The FBI ‘Visits’ Scott Ritter

By Andrew P. Napolitano | Ron Paul Institute | August 15, 2024
Among the lesser-known holes in the Constitution cut by the Patriot Act of 2001 was the destruction of the “wall” between federal law enforcement and federal spies. The wall was erected in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which statutorily limited all federal domestic spying to that which was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The wall was intended to prevent law enforcement from accessing and using data gathered by America’s domestic spying agencies.
Government spying is rampant in the US, and the feds regularly engage in it as part of law enforcement’s well-known antipathy to the Fourth Amendment. Last week, the FBI admitted as much when it raided the home of former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. Scott is a courageous and gifted former Marine. He is also a fierce and articulate antiwar warrior.
Here is the backstory.
After President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Congress investigated his use of the FBI and CIA as domestic spying agencies. Some of the spying was on political dissenters and some on political opponents. None of it was lawful.
What is lawful spying? The modern Supreme Court has made it clear that domestic spying is a “search” and the acquisition of data from a search is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. That amendment requires a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime presented under oath to the judge for a search or seizure to be lawful. The amendment also requires that all search warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.
The language in the Fourth Amendment is the most precise in the Constitution because of the colonial disgust with British general warrants. A general warrant was issued to British agents by a secret court in London. General warrants did not require probable cause, only “governmental needs.” That, of course, was no standard whatsoever, as whatever the government wants it will claim that it needs.
General warrants authorized government agents to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found — stated differently, to engage in fishing expeditions.
FISA required that all domestic spying be authorized by the new and secret FISA Court. Congress then unconstitutionally lowered the probable cause of crime standard for the FISA Court to probable cause of speaking to a foreign agent, and it permitted the FISA Court to issue general warrants.
Yet, the FISA compromise that was engineered in order to attract congressional votes was the wall. The wall prohibited whatever data was acquired from surveillance conducted pursuant to a FISA warrant to be shared with law enforcement.
So, if a janitor in the Russian embassy was really an intelligence agent who was distributing illegal drugs as lures to get Americans to spy for him, any telephonic evidence of his drug dealing could not be given to the FBI.
The purpose of the wall was not to protect foreign agents from domestic criminal prosecutions; it was to prevent American law enforcement from violating personal privacy by spying on Americans without search warrants.
Fast forward to the weeks after 9/11 when, with no serious debate, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. It removed the wall between law enforcement and spying. And by 2001, the FISA Court had on its own lowered the standard for issuing a search warrant from probable cause of speaking to a foreign agent to probable cause of speaking to a foreign person. This, too, was unlawful and unconstitutional.
The language removing the wall sounds benign, as it requires that the purpose of the spying must be national security and the discovered criminal evidence — if any — must be accidental or inadvertent. In January 2023, the FBI admitted that it intentionally uses the CIA and the NSA to spy on Americans as to whom it has neither probable cause of crime nor even articulable suspicion of criminal behavior.
Articulable suspicion is the linchpin of commencing all criminal investigations. Without requiring suspicion, we are back to fishing expeditions.
The FBI’s admission that it uses the CIA and the NSA to spy for it came in the form of a 906-page FBI rulebook written during the Trump administration, disseminated to federal agents in 2021 and made known to Congress last year.
Last week, when FBI agents searched Ritter’s home in upstate New York, in addition to trucks, guns, a SWAT team and a bomb squad, they arrived with printed copies of two years’ of Ritter’s emails and texts that they obtained without a search warrant. To do this, they either hacked into Ritter’s electronic devices — a felony — or they relied on their cousins, the CIA and the NSA, to do so, also a felony.
But the CIA charter prohibits its employees from engaging in domestic surveillance and law enforcement. Nevertheless, we know the CIA is physically or virtually present in all of the 50 US statehouses. And the NSA is required to go to the FISA Court when it wants to spy. We know that this, too, is a charade, as the NSA regularly captures every keystroke triggered on every mobile device and desktop computer in the US, 24/7, without warrants.
