Proof that Russell Brand @rustyrockets knows about NG163 and about the involuntary euthanasia that was implemented during the faux pandemic. I’ve also emailed him many times and added links to my films ‘A Good Death?’ and ‘Playing God’ on many of his threads and under a few of his videos.

Andrew Bridgen @ABridgen only found out about it last year and he’s done a good job speaking out about it but, Russ, if you want to talk to someone who knows a bit more OR to the relatives of victims, please contact me.

In the meantime, here’s a film for you to watch… #NG163 @ng16322rumble.com/v3u1rep-uncove… Notice his nervous glance to camera while Andrew is speaking. What’s that about? @rustyrockets @ABridgen

1/2 - On September 24th 2021, a young advanced paramedic injected my dad with a big shot of something. Then told me she hadn’t. She told me she hadn’t had time to give him anything, that he died before she had the chance.

My dad, who was recovering from a stroke but who was well otherwise, died about 30 minutes after the injection. 

On the ambulance report, which I requested and received several weeks later, one of the three paramedics in attendance wasn’t even listed as being present that day. When I asked why, I was told it was a computer error and they sent a new report. This new report listed six paramedics as being at my dad’s house that day. Only three were actually there - a silent one, a mouthy one and a lying one. 

I was halfway up the motorway when I got the news that my dad had “gone”. (That’s the word my eldest daughter used when she called me. “Grandad’s gone,” she said.)

I wasn’t expecting him to go. I’d packed enough clothes for a few days’ stay. I’d seen him six days previously when I sprang a surprise visit on him and stayed the night. I stayed with him regularly and his little face was always a picture of pure joy when he’d see me appear in the morning. I’d spoken to him on the phone the evening of September 23rd and he said he was fed up, so I said I’d come and cheer him up. That wasn’t to be. 

As soon as I’d told the mouthy paramedic on the phone not to give my dad Midazolam and not to give him morphine (also known as EOL end of life - drugs) and that having just made a film on end of life care, I was well aware of current protocols when it came to the elderly especially with regards to frailty scores and ‘care’ pathways, he had it in for me.

I was already in the car, about to set out, when I had that phone conversation with the mouthy paramedic. I asked the paramedic to tell my dad I was on my way. My dad’s carer told me later that the paramedic did no such thing.

What the paramedic DID do, according to my dad’s carer, was joke about me when he came off the phone, suggesting that I was a bit of a know-it-all. His actual words were - again, according to my dad’s carer - “if she hadn’t been the daughter, I’d have told her to f*** off.” I found that hard to believe but the carer swore on her own life that that’s what he said. He then called the local surgery. My dad’s GP wasn’t there so the paramedic spoke to a GP who’d only met my dad once. He, according to the ambulance report, told the paramedic that my dad had terminal cancer, that he was at “end of life” and that he was receiving palliative care. None of this was true. Perhaps he’d got my dad mixed up with another patient.

My dad was 78 and had already had three stays in hospital in the previous 12 months. Nobody wanted him to go back into hospital. But nobody wanted him to die either.

Unbeknown to me at the time, the paramedics collected end of life drugs (Midazolam, morphine and Haliperidol) - as prescribed by the misinformed GP - but later told me they didn’t use them. As I’ve already mentioned (but want to emphasise), the lying paramedic - an angel-faced girl of 21 - told me on the phone minutes after my dad’s horrendous and undignified passing that they’d not administered any medication at all. 

My dad’s carer told me, however, that before she was sent out of the room, the mouthy paramedic asked my two stepsisters (who’d turned up to visit my dad that morning) whether there was a DNR in place. The stepsisters said there was. There wasn’t. In fact, I’d made sure there wasn’t and also made sure that this information was very prominent on my dad’s medical records. I have emails to prove it. The mouthy paramedic then told the stepsisters that I’d told him I had power of attorney for my dad’s health and welfare but that he didn’t believe me. The stepsisters said they didn’t believe me either. I had power of attorney and have all the paperwork to prove it. 2/2 - The mouthy paramedic then declared he was going to ignore my requests and that he was going to make a ‘best interests’ decision on my dad’s behalf. In his opinion, it seemed, it was in my dad’s best interests to be dead. That’s when they sent everyone out of the room and executed him.

(The carer later told me she’d overheard the two paramedics discussing whether to give my dad 2.5mgs or 5mgs of Midazolam. Whether they administered it or not, I’ll never know, although a syringe packet was found in the bin later that day. I still have it.)

Had I got there in time, I’d have refused to leave the room. Had I left my house earlier, or lived closer or gone to see him the night before, things would have been different. He might even still be alive. He was fed up but he wasn’t ready to die.

It was the day of the fuel shortage and many petrol stations were closed. I had to decide whether to continue to my dad’s and risk not being able to get back or turn around and go home. There was nothing I could do. My dad was gone. On the LAS report, whoever completed it had written that I hadn’t turned up because I “didn’t want to see a dead body”. I never said or implied that. What they wrote was pure presumption.

A few weeks after the funeral, I spoke to the police. I told them the full story. They seemed to take it seriously. Eight months later, in July 2022, they closed the case, citing ‘no further avenues of investigation’. At this point, as far as I could tell, there had been very little investigation. 

A few days after my dad passed, I spoke to his GP. She was shocked. I asked her why he’d died. She said she didn’t know but that she hadn’t been expecting him to die so soon and so suddenly. She was as mystified as I still am and said that the other GP had acted very badly. I recorded our conversation. I still have the recording. She was genuinely upset - she liked my dad - and audibly shocked. 

The police told me they’d spoken to the stepsisters, who said the paramedics did a fine job. The police didn’t speak to my dad’s GP, nor to the GP that prescribed end of life drugs for my dad. The police didn’t interview the paramedics. I told the police everything my dad’s carer had told me. (She was too traumatised to give a statement.) They told me that was just hearsay and that even if she HAD given a statement, it would mean nothing as she wasn’t actually in the room when my dad died. Whatever I said would also count for nothing apparently as I wasn’t there. 

I wasn’t happy. The police sent me a complaints form by email. I had a dream about my dad telling me to “leave it” and, so far, that’s what I’ve done.

The photo above is of my dad after I took him out of the care home. We went to the seaside. He loved the sea. Made him happy. I scattered his ashes there.

Oh, and by the way, the report from the London Ambulance Service showed that my dad HAD been injected - with glycopyrronium bromide, a drug he’d never had before. It was administered by the young lying paramedic and, in my opinion, caused a fatal reaction.

I’m still in two minds whether to take this further. I know other people in similar situations who’ve been going around in circles trying to get justice for loved ones who were victims of medical negligence and malpractice. It has swallowed up years of their lives.

Fighting won’t get my dad back. And it probably won’t stop the same sort of fate to befall others. For now, I just want to tell his story. My dad was a fan of telling the truth. So that’s what I’ve done.

(RIP John Deevoy 22.6.43 - 24.9.21.)

I’ve sent this to 30 mainstream newspaper editors. Reckon they’ll publish it?

Hancock’s deadly Covid protocol was slammed by doctors in 2020… but he implemented it anyway

By Jacqui Deevoy

When former health secretary Matt Hancock first came up with NG163 (the Covid protocol reminiscent of the abolished Liverpool Care Pathway that was used to treat the elderly and those presenting with respiratory issues in hospitals and care homes) in early 2020, he was quickly presented with the advice of nine doctors and two professors, all of whom were familiar with end of life care procedure.

After studying it, they said they were “concerned that uncritical use of NG163 may create unintended risks for people with suspected or actual COVID-19 infection” and suggested that it shouldn’t be implemented.

The new guideline replaced NG31, which detailed how to deal with people dying of cancer. The doctors pointed out that, with regards to the old guideline, the evidence base was so poor that specific dosages were not recommended. They seemed confused by the fact that dosages recommended in NG163 were so specific.

In a letter, published on April 20th 2020, the eminent experts, led by Professor Emeritus Sam H. Ahmedzai, point out that “while NG163 states ‘Note that symptoms can change, and patients can deteriorate rapidly in a few hours or less’, there is no counterpoint that most patients without the preconditions above will eventually recover.”

They also state that, while there was plenty of detail on dosing up Covid patients with powerful medications, there’s no advice on monitoring the patients nor on weaning them off the drugs. Could that be because there was never any intention of weaning them off?

Another major concern of the panel was the fact that NG163 states: “Sedation and opioid use should not be withheld because of a fear of causing respiratory depression.”

This is probably the most frightening line ever to be written into a NICE guideline as it’s telling nurses not to be put off giving the prescribed drugs due to a fear that the patient’s breathing will dramatically slow down. They’re being told to disregard any concerns and administer the drugs anyway.

Doctors prescribing the meds - and many of the nurses giving them - KNOW that using Midazolam and morphine together will slow down breathing (to the point of death if it’s administered continuously via a syringe driver) but this very clear instruction is telling them not to worry about that! How many medics administered this killer cocktail of ‘end of life drugs’ to patients, not all of whom were presenting with respiratory symptoms - or, in some cases, appearing to have nothing more than a positive result from a non-diagnostic, not fit-for-purpose PCR test - knowing it was going to kill them?

