All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
50:22
Deadly remdesivir COVID protocol was fraudulently FORCED onto patients...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, folks.
This is a critical interview that some, it seems, don't want us to actually get accomplished.
But here we are.
I am joined by attorneys Daniel Watkins and also Michael Hamilton.
And these attorneys are fighting for humanity in one of the most important ways.
You're going to be blown away by what you're about to hear about the medical abuse of patients during this COVID crisis and the protocols of treatment slash abuse that have been I would say inflicted on patients.
Well, these two attorneys who join us now have been fighting for the rights of patients, and they've filed suit against, I believe, three hospitals in the California area.
And they're here to explain what this is all about, what are the merits of their case, and what happened during COVID. Please welcome Mr.
Daniel Watkins from Watkins and Litovsky, and also Attorney Michael Hamilton from Cornerstone.
Thank you, gentlemen, for joining me.
It's an honor to have you on.
Thanks, Mike.
It's really a pleasure to be here.
Well, thank you so much for having us.
Absolutely.
I'm just glad you could join me.
Thank you for taking the time.
It's greatly appreciated.
So, for those who aren't familiar with your lawsuit and the claims, and also since this is the first time that you and I have been able to talk about this, please walk us through the claims and the merits of the lawsuit that you have filed.
I believe you filed it on September 6th.
Is that correct?
September 7th.
Okay.
Please go ahead.
Well, so I'd like to start with kind of a big-picture overview of what's happening with remdesivir and the protocol that surrounds it.
And we're seeing it all over the country, Mike.
We're seeing it.
In multiple states, I was already seeing it in at least five states and seven or eight hospitals, an identical type protocol.
Someone comes into the hospital, they are told that, and they come in for a variety of reasons.
I mean, they may sprain an ankle and they're told they have COVID pneumonia.
They're immediately separated from their loved ones.
Their loved ones are told you can't see this person.
They put them in a COVID ward.
They may put them directly into ICU. And as soon as they get them in there and away from all human contact, they put a BiPAP oxygen machine on their face, and they crank the oxygen up so high that it's hard for the person to breathe on their own.
When they try to take the machine off their face, their hands are often zip-tied to the bed rails, so they can't bite it.
Usually a psychiatrist or a doctor will come in or often they will come in and say, well, the patient appears to be agitated and they start a morphine drip.
Now it's harder for the person to breathe.
We know that remdesivir has a horrendous effect on the kidneys.
Wait a second.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but what you're describing, and I know that you're aware of how horrifying this would be, but let me just try to translate this for our listeners.
You're talking about physical restraints and chemical restraints being inflicted upon patients.
You said their hands are zip tied to the hospital bed and then they can be given morphine without their consent.
Is that what's happening?
Morphine, fentanyl, there's a wide variety of sedatives that are given to them.
So they can't fight back.
They can't articulate for themselves.
But they have no one, because the family's been isolated from them, they have no one to advocate on their behalf.
And that's critical, too.
Obviously, you know, everybody needs a family member in the hospital to keep an eye on the doctors and help make decisions.
But, I mean, this seems like an incredibly abusive situation.
And worse than if someone were a prisoner in, you know, like a maximum security prison situation, almost.
Mike, I gotta tell you, man, what's happening to people all across the country in identical type protocols is nothing short of torture.
I mean, they're being tortured to death.
It would be far simpler to just, if you wanted to take somebody out, why not do it humanely?
But they're not given any food.
They're not given any water.
They're not given any hydration through the IVs.
They're only given remdesivir.
And then a variety of other medicines often that are indicated for use with remdesivir.
So remdesivir, we know one of the most common side effects is a loss of kidney function, I think typically followed by fluid in the lungs, correct?
That's right.
That's right.
And doctors are saying, and I've heard it over and over, and I have it on recordings from multiple hospitals.
The doctor says, well, we can't give them fluids because their lungs are filling up with fluids.
And if we give them nutrition, if we give them hydration, it's just going to exacerbate what's happening in their lungs.
But the reality is, it's the remdesivir that's causing...
And I should let my experts speak to this.
We have wonderful experts.
Dr.
Peter McCullough, Dr.
Brian Artis, Dr.
Jancy Lindsey.
We have a number of really top, world-renowned experts who will speak to the medical side of this.
But we know that the remdesivir is causing the issues that it claims to be fixing.
They're telling people, hey, you've got COVID pneumonia, but they're giving them nothing that treats pneumonia, and we don't even know if COVID pneumonia is a thing.
So your, yeah, that could just be a label they give to the side effects, but your, let me ask you a couple of kind of rapid questions here.