The search warrant for Ritter’s home specified only electronic devices, of which he had three. Yet, the 40 FBI agents there stole a truckload of materials from him, including his notes from his U.N. inspector years in the 2000s, a draft of a book he is in the midst of writing and some of his wife’s personal property.
The invasion of Scott Ritter’s home was a perversion of the Fourth Amendment, a criminal theft of his private property and an effort to chill his free speech. But it was not surprising. This is what has become of federal law enforcement today. The folks we have hired to protect the Constitution are destroying it.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
‘Over 1,000 children and patients died due to Israel’s closure of Rafah crossing’
Palestinian Information Center – August 14, 2024
GAZA – Gaza’s Government Media Office (GMO) has said that the Israeli occupation army’s closure of the Rafah border crossing over the past 100 days has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 children, patients and wounded civilians, warning that the humanitarian disaster in the war-ravaged costal enclave has deepened.
“The occupation army continues to close the Rafah border crossing between Palestine and Egypt for the 100th day running after burning and bulldozing it and putting it out of service,” GMO said in a statement on Wednesday.
“This Israeli closure of the crossing continues to take place as the humanitarian tragedy has deepened at all levels and affected all aspects of life,” GMO added.
GMO condemned the ongoing closure of the crossing as a “crime” and an “obvious legal violation of the international law, the international humanitarian law and all international conventions.”
GMO accused the Israeli occupation of preventing the entry of all sorts of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip, including vital medical needs, which seriously worsened the health and humanitarian situation.
GMO also accused the Israeli occupation of seeking to destroy Gaza’s health system in its entirety and using the starvation policy as a tool for political pressure.
Israeli regime’s actions against civilians ‘blatant example of terrorism’: Iran envoy

Iran’s permanent representative to the UN Office in Geneva, Ali Bahraini.
Press TV | August 14, 2024
Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva has called for Israeli institutions to be recognized as “terrorists,” stressing that the regime’s inhumane actions against Palestinian civilians constitute “a clear example of terrorism.”
Ali Bahraini made the appeal in three separate letters to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, the UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions, Morris Tidball-Binz as well as UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese on Wednesday.
According to Article 2.1 of the international convention to prevent the financing of terrorism, the institutions of “the Zionist regime” must be identified as terrorists, he said, adding that “the actions carried out by the Israeli regime against civilians and Palestinian areas are a clear example of terrorism.”
Bahraini also noted that from Iran’s point of view, Hamas is “a liberation organization” that fights for the freedom and independence of Palestine.
Therefore, he said, the assassination of Hamas leaders is aimed at undermining the morale of the Palestinian people in their struggle to end the occupation and achieve the right to self-determination.
The Iranian diplomat also emphasized that by eliminating the Palestinian leaders, Israel seeks to destroy the Palestinian political identity and the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to have an independent state.
He further referred to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICC), which recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and described any action that violates this right as illegal.
Elsewhere in his remarks, Bahraini strongly denounced as “a gross violation of international law” the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in the capital Tehran.
He also urged UN officials to condemn the assassination decisively and to document it in their future reports.
The top Iranian diplomat also stressed the need for more efforts to achieve justice for the Palestinian people and to hold the Israeli regime accountable for its crimes.
Haniyeh, who was in Tehran to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s newly-elected President Masoud Pezeshkian, alongside other Axis of Resistance leaders, was martyred in an attack early on July 31.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has warned the Israeli regime of a “harsh response” for Haniyeh’s assassination, calling it the Islamic Republic’s duty to avenge the Palestinian resistance leader’s blood.
CAIR files lawsuit against FBI, US govt agencies over blacklisting of Palestinian-Americans
MEMO | August 13, 2024
An American Muslim advocacy group has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the leaders of other United States government agencies after two Palestinian-American men were blacklisted due to their pro-Palestine activism.
On Monday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed the lawsuit in response to what it called a discriminatory and racist placement of two Palestinian Americans – Osama Abu Irshaid and Mustafa Zeidan – on a watch list by US federal authorities.
According to the lawsuit, Irshaid, the Executive Director of an organisation named American Muslims for Palestine, travelled to Qatar from the US in late May and returned in early June. Upon his return, federal agents forced him to undergo extra screening and questioning – reportedly focusing on his activism and organising against Israel’s offensive on Gaza – while seizing his phone, which has not yet been returned.
The California-based Zeidan, meanwhile, who often visits his ailing mother in Jordan, was not allowed to board a flight on his way to the country earlier this year, with authorities later informing him that he was placed on the no-fly list.
Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the lawsuit stated that “CAIR is challenging the mistreatment of these Palestinian-American activists on constitutional grounds”, asserting that their blacklisting is based on discrimination and racism rather than actual criminal or national security concerns. “Neither Dr. Abu Irshaid nor Mr. Zeidan have ever been charged or convicted of a violent crime,” it said.
Aside from the FBI, other defendants named in the lawsuit are the leaders of government agencies, including the State Department and the Homeland Security Department.
Specialist UK Police Teams Target “Hate” on Social Media
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 13, 2024
The UK authorities and the media either willing to or feeling pressure to take their cues from the government, continue to assert that the root cause of the serious rioting that hit the country this month is to be found on – social media.
This, in turn, makes for a convenient excuse to ramp up police surveillance of online content. Special police teams are now going through social sites in order to identify those said to have “incited” the riots, and there’s a special name for them – “hate influencers.”
The said teams consist of what reports refer to as “specialized” officers, those investigating serious crimes (i.e., murder and the like) and terrorism, as well as local units whose job is normally to investigate organized crime.
“Other” national-level teams are also mentioned as taking part in scouring the internet, and what they might be doing is suggested by the goal of this exercise being gaining “a clear intelligence picture,” as one article put it, citing the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC).
A statement on the NPCC site said that the search for “online offenders” is being led by regional organized crime units (ROCUs) and that the offense is spreading hate and inciting violence on the internet.
NPCC Chief Constable Chris Haward is quoted as saying that the large number of people taking part in protests and riots “did not mobilize spontaneously.”
“It was the result of dozens of so-called influencers, exploiting the outpouring of grief from the tragic loss of three young girls in Southport,” Haward said, referring to the knife attack that resulted in the three murders.
Still talking about “hate influencers,” Haward added: “They knowingly spread misinformation, stoked the flames of hatred and division, and incited violence from the comfort of their own homes – causing chaos on other people’s doorsteps. (…) Online crimes have real-world consequences and you will be dealt with in the same way as those physically present and inflicting the violence.”
Thus far, the NPCC has said that it is investigating hundreds of leads. The content targeted by law enforcement and intelligence units is reportedly spread across a range of unnamed social sites and platforms, according to the press release.
It is also revealed that “hate influencers” as the British legacy press calls them will not be held responsible simply for using the internet to allegedly incite real-world violence – but also for something separate which the NPCC calls “violence online.”
“A senior investigator” will have the last word on whether any of this can be treated as a crime – and if so, people behind the accounts and/or content will be identified and arrested.
Tyranny in the UK – Can it Happen Here?
By Ron Paul | August 12, 2024
As the UK descends into tyranny, where just re-Tweeting something the government doesn’t like can land a person a multi-year jail sentence, Americans are wondering, “can it happen here?” After all, we have the guarantees of the First Amendment.
But while we shake our heads at UK authorities jailing people for their social media posts this past week, we should not kid ourselves. The answer is that silencing dissent can happen here and it is happening here.
Here are just three recent examples of how the “deep state” or the permanent government is conspiring to restrict political dialogue in the United States.
First is the revelation that former US Representative and former US presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has been placed under the bizarrely named “Quiet Skies” program. As reported by journalist Matt Taibbi based on revelations by TSA whistleblowers, this July Gabbard was flagged as a terror threat, and every time she travels her boarding pass is marked so that she is pulled aside for extensive screening. According to the whistleblowers, “Gabbard is unaware she has two Explosive Detection Canine Teams, one Transportation Security Specialist (explosives), one plainclothes TSA Supervisor, and three Federal Air Marshals on every flight she boards.”
As Gabbard herself revealed recently on the Laura Ingraham show, “A few weeks ago, I had the audacity to tell the truth: that Kamala Harris would essentially be a mouthpiece and puppet of the Military Industrial Complex and National Security State. The next day, July 23, they retaliated. Sadly this is what we can expect from the ‘Harris Administration.’”
Next we have the attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump. It seems every day brings a new revelation that calls into question whether the massive failure to protect the Republican presidential candidate was just an “honest mistake.” We know from 1963 what can happen to presidents who cross the “deep state” and we know from Trump’s four years in office how “former” deep state officials can conspire to undermine the presidency with lies like “Russiagate.”
Finally we have the case of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Up until the Trump assassination attempt, the Biden/Harris Administration refused to provide the independent presidential candidate with Secret Service protection. RFK, Jr. has consistently and effectively criticized not only the current administration but the “deep state” itself while out on the campaign trail. Even though there were credible threats against him on the campaign trail the Biden/Harris administration refused to budge for months. Why? Did they want to silence him?
The US government learned an important – and dangerous – lesson from Covid: all you have to do to crush political dissent is to use the weight of the government to force the “private” sector to do the censoring for you. It is only a half-step away from forbidding us from expressing our thoughts on a virus to sending us to prison for expressing other thoughts the government does not like. And maybe worse.
There will be a reaction in the UK to the brutality of the Starmer regime. We can only hope for their – and our – sake that the reaction will be a newfound determination by the people that no government should have the authority to shut them up or jail them for their political views. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, “free speech, if you can keep it.”
Scott Ritter: FBI Raids Part & Parcel of US Government’ Intimidation
By Svetlana Ekimenko – Sputnik – August 12, 2024
Former USMC intelligence officer and Sputnik contributor Sсott Ritter’s New York home was raided earlier this month over allegations he had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires anyone who acts on behalf of a foreign nation to register as such to the US government.
The US government is “not happy” with the truthful message that he is conveying as a Sputnik contributor, former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter believes.
This explains the recent FBI raid on his home over claims he had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
It was “disconcerting and chilling” when around 40 FBI agents raided his house, revealed Ritter.
“I asked repeatedly, ‘Why are you doing this?’’ What are you concerned about? Tell me what specific actions you’re concerned about and I can help resolve this.’ Now, we had a lengthy conversation, the special agents and I, but never once were they able to say this is why we believe you’re in violation,” he said.
However, what the agents did talk a lot about was the pundit’s relationship with Sputnik.
“They were very concerned about the work that I do as a contributor to Sputnik […] The US government is clearly unhappy with my message, unhappy with the impact that I’m having, and nervous that they can’t control me. And so I think that this raid, this search warrant, this ongoing investigation is part and parcel of a larger project of intimidation that unfortunately will continue, I believe, for the near future,” Ritter said.
The FBI and US Department of Justice are bothered by the impact people like him are having “on informing an audience not only inside the United States, but around the world about the malfeasance of American foreign policy,” Scott Ritter said. However, the author and commentator refused to be intimidated, saying he looked forward to continuing to operate as a contributor to Sputnik.
“I’m very proud of this relationship and I think highly of the editors and producers that I work with, and I look forward to continuing to do this for the foreseeable future,” Ritter stated.
EU Threatens Musk Over “Harmful” Speech Ahead Of Trump Interview

By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 12, 2024
On the day of Elon Musk’s interview with President Donald Trump on X, the EU’s top digital official, Thierry Breton, issued a reminder to Musk of his responsibilities under EU law to curb the spread of “harmful content.”
Breton, the pro-censorship internal market commissioner, emphasized the significance of platform moderation in a letter and a post on X, stating, “With great audience comes greater responsibility.”
The European Union, under its censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), mandates that digital platforms stringently monitor online content to shield users from potential “harm.”
This legislation is part of a broader scrutiny of X, which has consistently been targeted by the EU. Breton’s correspondence highlighted that the DSA’s mandates apply uniformly, including to Musk.
The reminder was prompted by concerns over the “risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in the EU,” particularly with Musk’s upcoming interview with Trump and Musk’s own recent remarks concerning the attack on free speech currently being experienced in the UK.
Breton further warned, “My services and I will be extremely vigilant to any evidence that points to breaches of the DSA and will not hesitate to make full use of our toolbox, including by adopting interim measures, should it be warranted to protect EU citizens from serious harm.”
As the European Union persists in the stringent enforcement of its censorship law, the imposition of its regulatory well beyond its borders, notably into the United Kingdom—a nation no longer tethered by EU membership—raises profound concerns about the overreach of censorship under the guise of protection.
The EU’s call for rigorous content moderation, even in territories outside its jurisdiction, smacks of an unsettling desire to extend its influence, stifling discourse and dissent not only within its member states but also in nations that have consciously chosen a different path.
The insistence on such broad and pervasive controls over digital content by an entity like the EU, which should ostensibly champion democratic values, is alarming.
This form of interventionism in the UK, under the pretense of safeguarding EU citizens from “harm,” undermines the very essence of free speech—a cornerstone of democratic societies. By dictating terms and conditions that stretch its authority into non-EU territories, the European Union not only compromises the sovereignty of other nations but also sets a dangerous precedent for global digital governance, where freedom of expression becomes a casualty in the battle against vaguely defined “harmful content.”
Walz’s 2020 Covid Snitch Hotline Sparks Debate Amid VP Bid
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | August 8, 2024
In 2020, as the reaction to the Covid pandemic tightened its global grip, the administration of Minnesota’s Democratic Governor, Tim Walz, controversially initiated a hotline encouraging citizens to report non-compliant neighbors, opening a Pandora’s box of surveillance reminiscent of dystopian literature.
This move has once again sparked discussion about Walz, following his newly-minted status as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris in the imminent 2024 presidential election.
Serving a dual purpose, the hotline — referred to by critics as the Covid snitch line — enabled thousands of Minnesotans to both voice their concerns about perceived health risks and expose those allegedly flouting the restrictive coronavirus-sensitive rules revolving around gatherings and social activities.
Referred to by some as “the Office of Public Safety Stay At Home Hotline,” the service became a platform for callers to report everything from religious congregation activities to outdoor sports events.
The line even reportedly recorded concerns about a local church’s activities potentially violating the mandated rules.
Complaints received via the hotline were varied in nature. Anything from unmasked shopping for nonessential items to unsanctioned social gatherings was fair game, echoing mistrust amongst friends and neighbors in the wake of the controversial crackdown.
Judges Back Meta in Vaccine “Misinformation” Battle, Free Speech Advocates Vow to Fight On
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 10, 2024
The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.
The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.
We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.
The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”
Despite these arguments, the 9th Circuit court concluded that CHD was not successful in meeting the initial requirement for state action, as the censorship inflicted was more a result of Meta’s content moderation policies and not any directive under federal law. Further, the court also asserted that CHD did not present any evidence of a binding agreement requiring Facebook to execute any particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines.
Although all judges did not share the same opinion, Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins presented a partially dissenting viewpoint. He opined that the interactions between Meta and the Government involving the suppression of specific types of vaccine-related speech were substantial enough to evoke First Amendment considerations.
Expressing disappointment and worry, CHD CEO Mary Holland stated, “If we cannot stop the government’s joint action with Big Tech to censor unwanted information, our First Amendment is a pyrrhic victory — it means almost nothing in our real world of social media.” While she was pleased with the non-unanimous nature of the decision, Holland hinted at the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court after further review.
At the heart of the court battle, ongoing for almost four years, were claims, primarily leveled by CHD’s then-Chairman and Chief Executive Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that tactics employed by the US Government to pressure Facebook into censoring vaccine “misinformation” were existential threats.
‘They Have to Be Stopped’: Woman Says COVID Hospital Protocols Caused Husband’s Death
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 8, 2024
In June 2021, 61-year-old Jeffrey R. Smith was healthy, active and enjoying his 42nd year of marriage to Sharon Smith. That same month, they both came down with COVID-19, but their symptoms were mild and there was little cause for concern.
When Jeffrey’s symptoms lingered just a bit longer than those of his wife, he visited an urgent care center.
That visit marked the beginning of a 39-day ordeal that resulted in his hospitalization, a loss of 47 pounds, and, ultimately, his death, on Aug. 11, 2021, at Mease Countryside Hospital in Safety Harbor, Florida.
Jeffrey’s cause of death was officially listed as COVID-19. But when Sharon examined his approximately 6,000 pages of medical records, she discovered he had sustained kidney damage, likely due to repeated doses of medications including remdesivir, a drug known to stop kidney function in patients.
Sharon also discovered that doctors at the hospital did not treat her husband’s pulmonary embolism — or blood clot — which he developed during his hospitalization. Instead, she alleges doctors insisted she allow him to be placed on a ventilator and that she sign a do not resuscitate (DNR) order for him.
In an interview with The Defender, Sharon said the treatment her husband received at the hospital was incentivized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) COVID-19 hospital protocols — and by the fact that neither she nor her husband had received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Sharon shared extensive documentation with The Defender to corroborate her story.
‘He didn’t give his consent to anything’
On July 4, 2021, Sharon said she “just didn’t think my husband was breathing as deep as I was.” Out of concern, she recommended they visit a local urgent care center for a chest X-ray.
“When we went to urgent care and they checked his blood pressure, everything was normal,” Sharon said. However, the couple was sent to Mease Countryside Hospital for X-rays.
Sharon recalled that she could not stay at the hospital due to COVID-19 restrictions, but was told she could return in two hours to pick up her husband. However, about 30 minutes later, her husband called and said the hospital was going to keep him overnight.
“I said, why?” Sharon recalled. “He wasn’t struggling to breathe. … Blood pressure was good, temperature was good.” Despite this, Sharon was told that her husband was going to be kept “on a little oxygen.”
“What we didn’t know at the time was that they had given him two doses of remdesivir, and he didn’t give his consent to anything,” Sharon said. Doctors administered the two doses within three hours of admitting Jeffrey to the hospital.
He had a D-dimer test for pulmonary embolisms, and it was normal, Sharon said. “Everything was normal. He was so healthy going in. He took no medications, had no health issues at all. He walked three to six miles a week. We just had our checkup at the doctor. So, there was nothing there.”
Later that evening, Sharon said someone from the hospital called “in a panic, in the middle of the night … that they had to move Jeff up to the COVID ICU [intensive care unit] to just observe him a little bit more.”
The following day, Sharon said a doctor told Jeffrey that he was “probably going to have to go on the ventilator.” According to Sharon, when he asked why he had to be ventilated when he had come to the hospital for a chest X-ray — and mentioned that his wife would not agree to this — he was told “Well, your wife is going to have to like this or you’re going to die.”
“I said, ‘Oh my goodness, you’re not going to die.’ First of all, because we trusted the doctors, we trusted the hospital. We never in our wildest imaginations thought that you would go in for anything and they would try to harm you, but that’s exactly what they did,” Sharon told The Defender.
As time went on, the doctors gave him more and more oxygen, and more and more drugs, Sharon said, although she wasn’t informed about it. She only learned about the medications when she reviewed Jeffrey’s medical records after his death.