Some doctors and nurses have since admitted wondering about the potentially lethal effect of this combination of benzodiazepines and opioids and knew that the doses they were giving were way too high (something else that was a point of concern in the letter), but very few spoke out and the vast majority just continued to follow orders. Sadly, as we know from the Nuremberg Trials, the excuse of “just following orders” does not stand up in court. (And, whether they knew the dangers of what they were doing or not, court is where many of these obedient ‘angels of death’ will end up.)

(More to follow in comments below.) Further into the letter, the professors and doctors rightly point out that if Covid-19 infection were uniformly fatal, the frightening sentence (instructing doctors and nurses to ignore any concerns) would be acceptable. But it was already known back then that, for most people, the ‘virus’ wasn’t fatal. By then, many experts were seeing it as no more dangerous than the flu and, while some elderly people with serious comorbidities may well die after being diagnosed with it, very few people seemed to be dying FROM it. This is explained in the letter as follows: “For people not previously known to be at the end of life, there is potential risk of unintended serious harm if these medications are used incorrectly and without the benefit of specialist palliative care advice.”

The letter, published by the BMJ (British Medical Journal and signed by all 11 doctors), reads as follows:

“Dear Editor
We read with great interest the summary of NICE guideline NG163: COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing symptoms (including at the end of life) in the community.[1] NICE is to be congratulated on producing a series of guidelines for the COVID-19 crisis in such a short time. The letter from Dr (Lieutenant Colonel) Rajesh Chauhan et al,[2] detailing their concerns around the recommendations for codeine, and the response by Dr Paul Chrisp,[3] Director of the Centre for Guidelines at NICE, illustrate the inherent problems associated with producing UK national guidelines for a global problem.
We fully understand why shortcuts to the normal NICE guideline procedure were necessary, in order to produce COVID-19 guidance rapidly. But we are concerned that uncritical use of NG163 may create unintended risks for people with suspected or actual COVID-19 infection.
Under ‘General advice for managing COVID-19 symptoms’, NG163 recommends: “3.2 When managing key symptoms of COVID 19 in the last hours and days of life, follow the relevant parts of NICE guideline [NG31] on care of dying adults in the last days of life. This includes pharmacological interventions and anticipatory prescribing.” The earlier NICE guideline NG31 (2015) for symptom management at the end of life was based on studies carried out in people who were mostly in the advanced stages of cancer.[4] However, in NG31 the evidence base was so poor that it did not publish detailed recommendations for drugs and doses. We are unaware of more recent high-quality research evidence that NICE could have used to produce such specific drug and dosing recommendations now for COVID-19 patients.
NG31 was aimed at care of people who were likely to die in the coming hours and days - usually from advanced diseases, from which recovery was deemed most improbable. Many people in the UK who are suspected of having COVID-19 will not have advanced cancer or be dying from another existing terminal condition. The accumulating global evidence shows that the case fatality rate reaches >50% in those needing mechanical ventilation, over 80 years and with serious underlying health conditions including congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease and lung cancer.[5] So it is worrying that while NG163 states “Note that symptoms can change, and patients can deteriorate rapidly in a few hours or less”, there is no counterpoint that most patients without the preconditions above will eventually recover. In contrast, NICE guideline NG31 emphasised the importance of how to recognise whether someone was dying, but also to keep open the possibility for recovery by ‘monitoring for further changes at least every 24 hours’.(5)

I watched the Channel 4 documentary on Russell Brand. All highly suspect.

I know if I pitched an idea for an inflammatory documentary to a TV company and said all the main contributors were going to be anonymous with their faces in shadow or played by actors, I’d have the idea flung back in my face.

The stories told may or may not be true but trial by TV is never fair.

Whether he’s guilty or not, this film is clearly a hit piece. A neatly orchestrated attack. Brand is getting too popular, is way too ‘over target’ and has to be removed.

And this is how they do it.
Woke up to 360k views on this post. I’ll try to respond to as many of the comments as I can. Lucky it’s Sunday!

Here we have Jeremy Hunt on 17th April 2020 asking the then health secretary Matt Hancock whether any guidance was going to put in place with regards to doctors who might have to “play God” during the pandemic.

Hancock replies: “The good news, Jeremy, is that no guidance is… https://t.co/YjvDm9Ob12twitter.com/i/web/status/1…