How many people are you representing in this lawsuit?
Mike, we have 14 families in the Fresno area spread out among the three different hospitals, but they are just a small sample of the people that have been impacted by these protocols.
One of the things that we're trying to do with this lawsuit is make people aware so when they go to the hospital as a patient, they can fight back against what the hospital is going to do with remdesivir in the protocol, but also we're out here trying to raise awareness So that other attorneys will step forward and help people across the United States that are facing these same problems.
You know, when I first started looking at this, when I met Michael, there were a couple of the families we talked to and I heard the stories of the restraints and Giving remdesivir despite objections to the patient, and I thought maybe there was a little bit of an overreaction by the family members, and as we talked more, it went from one family to two to four to ten, and then we filed the lawsuits, and now we've received thousands of emails and phone calls from across the United States.
I think my last count, we had about 32 states that we received information from.
We've had people from Australia.
Wow.
Australia have reached out with similar claims of the protocol that we're describing here.
So are you representing families who have had family members die under this protocol?
That's right.
All of the plaintiffs in this case are family members of patients who became decedents under the protocol.
Oh, wow.
Are you also representing anybody who was harmed but survived?
Not in these lawsuits, but we are gathering those folks.
There's a lot.
We'll look to bring a suit for them as well.
Let me give out your website for those who want to learn more right away.
It's DeclareTruth.us.
And folks, if you want to help financially support these two attorneys in their work, there's a GiveSendGo.com that you can use.
And the URL for that is GiveSendGo.com slash Fresno Remdesivir Death.
All together, obviously no spaces, no dashes, anything.
Fresno, as in Fresno, California, remdesivir death, and just be sure to spell remdesivir correctly there, and that'll get you right there.
Or just go to declaretruth.us, and you can find all the links there.
Now, Mr.
Watkins, what about the maker of the drug, the remdesivir drug?
I know, well, I believe, isn't remdesivir the generic name, and there are different brand names associated with that?
Is that correct?
If we can jump in here, Mike, on that.
Veclari is the name of the drug.
Remdesivir is how most of us know it.
We know that it's also been farmed out to Some company in South America who's producing something along the same lines.
But I can tell you that remdesivir was tested in these Ebola trials several years ago.
And it was discovered to have such a high mortality rate.
So many people that were given remdesivir died that they pulled it from the study and banned its further use.
Wow.
And now it's...
And of course, then the European outfit back in, I want to say, 2020 said, you know, don't give this to anybody.
They did a study.
They concluded, don't give this to anybody with COVID-19.
And the World Health Organization, a couple of months after that, Did their own study, and it was quite a substantial study, and they said, don't give remdesivir to anybody with COVID-19, regardless of the severity of their symptoms, because it does no good.
Well, and let me point out, if they pulled it for being too dangerous for Ebola patients, and Ebola has a very, very high mortality rate, I don't recall the exact number, but I'm thinking somewhere around 70-plus percent, Then how could they justify remdesivir for something that has, as you say, a 99.97% survival rate of COVID-19?
Yep.
And so here's where the money trail starts.
We've got a group of panelists that go before the CDC and they say, we want this to have emergency use authorization.
We know it's not FDA approved, but we want it to have emergency use authorization.
Nine of those panelists not only worked for the NIH, but had financial ties to Gilead Sciences.
Oh, my.
Remdesivir.
And they're making money, of course, hand over fist, if they have any financial tie to it, because it's being given out so...
To so many people, and now they're asking for approval to give it to babies, of all things.
So when did the medical establishment suddenly say that if there's something declared an emergency, then we can abandon all medical ethics, we can abandon clinical trials, we can abandon anything resembling science, we can just do anything we want because there's a declared emergency?
That doesn't make any sense.
You know, Mike, that's a great question.
When did this start happening?
And like I said, I've been practicing in medical and dental malpractice defense for 30 years, and I thought that this is something new.
But as I talked to more physicians that have been practicing medicine, actually practicing medicine for some time, they've started to provide light into this subject.
And there's really been When a person goes to medical school, they don't learn to think independently.
They learn to follow exactly what they're told.
And if you don't follow that regimen, you don't get out of medical school.
And so that indoctrination carries over.
And if you allow yourself to be victim to that, you're going to find yourself 15, 20 years down the road answering to whomever's calling the shots for you in whatever hospital you're in, and you just do it.
It's how you continue to move upward.
It's how you make your money.
It's how you pay back Your debts, if you have them from medical school, and then you live a nice life.
And I think it's just a slow takeover of their own independent judgment and what they went into medicine for in the first place.
And so I think it's been going on a while.
And there's been a setup in some respects to be able to do something at this grand level.
And it's really surprising to me to see how the medical establishment, the physicians in particular, have responded to this Draconian implementation of one protocol to fix COVID. When we know for sure there are more efficacious treatment remedies out there, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, both have proven track records against COVID, very effective, very few side effects, and the doctors are disregarding that.
They're intentionally not telling the patients about it.
They're intentionally withholding the information of remdesivir and the fact that there was a 53% mortality rate when it was used in the Ebola studies.
They're not giving it to the patients.
Well, this reminds me, by the way, of the excuse, justifications of soldiers of East Berlin, of why they shot people who were escaping.
We were just following orders.
And I'm wondering, too, that you have sued, I believe, three hospitals and some individual doctors.
I would imagine...
That their first response, maybe in an effort to dismiss this lawsuit, would be, well, we were just following orders, essentially.
But who were they following orders from?
Any thoughts on what that's going to be or look like?
That's the question.
I mean, the question that we hope to get to the bottom of is, is there a written protocol?
Where is it coming from?
We know that the financial incentives are massive.
And it varies from state to state, but in California, there are three sort of categories of treatment for COVID-19.
Outpatient, inpatient, non-complex, and inpatient complex.
If you treat somebody outpatient, the average charge rate in California is about $3,200.
Give them some ivermectin, send them home.
And I'm oversimplifying, but do something that works, $3,200.
But if you treat them as a non-complex inpatient, you give them a room and you start taking care of them, now the average charge rate is $111,000 and change.
Now, is some of that subsidized by the federal government because of a COVID designation?
Well, yeah, it gets subsidized even beyond the numbers I'm giving you right now.
If you treat them as a complex patient, and to be identified as complex, you have to intubate them or put them in the ICU, one or the other, or both.
Oh, wow.
Now, the average charge rate in California jumps to about $450,000, plus or minus, a little bit.
I'm giving you round numbers.
On top of that, the federal government has said...
They've given a code that can be used if you treat them with remdesivir to the exclusion of other remedies.
You have to treat them to the exclusion of other remedies.
Now you get a 20% NCTAP bonus.
You have a code, and 20% on a charge rate of $450,000 is in the neighborhood of $90,000.
So now we're over half a million.
Give them some work and send them home for $3,200, or bring them in, intubate them, and put them through this protocol, and now your average charge rate tops $500,000.
Right.
Unbelievable.
They've hit the medical money train jackpot lotto.
So somebody created these incentives in the federal government, seemingly perverse incentives.
It seems like Just philosophically speaking, our medical profession should be rewarded when people are well, not dying, for one thing.
But the key question is, are many of these deaths induced or otherwise avoidable?
Are there people, and I guess this must be the premise of your lawsuit, that these people would have been fine if they had just been perhaps given ivermectin and sent home, but instead were They were intubated and put into this money factory system, and as a result of that, they died?
Is that essentially the premise?
I don't know that we're in a position to say that they would have been fine.
However, we do know that 99.97% of people across the population, and if you go into the age of 70, it becomes 99.98, they survive COVID. In Kentucky, it's the ninth leading cause of death, and it's way behind the flu.
For example.
But we're giving them something that had a mortality rate of over 53% that makes no sense whatsoever.
Yes.
And one of the main things that I'm concerned with and I think the clients are concerned with and any patient in a hospital should be concerned with is This isn't just a mistake where they, oh, oops, I forgot to tell you this important fact about the medication.
This is intentional.
They are fraudulently concealing information about remdesivir.
They are intentionally withholding information of other types of treatment.
You know, the patient cannot make informed consent decisions.
They're not giving informed consent because they don't know the alternatives.
They don't know the risks.
They don't know the benefits.
They don't know any other consequences.
And so When they're being intentionally deceived, that deception is the violation that we're after.
That's what we're really trying to attack.
And I want to circle back to something we said earlier about the medical establishment of physicians.
One thing is clear.
There are a lot of people that have resisted this protocol, lots of good healthcare providers who want to actually practice medicine, treat each patient individually, look for the results, the treatment remedies for this patient versus the next patient based on their comorbidities and their physical health and all of those things. the treatment remedies for this patient versus the next patient And we want to encourage those physicians to reach out to us as well.
Go to DeclareTruth.us, enter your contact information in.
We're trying to match up, and they're out there practicing, and we're trying to match them up with people in the lawsuits across the country to help out as expert witnesses and to testify what should have happened.