“The drugs that they were giving him … Precedex, propofol, fentanyl, midazolam … these are the drugs that they use to euthanize people,” Sharon said.
‘They stopped feeding him, giving him any kind of water, cleaning him’
Sharon said there were other examples of the hospital mistreating her husband.
“They stopped feeding him, giving him any kind of water, cleaning him,” she said, recalling that during a FaceTime conversation, he looked “awful.”
“I said, ‘Have you had a shower? Have they washed?’ He goes, ‘No, they haven’t.’ He looks awful. His hair’s a mess. He’s unshaven and he hasn’t had his bedding changed in a week. He hasn’t got any different clothes on,” Sharon recalled.
Her husband urged her not to make an issue of it, according to Sharon.
“When I would say something to the nurses, Jeff would say, ‘Sharon, don’t make waves, because they’re taking it out on me.’ And at the time, I didn’t understand. I didn’t think they were doing bad things, purposely doing bad things to him. I thought they were just being neglectful,” she said.
Sharon said it was difficult to speak to a doctor or to get authorization to visit Jeffrey.
“Every day I would say, I want the doctor to call me. The doctor would call me. Sometimes they were rude to me, sometimes they were short with me, some were OK.” She had to “plead” with a hospital administrator in one instance to be allowed a 15-minute visit.
“I got up there to see Jeff, and he was just a mess. I mean, they weren’t getting him out of the bed. He was just deteriorating in front of my eyes,” Sharon recalled.
On another occasion, Sharon said she was allowed a visit for “17 minutes, exactly” and was told she would soon be permitted daily visits. Later that day, Sharon called to check on Jeffrey and was told he was “relaxed and had some ice cream.”
A half-hour later, “I get a call from the hospital and it’s a panic … they said, ‘We’re going to put Jeff on the ventilator right now. He had a panic attack and his oxygen level dropped and he can’t get it back up, so we have to put him on the ventilator.’”
Sharon said she was offered the opportunity to speak with Jeffrey via FaceTime. “I got 20 seconds to see my husband’s face, and when I think back now, he wasn’t gasping for air or anything like that. He just looked scared.”
According to Sharon, she was told Jeffrey would be ventilated for three days “just to give his lungs a break.” Yet, “he was on the ventilator for 20 days after that” — until the day he died.
‘They yelled and screamed at me’
According to Sharon, the doctors repeatedly told her that as long as his kidneys weren’t involved, he would be OK. Yet, “as soon as he got on the ventilator, that’s when they said, ‘Oh, his kidneys are struggling.’ And that’s what remdesivir does.”
Jeffrey was placed on CRRT (continuous renal replacement therapy), a slow dialysis machine. This continued until Aug. 11, 2021, when Sharon remembered a doctor called her and said Jeffrey was “tolerating the CRRT really well” and that he would “try a couple different things” and call back.
“He called me back a couple hours later and said, ‘Jeff’s going to code out today,’” Sharon recalled. “I’m like, ‘a couple hours ago he was doing OK.’”
Sharon says she insisted on visiting her husband, but the doctor “fought” her on it, before relenting. When she did visit, hospital staff told her to “look through the glass” at her husband, before finally being allowed into the room “for two minutes.”
“When I came out, they started to pressure me to put a DNR on him, and I said, ‘I’m not putting a DNR on him.’ They kept pressuring me. I said, ‘my son and I are going to talk about it. We’ll call you back.’ We called them back and I said, ‘we’ve decided that we are not going to do that because if we do it then there is no hope,’” she said.
“They yelled and screamed at me on the phone, but I stuck to my guns,” Sharon recalled. “And a couple hours later, they called and said that Jeff had died.”
Blood clot, kidney troubles began after remdesivir administered
Sharon observed several abnormalities during her husband’s hospitalization and also when she reviewed his medical records.
“What I know now is that his D-dimer levels — and I have all the records to back this up — the evidence is that everything was in the normal range.”
