongue to kill people.
They also got non-medical staff to put fentanyl patches, which are fentanyl is 100 times more powerful than oral morphine.
They put those patches on with no experience of what they were doing, no knowledge, and those people died horrendous deaths through overdose of drugs that they didn't need.
Also, if you give drugs to opiate naive patients, you can get terrible overdose situations.
And people can go into respiratory distress whilst they're dying, and they don't have the antidotes to correct them.
So this is how a health system is going.
They have the ability to do the right thing, but they're cutting corners and deliberately killing more people than they need.
The government even knows and has debated that many of these people could live for another five years with the assisted dying.
And they think that's okay to kill somebody.
And a doctor can make that decision, even though that you could have five more years to live.
And as Kate mentioned about the organs, Eastern Europe particularly will take on organs from people with cancer.
So they may have a cancer in one part of their body, but they will take organs from another part of the body.
They're still saleable.
And one thing that might finally shock you is that in 2013, I think it was the same year as they said they cancelled Liverpool Care Pathway and replaced it with the end of life, exactly the same drugs being used.
They also increased the year for organ donation from 75-year-olds to 80-year-olds.
It's absolutely shocking.
So you might think at the end of your life, you lost the value of to the government in terms of money, but in terms of your organs, you'll learn more.
They can drain the whole body of blood, they can take organs, tissue, bone marrow.
It's astonishing what they will take from the human body.
It could make our lives a lot better, but they don't ever target the causes of ill health.
And that's what Kate does.
And it's much better not to go into the hospitals and to keep out and keep your health.
And that's my final conclusion on this.
Well, Stuart Wilkie and Kate Shimarani, thank you for, as always, for your education.
It's crucial work that you're doing.
How can people follow you both?
You're a great team together, by the way.
I'm katechimarani.com.
You can come on my website.
You can go and read the blogs.
You can join, if you like, for $5.99 a month where we have roundtables.
And at the moment, we're doing a course to teach you how to be ministers of health and healing, how to spot illness before it gets to the point where you need to go anywhere.
I'm also on Twitter, at Kate Shemerani.
I'm on Facebook, same name.
I'm on Instagram, same name.
I'm on Substack and Telegram.
It's British Nursing Alliance with the single black and white nurse.
There is a bit of a furore at the moment.
Please do come on and support me because panorama, panodrama, they're all over the place and it's in every single solitary newspaper today and yesterday.
I've received so many death threats.
I've had the police at my home because of lies that are being told about me with no evidence.
But it's interesting that this is coming from using my own sons, coming from every direction.
And Stuart and I have spoke at length about this.
And I actually believe that it is because of what we have been talking about with the government documents over the last couple of weeks.
And it is everything we bring to you today, how the UK is going to be the biggest organ donor in the world.
They're going to be taking organs from newborns, entire systems.
You know, by the time they're two months old, they're going to take them.
You can be an organ donor up to your 80s.
I think this is all very coordinated and they don't want the public knowing what is going on.
And we've uncovered, and we can come on your show and do it, the paramedic two and three trials where people are going to be shot in the leg with a gun and delivered one milligram of adrenaline every three to five minutes, up to 10 doses, even though after three, in all the studies it states it will sacrifice your brain.
This will give you your organ donors and it's all linked.
So that's where I can be found.
And I believe this is why we are absolutely being targeted now.
Yeah.
Okay.
I know we have a lot of praying people out there.
So I know they're going to be praying for you.
I'm sorry you're going through that.
Okay, God never gives us more than we can handle.
Apparently, that's true.
Stuart, how can people follow you?
Or are you just off-grid and we can't?
No, I only do things for Kate.
However, I would just add a final thing.
They're using NHS patients in drug trials without their knowledge.
There's no informed consent to this.
And they're trying to position themselves.
Even ambulance services are trying to position themselves as experimental teams.
And they're using people that are very vulnerable in critical care situations.
And they're abusing them and putting them on trials with standard dose drugs.
They're not titrating those drugs.
And they're giving placebo effects to people that could actually benefit from something.
And then they're not treating us as individuals anymore.
They're treating us as lab rats.
And unfortunately, our previous health ministers have basically bragged that they can use us as such to the World Economic Forum and to the United Nations organizations.
And so many companies, the American drug company that's done all the testing, by the way, is Illumina.
And they used a company called Grail and Offshoot.
And those trials that give the 62 tests, they only ever say you may have a condition.
So we, the British public, are being used as lab rats for American drug testing and other international drug companies.
And we have given no consent to that.
And that needs to be examined legally, ethically, and morally.
I completely agrees.
Stuart Wilkins, Kate Shiramani, we're out of time and favourite.
We'd love to have you back on, do more on this.
And thank you for everything you both do.
And big love, Kate.
We were behind you 100%.
Thank you.
And it's a great honour always to be on here.
And like I say, Stuart loads the gun and I get out there and fire it.
But he does work very, very hard.
And I stick my head right above the parapet.
Just to say, people, that what we're actually talking about, the reason we know about a lot of what we're talking about, bringing you today, not, you know, when we start, is because of the death of my daughter.
And Stuart has worked tirelessly and we believe absolutely based on their own documents that the punctum temporis, the point of time, point in time, the medical cause of my daughter's death was because of a protocol that was even breached.
And it became more deadly because they didn't follow the deadly protocol.
So it just became, and the drugs that we used on my daughter are the drugs that we've talked about today.
And this is of national interest and worldwide interest because the World Health Organization has stated that they are going to be using these trials that were done by Gavin Perkins and Deacon from Charles Deacon from Warwick University.
And they're involved in, I think it's the NIBH and the Resuscitation Council.
They're going to be adopting these worldwide.
God help us all.
Because you are going to, we're all going to have our lives ended with a 999 call if we haven't already had them ended or 911, whatever the emergency number is, whether you die in your Home, in your bed, whether you're murdered, whether you are almost dead, whether you drop, whether you faint, whether you have a cardiac arrest, there will be a 999 call, and out will come the paramedics and they will follow a protocol.
With my daughter, that protocol wasn't followed.
And they, but that protocol, if it's followed, 97% at the scene as well on all of this.
Oh, sorry, I got muted.
Kate, we're so sorry.
Thank you for fighting on with this subject as well.
We have had you on about that, but do keep us updated.
We're going to be praying for you and we do send you huge love.
And thank you, Stuart, for all the work you're doing.
I can see you work so hard and supporting Kate.
We appreciate you.
Thank you.
Take care.
Yeah.
Okay.
So to our viewers, so I'm so pleased that we had this conversation.
It's not something normally talks about, but we have to.
We are children's health defense.
We have to have this conversation.
So pray big, my fans, as always.
And we're going to come up now.
We've got Diane coming on to talk about smart meter injury.
▲
Export Selection