Well, so you are in touch then with other attorneys who are filing similar lawsuits across the country?
No, that's the template we're trying to create is so that other cross-country.
And we have had a handful, maybe a little more than that, reach out to us.
We need a lot, lot more.
And I would just encourage them, you know, Michael and I are both in this fight because we feel like God has kind of Giving us some guidance and direction to be here.
We met each other because of God.
We're moving forward because of Him.
And if you're an attorney out there or you're a doctor and you're feeling that nudging, that whisper in your ear or the knock on the head from the staff to get on a different road, I would just request that they think hard about that and say yes and get involved in this fight.
It's important to help people, help them fight back.
And it's not just, I would say to our audience here, it's not just fighting for those who have already died from this.
But, you know, the medical system needs to be put on pause here, and there need to be repercussions for this kind of behavior, or they will repeat it time and time again, damaging or killing who knows how many future people in future emergencies or Right?
I mean, we've got to reestablish some kind of repercussions or medical ethics responsibility for this.
Isn't that just as important as representing the 14 families that you're representing right now?
Absolutely.
So I can tell you that our families, what they care about is stopping this.
And I want to emphasize to your listeners, because I know how committed they are, because I'm one of them.
But I want to emphasize to them that donating, say, through our Give, Send, Go...
You're not paying Dan and I's salaries.
That's not what that money is for.
It's to support these people.
The expenses of a lawsuit like this are quite significant.
And these people have the courage to relive their grief in public for the sake of others.
That's what they're in it for.
And so the money that donated supports them.
They don't have the resources.
Dan and I aren't in this for the money.
We both believe strongly that God called us into this fight, and there's a great evil afoot, but our God is greater than evil, and we're going to do the fight.
But when people give, they're supporting the families.
Yes, absolutely.
I do want to encourage everybody to go to your website, also DeclareTruth.us.
And folks, if you know someone who lost a family member that you believe may have been subjected to this kind of, well...
have cost them their lives, please reach out to these attorneys and spread the word.
We need more people involved.
And here's a question for both of you, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Hamilton.
The Department of Justice recently filed charges against, I believe, 47 people, mostly in Minnesota.
It was part of a Somali community.
It was charges that they had defrauded the government of $250 million in funding, largely through the USDA, for food programs that were supposed to feed the children, and that the rules for these grants had been somewhat relaxed through COVID. and that the rules for these grants had been somewhat So through a network of friends...
these individuals were allegedly able to Fake like they were feeding children thousands of meals a day, and they were able to collect $247 million, or $250 million, and now they've been charged.
Well, why wouldn't the DOJ go to a network of doctors and say, you know, you've committed fraud, you've pretended to treat these people with medicine, you've collected how many millions of dollars through the federal government, these incentive programs, and And yet, instead of just having fake meals for children, this is real poison, you could say, that's killing people.
Like, where's the DOJ in the criminal investigations of this network of apparent fraud?
Great question.
I don't have an answer for it, but I am asking the same question.
I'm saying, where are they?
What's happening here is, in our lawsuit, It's clearly battery, which is criminal.
Right.
You know, a number of things that we've alleged are criminal in nature.
And, of course, to...
Yeah, so, I mean...
I'm beside myself over this question because it needs to be asked and it's the one we should all have at the front of our minds.
Well, let me ask you this question.
If I'm not a doctor and I walk up to somebody and I say, hey, I'm diagnosing you with magical pineapple disease and I have this, in this needle, I have a poison.
I mean, I have, excuse me, I have treatment treatment.
That will treat your magical pineapple disease, and I inject you with it and you die.
That's fraud.
That's medical battery.
That's chemical violence.
If I have a medical license and I do the same thing, that does not excuse me from those same actions, does it?
Well, that's exactly what we're arguing in the lawsuit.
I mean, a little different scenario than what you described there, but the idea is it's not the practice of medicine.
It's not treatment with a lack of informed consent.
It is the concealment of information.
It's the intentionally fraudulent concealment of information.
It is the intentional administration of remdesivir in many of these cases over the objections of the patients.
It's that intentional conduct that we're really trying to target.
And I'm not sure why there isn't a bigger effort afoot in the federal government to go after these facilities and take a look at it, but I will tell you that because it's so widespread across the United States, It suggests to me that there's something behind it that's much bigger than an individual hospital making a decision here or there.
There is something else going on.
It is across the whole country, at least from what we've seen.
And it's just too similar to the exclusion of other really efficacious medications.
It makes no sense at all.
And...
I think that's a large part about what the families are trying to accomplish with this lawsuit and what Michael and I are trying to accomplish, and you're letting us do that by being on your great show, is to bring awareness to this so we can push back.
You know, it sounds almost impossible to make any real impact against that large effort, that nationwide effort that's so dark and evil.
But what we are seeing too is that when people step forward, If enough people do, and we're united in it all, and then we bring God in as the commander-in-chief of this fight for us, that we can win.
We can stop the use of remdesivir.
We can, and with that, stop the use of the next big effort to control us in another way.
Can I ask you this question?
Because I think this is really relevant to your case, but...
In America, we've been told, in fact, we've been ordered by Fauci and others that you cannot argue with, quote, the science.
You cannot question a doctor, which is the worst medical advice ever, by the way.
If you don't question your doctor, you're probably going to be killed by your doctor.
That's my experience in dealing with family members in hospitals.
You better question your doctor.
That makes you a better patient.
But...
Isn't part of this stemming from the demanded obedience where when people lose family members, someone dies?
And too often, even, they would say, well, the doctor did their best.
that's not the case?
What if the doctor actually took an action that was irresponsible and resulted in the person's death?
It seems like in our culture, people are very reluctant to blame members of the medical profession, even if they've engaged in wrongdoing or fraud or misrepresentation.
Would you say that's true?
I would say it's true.
I mean, there's no question about it.
We as a people have been conditioned to accept authority.
I mean, if you look at what's happening in the public schools and has been for decades, children are being conditioned to be obedient.
And when you go into the doctor, you take off your clothes, you put on the gown.
everything is designed to make you understand that you're in in the presence of a higher authority so to speak but we know that fauci is a liar like he went in front of the cdc the nih did and they said this is a safe and effective medicine and and we just wanted to help people and and but none of that was true but we knew that it had a it had a high mortality rate it hadn't even been studied at that time um i don't believe the study from the who had even come out
But when that study did come out, don't give it to anybody regardless of severity of symptoms.
Now, they've moderated that Since then, but during the time that every one of our decedents died, the recommendations across the board were, don't use it.
But hospitals are still saying, well, this is the protocol and we're going to do it.
And people, that's the reason we have to raise the awareness because people are going into the hospital assuming they're going to be helped, trusting the doctors to have their best interest in mind.
And that's not what's happening.
It's not happening anywhere.
Right.
Here's a fascinating question to interject here.
What about, have any doctors contacted you or other medical professionals, perhaps nurses or physicians assistants?
Have they contacted you, perhaps not even in a legal way, but just in terms of a conversation, and said, yes, we were forced to do this protocol against our maybe vocalizing skepticism about it.
Have you heard from anybody like that?
Absolutely.
One of the most well-known objectors to this protocol, Dr.
Merrick, we spoke with him just last week, and he's testified to these facts.
He was against it.
He was told this is all you're going to be able to do, and he was run out because he refused to follow that directive.
And there are many others that have come forward, not necessarily to get involved in the litigation, but just to tell us about what has happened and what's going on in these facilities across the country.
Yes, because I know that, see, especially younger doctors, at least this is my opinion, they come out of medical school with a tremendous amount of debt, obviously.
And the only way to pay their student loans is to continue to get paychecks from the hospital.
They would be bankrupt if they put that in jeopardy.
And so they're more willing, perhaps, than older doctors, at least this is my experience, to go along with the program, even if they object to it.
Would you agree with that kind of overall characterization, or have you seen that to be true as well?
Well, I'll answer it this way.
way, the people that have come forward, the physicians that we've talked to are older.
They've been practicing in excess of 15, 20 plus years by my memory.
And again, it hasn't been a lot of people, but those that have come forward are older and they look back and reflect on what happened in medical school.
They saw how they were conditioned to operate a certain way.
And as they have a more broad view of things with the experiences that are behind them, they can see it more clearly now.
And that's why they're willing to step up against it, I think.
Can I ask you to stay a few more minutes with me?
Would that be okay?
Absolutely.
You're doing okay.
Okay.
I know it's getting late and I apologize, but I've got so many questions and people need to hear this.
People need to know how important this critical issue is.
Let me ask you in terms of your lawsuit.
One of the things mentioned in your press release is that there was allegedly constructive fraud carried out misrepresentation by the these hospitals of what they were actually doing or what what drugs they were administering or not getting the required consent from patients and so on.
In a legal sense, I'm not an attorney, but I have general knowledge that in a legal sense, if you can establish this fraud that Well, If they committed fraud, then doesn't it mean that it doesn't matter who told them to carry out these protocols,
calls, that the fraud alone is a violation of the patient's rights and the doctor-patient relationship.
Absolutely.
That's part of what we're alleging.
And that's how I think we get around some of the immunities that I think they're going to argue they're entitled to.
But it's intentional conduct.
And when the doctors, they may be given the directive to do that, but when the doctors exercise on that, they're as wrong as the ones given the directive, in my opinion.
And so you've named several doctors in your lawsuit.
Are you sharing how many doctors that is?
No, and the number will grow as we go forward.
We're still reviewing all the medical records to make sure we understand who, in fact, gave those orders.
We want to make sure the right people are listed in that respect.
Okay.
Have any of these hospitals responded publicly to your filing of a lawsuit?
No, they're staying quiet, just like most defendants would in response to a lawsuit.
Do you anticipate they're going to move to dismiss this lawsuit soon?
Almost certainly.
Okay.
Just because they have to.
They definitely have to give it a try.
I'm sure the people behind it are going to have them do that.
Do you anticipate you being able to achieve further discovery in this lawsuit to get medical records and such, or internal hospital protocol records?
That is one of our very top priorities, is to use discovery to uncover what is behind this type of protocol, and more importantly, why it's the only one being offered.
Well, then let me ask you, if you were given that discovery, then probably that same court would give you the power to compel...
You know, interviews and recorded testimony from some of the people in the hospital as well.
Is that something that you anticipate achieving or attempting to?
Yeah, the normal course of things in the litigation process, like the one we're in, would be to request by way of effectively a subpoena all of the records that we want to see.
And then when they come in, we would go through those records and identify those individuals and It seems to me gentlemen that If this lawsuit succeeds, it could create a template for many other similar lawsuits across the country and, frankly, bring into question the entire medical industry's response to COVID, which could have liability in the multiple trillions of dollars.
We're talking about potentially something way beyond even, let's say, the glyphosate lawsuits against Monsanto, which were in the, I think, hundreds of billions of dollars.
Couldn't this be the biggest can of worms ever for the medical industry if you succeed in your lawsuit?
That's an interesting way to look at it.
I think there's some truth to that for sure.
But honestly speaking, and I'm sure Michael is going to be right here with me on this, I've never looked at this lawsuit in that way at all.
What we want to do is first and foremost on behalf of the clients, stop the use of remdesivir.
And it would definitely require that this lawsuit be formed as a template and for others to be filed across the country.
And if other families were to be compensated for their losses as a result of that, that would be amazing.
But ultimately what we want to establish is For our clients and for the American people in general is reestablish, I guess, their right to control the decisions that are made for them about medical care and to push back and the more lawsuits that we can have.
I think we're good to go.
I think we're good to go.
The strength to push back and be unified.
Maybe we can do that as other attempts to control us are pushed out.
I really think that's how we view this more than the money side.
Let me ask you about, isn't one of the main difficulties of this the fact that the very people who would offer the strongest testimony to support the merits of what you're saying, that those people are dead?
They've deceased.
And isn't that to the benefit of the hospitals that you're suing, that their treatment that you say was fraudulently conducted or carried out against these people, that it also managed to silence the very witnesses who could speak up in a most qualified way?
You know, the thing that was really important for me as we looked at these cases initially was the amount of evidence that were saved by the family members in the form of videos, pictures of their loved ones strapped to the bed.
I mean, how do you deny that when you have the picture?
So the type of care that Michael described earlier, We have that in the form of video evidence, photographic evidence, and then the testimony of many of those family members as well who may have been outside the room, but of the 14 families, half a dozen or so have healthcare professionals that are in there, nurses, physicians, assistants, and the like who are in the hospital and who witnessed the hospital's resistance to them being with their loved ones, who witnessed the implementation of this protocol.
So actually, there's a lot of evidence regarding the protocol and how it was implemented.
We were just on a show the other day, and the host, he has video of the exact type of thing we're talking about.
So there's lots of evidence out there, and it's going to help.
In essence, you can go back and audit the medical records, and you can question, was this treatment justified based on the test results or patient status results that the hospital had in their position at that time, correct?
That's right.
I have a client, Mike, and this is Michael here, but I've got a client in Kentucky, just to give you an example, who went in because he was feeling a little poorly.
This was a 77-year-old gentleman who was doing more chin-ups than I can do at the age of 53 every day, very fit, healthy.
He went in, and after three days, he was breathing hospital room air.
He had no elevated white blood cells, nothing to indicate that there was anything wrong with him.
And you can just look at the medical chart and see that it's as plain as day.
But they announced that he had COVID pneumonia.
They isolated him from his family.
They strapped him down.
They did the protocol that I talked about.
They gave him 27 doses of Tylenol in 24 hours.
They put him on a steady drip of Benadryl, which further exacerbates the problems.
And they gave him no food or water.
And when his family finally said, enough is enough, we're coming to get him, they gave him a fatal dose of something that would have killed you or me or Daniel.
It would have just killed us.
And they just, in that case, they just put him to death.
But if you look at the charts, you can see he was in there for three days.
He should have been released.
Instead, they started this crazy protocol and they starved him and they And when he died, I have the pictures.
It's horrible.
His hands are not tied to the bed rails anymore.
But they're out like he was crucified.
Like he was laying on a cross.
He's down to skin, stretched thin over bones.
His mouth is open, gasping for air.
And he was choking to death on his own fluids.
And then they gave him this...
Fatal dose of...
And I forget what it was they gave him, but we have the charts.
We have gone over it with our medical experts, and it's so clear to see.
You know, they're...
Simply put, the death.
So your lawsuit, of course, is in civil courts, but in the world of criminal prosecutions, I can think of another case, the DOJ prosecuting a cancer doctor, I believe, in the Detroit area, who was falsely diagnosing people with cancer so that he could treat them with chemotherapy, which was also damaging kidneys, damaging brain and heart tissue.
And that individual...
I forgot his name at the moment.
We've written about it over the years.
But there was a whistleblower in his office who saw that happening, called the FBI. That was the only reason they caught it.
But that doctor was prosecuted and ultimately sentenced to prison because he was profiting from this.
And so there is criminal precedent for this, but in the civil courts, what is out there in terms of precedent for holding doctors responsible for their decisions based on the patient records, saying, do these records and these test results and these conditions match up with the decision that you made to intervene in these ways that resulted in the patient's death?
Do you have a court precedent on your side in the civil courts?
In that type of case, Mike, every medical malpractice litigation involves just that, looking at the records and analyzing what the provider did and measuring what the provider did against the standard of care, what a reasonably prudent physician or healthcare provider would do under similar circumstances.
And that is proven by experts.
So both sides have an expert.
They look at the records.
They say this was warranted, this wasn't warranted, and then the jury makes the decision.
So we have that in this case, and we can use the investigation process and the use of experts to establish a standard of care.
Beyond that, though, we have the intentional act of withholding information, which we know happened through the requirement of only one remedy being given to the patient, one option in terms of remdesivir.
And then we have the unconsented to medical treatment.
And that's in the records to the extent that it shows remdesivir was provided.
And in some of the cases, it's actually charted that the patient objected to remdesivir.
So the chart will help us in that respect.
I see.
Where the chart says remdesivir was provided and we have a nurse, for example, who's a family member who objected to remdesivir up front, you know, we'll have that presented to the jury, the testimony versus the chart.
And maybe in that case, actually, the chart helps us prove our point.
So we'll use the charts, the charting from the hospital to help us, and the other side will use it to help them, and the experts will go at it.
I think the thing that makes this case compelling from our client's perspective is Is that we know, and the health industry knows, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are effective in treating COVID. And it's not even given to the patient as an option.
It's intentionally withheld from them as an option.
And that is wrong.
It's not even really within the standard of care.
It's fraud.
And so we're going to attack it from that angle.
All right, we're getting close to wrapping this up, and I've got one more question for you, perhaps a tough question, but let me give out your website first.
Folks, go to DeclareTruth.us.
Just type that into your browser, DeclareTruth.us.
You'll find links and information, including a donation link, if you want to help fund this effort.
But my question to you both, gentlemen, is sort of about that funding.
You've already said that the families want to see this practice, which they consider to be an abusive, fraudulent practice.
They want to see it stopped.
I would imagine that if you have enough compelling evidence, then at some point...
These hospitals that you've sued are going to come to you and they're going to offer some kind of settlement, and it's going to involve a non-disclosure agreement.
And there's going to be a lot of pressure, perhaps, on you and the families to take a couple million dollars so the hospitals can make this go away.
But then that doesn't solve the big problem of stopping this practice, necessarily.
What...
Can you talk publicly about, do your clients intend to take this all the way, or would they consider a settlement, or is it too early to even talk about that?
I think it would be premature to talk about settlement at this point.
We haven't even heard from the hospitals and their defense team yet.
But again, if that were to happen and there were compensation to the families between now and that time, we're doing everything we can to make the public aware of this situation.