She added:
“After the two doses of remdesivir in the hospital in the ER [emergency room], within three hours of being in the ER, that’s when he developed the blood clot. And they noted it. They were aware of it a couple of times. They noted it, but they didn’t do anything about it.
“The day after he had two doses of remdesivir … doctors noted that his D-dimer is now very elevated, which means you have a pulmonary embolism.”
“They did not treat it for two weeks, and they tested five times within that two-week period,” Sharon said, noting that Jeffrey “ended up having six doses of remdesivir.”
Sharon said Jeffrey was also administered a monoclonal antibody, “one dose to the tune of $27,000,” even though “it was already too late for that — you need to have that in the beginning. This was already 10 days in.”
Ultimately though, for Sharon, her husband’s fate rested on the lack of treatment for his blood clot.
“That’s where it started,” she said. “If they would have treated that blood clot on day one — because people have blood clots all the time — it’s something that you can fix … and send him home. But they didn’t choose to do that. It was like they had him and he was a cash cow for them,” she said, referring to the COVID-19 hospital protocols.
The protocols, prescribed by the CDC, are the subject of a white paper, “Follow the Money: Blood Money in U.S. Healthcare,” which found that the U.S. government incentivized hospitals under the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act) to administer treatments such as remdesivir to COVID-19 patients.
According to the report, the average per-person incentive in the U.S. for a “complex COVID inpatient” is $292,566. Hospitals received money for each COVID-19 admission, for the use of remdesivir and for placing patients on ventilators.
‘They were making an example’ of the unvaccinated
Sharon said she believes that Jeffrey’s treatment at the hospital was connected to his unvaccinated status.
“The first day that Jeff was there … the doctor called me and the first question she asked [was], ‘Why weren’t you guys vaccinated?’” Sharon recalled. “I said, ‘Well, because we chose not to be. We are healthy. And this vaccine came out awful fast and we didn’t have a good feeling about it.’”
“That is noted in Jeff’s records over and over and over, that he was not vaccinated or I wasn’t. And at the time that he was in the hospital, it was really when the vaccine was really being pushed out. Basically, they were making an example of the people that came in there that were not vaccinated,” Sharon said.
Sharon also noted that, at Mease Countryside Hospital, patients were being admitted with either an “unvaccinated” or “unknown” vaccination status, perhaps to conceal the number of COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated.
“I know that from a number of nurses that are whistleblowers, that have come out and said that there wasn’t a place to put if you were vaccinated,” Sharon said.
Sharon has since become involved with activist groups who have spoken out on behalf of hospital protocol victims, including the FormerFedsGroup Freedom Foundation and the COVID-19 Humanity Betrayal Memory Project (CHBMP), which developed a list of the 25 commonalities shared by most hospital protocol victims.
According to Sharon, “Of those 25, I think there’s two that didn’t happen” to Jeffrey, noting that her requests that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and vitamin D were refused, while vitamin C was administered only on the day of Jeffrey’s death.
“When you look through the drug list, you’ll see that that increased intensely as we got right to the end. He didn’t have a fighting chance,” Sharon said.
Sharon encouraged others who have lost a loved one at a hospital to a COVID-19 diagnosis to carefully check their medical records.
“People need to look at the death certificate. If it says ‘COVID,’ you need to get your medical records and have a doctor, have somebody that’s qualified to look at those records and go through them, just like I did. And they’re going to find that it’s probably not what they think. It’s much worse,” Sharon said.
She also encouraged victims and their families to speak out, noting that even a mere conversation with others can make a difference.
“There’s been many people that once you start to talk about it, then they go, ‘wait a minute.’ So, they start to connect the dots that this could have happened to their person,” Sharon said.
She added:
“There’s a couple of reasons why I fight this so much. One, because they took my husband away from me, and he wasn’t sick and he should never have died. But I’m thinking ahead for my children and my grandchildren. If we don’t stand up and fight for this right now and stop this, it’s going to continue, and we can’t have that. They have to be stopped.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
