September 16, 2022
When COVID-19 was declared a pandemic in March of 2020 by the World Health Organization and the Trump administration, I began to witness patients’ rights stripped away, and the ethical principles and oath I promised to abide by became compromised. It all started with isolating people in their homes or the hospital. The decision to remove family members and visitors from the patient’s bedside placed them in a type of isolation by reducing their interaction with others and lowering the standard of patient care.
For example, a nurse averages five patients in the hospital and twelve in a nursing home. They cannot be everywhere at once. Having a visitor at the bedside is another set of eyes, ears, and hands. They would immediately notice if the patient started talking funny, which could be a stroke sign requiring immediate attention. Or encourage the patient to eat, shower, or walk. They can also make a huge difference in their mood. People lose the will to survive when they’re isolated.
Nurses rely on the help of family and friends to encourage, support and facilitate their recovery. Another set of ears in the room when a doctor makes his rounds and informs the patient on the medication changes, tests ordered, a new set of instructions, etc., can be invaluable for reducing medical errors. A physician could have just left the room telling the patient they were going to discontinue a particular medication, and a nurse could be bringing it in. The visitor could tell the nurse the doctor’s updated treatment plan. In the nursing world, that is considered a “near miss” and a reportable medical error. There are a million reasons why prohibiting a visitor at the bedside, no matter the circumstance, was a horrible idea.
Unscientific hospital policy took precedence over the patient’s right to make decisions about their lives without the interference of others (Silva et al., 1999). This is the definition of Autonomy. And as my ethics evaluator pointed out in my formal ethics evaluation required by the Arizona State Board of Nursing after blowing the whistle on the Health and Human Services, “nurses must adhere to ethical principles even in times of a pandemic.”
As patient advocates, nurses must ensure that patients receive ALL medical information, education, and options to make the best choice for themselves. This includes ALL potential risks, benefits, and complications to make well-informed decisions (nurse.org).
People were told to stay home and not come to the hospital unless they were having trouble breathing. The standard of care became to do nothing except create stress and fear, which lowers the immune system. Physicians stopped seeing patients in the office, and the operating room shut down for anything that wouldn’t immediately kill you, like a heart attack or stroke. The first principle of the medical team’s oath, nonmaleficence, is to DO NO HARM and is directly tied to our duty to protect the patient’s safety (Silva et al., 1999). Born out of the Hippocratic Oath, this principle dictates that we do not cause injury to our patients (Silva et al., 1999). Quarantining the sick with the healthy was never public health policy until COVID. This set the precedence for everything to come. The line in the sand has moved.
There has never been a time in the history of medicine when patients who were possibly infected with a potentially life-altering sickness were told there was no early treatment and sent patients home to “wait it out” and to “come back” if they couldn’t breathe.
The hospital administration interfered in the provider’s ability to practice medicine and prescribe medications with a proven safety profile. This is called performing a risk-benefit analysis which is at the heart of medical treatment. Instead, anyone who returned to the hospital was given minimal care and prescribed a toxic experimental drug called Remdesivir (which shockingly received FDA approval).
The World Health Organization’s position was to recommend against its use, yet we as a nation decided it was the ONLY standard of care. Then the Centers for Medicaid Reimbursement gave a financial incentive of a “20% add-on payment to the hospitals” that used it (CMS.gov) even though physicians from around the world were repurposing known drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to stop the virus from replicating in the early stages and potentially causing harm.
Then, the licensing boards began to threaten medical professionals to remove their licenses if they prescribed these medications. Providers prescribe off-label for different diseases without any FDA or government interference all the time. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (a government agency), “Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different from your condition. This practice is legal and common. One in five prescriptions written today is for off-label use.”
Pharmacists interfered with the physician-patient relationship and were told not to dispense these safe, inexpensive, wildly available generic drugs, or they would be fired. That’s called intimidation. Remember when employers once feared being sued for that? Meanwhile, this was all based on poorly designed studies and manipulation of data that were later retracted from medical journals.
It was so difficult to understand why they wouldn’t want to at least try to help people with historically safe and effective medications.