And if we can use this as a template and we can get attorneys to respond to the call to action that Michael and I are putting out Oh, good point.
Right, so it'll have a multiplication effect if we can get it out and get people interested in filing these suits.
And, you know, as we get ready to close, this is not an easy case.
It's not a slam-dunk case.
A lot of people don't think that we have really much of a claim to be made.
I disagree.
I think we do, and good faith have a very solid case.
But it's got to be fought.
The fight's got to be fought.
If we just lay down and let the medical industry do what they're doing and wipe out good people, good people are dying.
You know, then that's wrong, too.
And so that's why Michael and I are in this fight, because someone's got to step in the breach and make it happen.
And hopefully we can learn from other attorneys.
We can get other attorneys involved and multiply this effect so that it has a much broader reach than Fresno, California.
Yeah, absolutely.
And also for the attorneys of these hospitals that may review this recording, let me state, I invite you.
I would be happy to invite you to an interview.
I'd love to ask you questions.
Some of them might be tough questions as well, but to give you a chance to publicly respond to this lawsuit if you choose to do that.
So that's an open invitation right there.
And to some of the families as well, if you If you feel it is appropriate and they wish to speak out, or perhaps families that you're not representing who don't want to be part of a lawsuit but do want to go public with their story, that door is open as well.
Mike, let me just say, in addition to what Dan said, yeah, I'm not going to talk about our clients and what they may or may not do, but I can tell you that I have talked to so many people around the country who would never consider being bribed I'm
hearing that story over and over and over.
Absolutely.
What is the value of the life that was taken?
You can't put a number on it, especially if there's suffering involved or torture or medical abuse or battery.
How do you even begin to put a number on that?
But these are very complex issues.
I'm so glad that you're out there.
Arguing this case and representing these families because this is exactly the kind of discussion that we need to have in modern medicine or it becomes ever more abusive against innocent people.
At least that's what I'm observing.
So any final thoughts gentlemen before we wrap this up?
I just want to thank you for giving the voice of not just our clients, but everyone in the country who's experiencing this for allowing it to be amplified through your platform.
I want to ask your listeners to pray for us.
That's the first thing.
We need prayer.
We're standing in the face of a great evil.
Our God is greater than evil, but pray for us and pray for our clients and pray that this is stopped through these efforts.
And then if you see, you know, if your listeners feel led, then support the families financially.
But first and foremost, prayer and our thanks to you, Mike, for amplifying this voice.
Michael, thanks for having us.
One thing I would just encourage people to do is to listen to the leanings of the Lord and if He's pushing them or giving them some direction and guidance and to step in and get involved in whatever way, my recommendation and request would be to say yes and give it a try.
I started This movement in my life about a year ago.
I've been in practice 30 years, and this year has been more gratifying than the 29 years preceding combined.
Yes.
And, you know, this is the time to fight.
We're representing just a little bit beyond the remdesivir cases.
We've got thousands of people in California that have been fired because they stood up for their religious values and said no to the vaccine.
And You know, they're fighting back.
So this isn't just about taking away your medical decision to make, or excuse me, the autonomy to make your own medical decisions.
It's about something so much more.
There's the taking away of your religious liberties, and we're seeing the stripping away of our rights and our privileges across the country.
So the time is now to step in, and whatever way the Lord's leaning and pushing you to go, think long and hard and pray about saying yes.
From what I've seen, He'll use you, and He'll use you in great ways, and that's how we can reclaim what's been lost over the last decades here.
Well said.
Well said.
And God bless both of you for standing up for humanity and for medical ethics, if we have any remaining in this country.
Maybe that's not fair.
I should say there are good doctors out there.
There are many who do care.
They're doing the best they can.
But there's also a very, obviously, dangerous, fraudulent system at work as well.
So we've got to shut that down and return medicine into the hands of more honest operators.
Because there are good people out there.
So thank you both for joining me.
Thank you for all your patience and spending the time, especially late in the evening here.
And folks, if you want to support this effort, go to DeclareTruth.us and consider a financial donation to the families here as well who are putting everything on the line to try to make this effort count.
So thank you both for joining me and thank you all for listening today.
I'm Mike Adams here, Brighteon.com.
Take care.
A global reset is coming.
And that's why I've recorded a new nine-hour audiobook.
It's called The Global Reset Survival Guide.
You can download it for free by subscribing to the naturalnews.com email newsletter, which is also free.
I'll describe how the monetary system fails.
I also cover emergency medicine and first aid and what to buy to help you avoid infections.
So download this guide.
It's free.
▲
Export Selection