At the Phoenix Indian Medical Center, where I was an ICU/ER/Hospital Supervisor, the death rate was even surpassing New York City. Native Americans were far more affected by COVID-19, with a higher death rate than any other race, and recent data suggest they lost seven years off their lifespan! From 2019 to 2021, their life expectancy fell from 71.8 years to 65.2. At one point, the number of COVID infections was higher in the Navajo nation than in New York City. Around this time, I learned that vaccines could not be given emergency use authorization (EUA) if there were adequate, approved, available alternatives (FDA.gov).
Visitors should have been educated on the potential for contracting covid and given the choice to decide if they wanted to assume the risks and visit the patient. There were also a large number of patients who were admitted to the hospital for reasons other than covid, but because we tested everyone, if they tested positive for covid and had no symptoms, they were placed in isolation sometimes for weeks. This drove up the number and promoted fear.
It was peculiar to me to witness family members who were exposed to the virus and had no symptoms not being able to visit their loved ones in the hospitals. After all, physicians and nurses were exposed all day to the virus and, at the end of their shift, took off their protective gear, ran their errands, and went home to their loved ones throughout the pandemic, yet people died alone. This brings me to the fact that deaths were occurring in hospitals. Why weren’t they pulling dead people out of their homes, off the streets, or out of homeless shelters? People were dying in the hospitals. Why?
HAVE THESE VACCINES BEEN USED BEFORE? The mRNA technology has existed for many years. However, it had never been utilized until COVID-19. Traditional vaccines have been in place for decades for other viruses, such as measles and chickenpox, but for COVID-19, they wanted to use experimental technology. Why now? What is the purpose of this?
The COVID-19 vaccine was initially released on emergency use authorization (EUA). This means that standards for creating and testing the drug or vaccine are extremely low compared to standard drugs/vaccines (FDA.gov).
The vaccine was promised to stop the COVID-19 spread. This didn’t happen. The virus is still spreading. The vaccine was promised to prevent you from getting covid. This didn’t happen. People still got sick and often felt worse than when they got it naturally! The vaccine promised to stop the severity. This didn’t happen. People who got the vaccine were still hospitalized and died. How many stories did you hear of people not getting sick and testing positive for covid until AFTER they got the shot? None of this meets the definition of a vaccine.
OpenVaers.com suggests that the side effects are numerous. New studies show heart problems, auto-immune problems, uterine bleeding problems, stomach problems, skin problems, mental health problems, and new cancer diagnoses. Ask yourself: have your measles shot ever given you those side effects? Has your chickenpox shot? The answer is no. How did this happen?
Doctors and nurses trusted the science but didn’t bother to actually read it. Had they read the science, they would have discovered that the FDA broke its drug and vaccine approval standard. It is that simple. Anyone can look it up and read it. I encourage you to do so.
How does this affect us now? Well, we are on our fourth booster shot. People are still getting COVID. People are still dying. The shot is still being marketed as safe and effective in preventing sickness and death, while Pfizer and Moderna get richer every day, and people suffer injuries with no recourse. You cannot sue these companies and assume all the risks with little to no reward.
Have they done a repeat study? No. They haven’t. They haven’t proven that their vaccine even works. Why? There are millions of reasons why they should. One reason stands above the rest:
You matter. Your health matters. It is not normal for young, healthy people to suddenly drop dead.
– https://www.ahrq.gov/patients-consumers/patient-involvement/off-label-drug-usage.html – https://www.cms.gov/medicare/preventive-services/covid-19-services-billing-coverage/covid-19/new-covid-19-treatments-add-payment-nctap – https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained#:~:text=An%20Emergency%20Use%20Authorization%20(EUA)%20is%20a%20mechanism%20to%20facilitate,the%20current%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic – https://www.fda.gov/media/137574/download – https://nurse.org/education/nursing-code-of-ethics/ – Silva, Mary Cipriano, and Ludwick, Ruth (July 2, 1999). Interstate Nursing Practice and Regulation: Ethical Issues for the 21st Century. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 4 No. 2 Retrieved from: www.nursingworld.org//MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAPeriodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Volume41999/No2Sep1999/InterstateNursingPracticeandRegulation.aspx – https://www.science.org/content/article/many-scientists-citing-two-scandalous-covid-19-papers-ignore-their-retractions – https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients