Is your right to sue your doctor killing you

(0:02 - 0:30)

(0:02) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and you are listening to Healing with Dr. Daniels. Today is Sunday, August 9th, 2020.

(0:10) Today's topic is, "Is Your Right to Sue Killing You?" Today, I'm going to look at how the legal system facilitates and encourages the killing of patients by validating a false and dangerous narrative. As always, think happens.

(0:30 - 2:16)

(0:30) But first, we're going to take our turpentine. I have my favorite spoon. I like using a dessert spoon just because it seems to get the right amount of sugar. As you can see, I refilled my sugar jar. The label is worn off, but it's clearly sugar.

(0:54) And then I have my turpentine jar. Now, this label—you can't let this label wear off. You have to make it clearly labeled so people in your house do not drink it by accident.

(1:10) Now, I also put mine in a dark jar that people ordinarily wouldn't drink out of anyway. This is a little pipette I have here. It turns out that right up there to the neck is two and a half cc's, which is the same as half a teaspoon—a dose I like to take every day. Since I'm getting on in years, I am 63 years old. Yay!

(1:37) I find if I skip my turpentine for three days, then I don't feel quite as chipper. All right, here we are. Everybody's going to squirt this on top. Squirt, squirt, squirt, squirt, squirt. I don't know if you can see the color change, but the white sugar turns kind of a grayish translucent color.

(1:58) All right, I like to put a little water in my mouth to elevate the turpentine sugar off the spoon so it goes straight back and down. I felt that all the way down to my ankles, I just want you to know.

(2:16 - 3:28)

(2:16) The next thing we're going to do is take Shilajit. Now, Shilajit is an awesome, amazing trace mineral supplement dug out of the dirt of Russia.

(2:31) This is, let me see, Momio. It's even written in Russian. Exactly. I'll tell you, I had the hardest time finding it because I can't type Russian on my typewriter. But it's on eBay. It's Momio, and it's from Russia.

(2:56) I have this little scientific spatula—looks like a canoe paddle, but it's very small. The dose is 200 milligrams, and that is about 200 milligrams there. We're going to take that, dissolve it in the water like so. As you can see, it does not dissolve easily. Nope, it takes time.

(3:22) So, I say just let it sit there and let it dissolve, and I'll get around to taking it at the end of today's show. And if not, then a little later.

(3:28 - 4:07)

(3:28) I'd also like to encourage people to please visit VitalityCapsules.com. Yay! And at VitalityCapsules.com, you can get your own special report on the healing powers of turpentine. No, I don't sell turpentine, but it's great healing powers.

(3:51) Also, you can purchase Vitality Capsules, which is the internal cleanser for everyday use. It will clean you out and prepare you to comfortably, easily, and safely take turpentine.

(4:07 - 11:20)

(4:07) So, today's topic is your right to sue your physician for killing you. Yep, it's entirely possible. And you know, we live in some pretty strange times these days. A lot of things, we're told it's one way, when really it's another. And things that people say are good turn out to be bad. And things that are bad turn out to be good, unlike turpentine. So, we're going to take a look at this situation because it is definitely worth looking at.

(4:46) Most people understand legal recourse in medicine. Like, what if something goes wrong? We can sue. But the thing to look at is, what does that involve? And what conditions need to be present in order for you to have the right to sue?

(5:17) What is medical malpractice? Medical malpractice occurs when a hospital doctor or other healthcare professional, through a negligent act or failure to act, causes an injury to a patient. The negligence might be the result of a mistake in diagnosis, a mistake in treatment, a mistake in aftercare, or poorly managing the patient.

(5:53) But they have legal criteria for this, and these are very important to understand. First, there are only three conditions that have to be met. And they all, strictly speaking, have to be met. But it is a jury trial situation or arbitration situation. So, the ultimate interpretation depends on either the jury or the person doing the arbitration. Just saying.

(6:21) First, a violation of the standard of care. The law acknowledges there are certain medical standards that are recognized by the profession as being acceptable medical treatment by reasonably prudent healthcare professionals under similar or like circumstances. This is the standard of care.

(6:40) Now, what this means is this basically says that medicine is just one big gang, and that's okay. And that all the gang members have to follow the gang rules. Failure of a gang member to follow the gang rules will be enforced by the courts. This is an important concept.

(6:58) So, a patient has the right to expect the healthcare professional will deliver care that is consistent with these standards. In other words, the converse is true. The patient does not have the right to expect care that is not consistent with the standard of care. And this is where a lot of people protest, like, "Well, can't my doctor do something alternative?" He has to stick to the standard of care.

(7:26) If it is determined that the standard of care has not been met, negligence may be established. So, in other words, if it's determined that the doctor did something that was not recognized by the profession as being acceptable medical treatment that the mediocre doctor sitting next to him would have also done, then he's violated the standard of care. This is a very important concept.

(7:53) This means your doctor does not have permission to be exceptional. Your doctor does not have permission to stop doing something just because he noticed that people are dying when he does it. It's the standard of care. If it was reasonably expected by the profession, then there you go. Got to do it.

(8:17) Now, what I did when I was in medical practice is when we got to that stage where there was a step in the standard of care that I'm pretty sure was going to harm or kill someone, I often went to the specialist. And then it's between them and the specialist, whatever happens. But that was my way of avoiding implementing the gang normative behavior in cases where it was going to harm people.

(8:43) So, first, you have to fail to follow the crowd. All right. Lack of conformity—doctor does not conform. Next, an injury was caused by negligence, but it was caused.

(9:00) So, for a medical malpractice claim to be valid, it is not enough that a healthcare professional simply violated the standard of care. The patient must also prove that they sustained an injury that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. So, an unfavorable outcome by itself is not malpractice. The patient must prove that the negligence caused the injury.

(9:35) If there is an injury without negligence, or negligence that did not cause an injury, there is no cause. Now, again, this has devolved to a standard of proof that's very similar to what we're going through now with the present pandemic. That if you have an injury and the doctor didn't stick to the standard of care, causality is presumed.

(10:01) So, we have an injury, and we have a failure to conform, and the injury resulted in significant damages. So, medical malpractice lawsuits are extremely expensive to litigate, frequently requiring testimony of numerous medical experts and countless hours of deposition testimony. For a case to be viable, the patient must show that the damages are significant. In other words, like, permanent or substantial.

(10:18) The patient must show the injury resulted in disability, loss of income, unusual pain, suffering, and hardship, or significant past and future medical bills. But let's just jump to what we're talking about here—death. Death. We're talking about patients dying.

(11:20 - 18:14)

(11:20) Now, we have a situation in the present environment. There's a debate going on. It has been established, certainly in New York, that use of ventilators for people with certain respiratory conditions, call it the flu, is actually deadly. Anywhere, depending on what you read, 40 to 90 percent death rate. Guaranteed, that's it. But that is the standard of care.

(11:58) And because it's the standard of care, any doctor that puts a patient on a ventilator, that patient later dies, cannot sue. Cannot sue. Okay, so that's basic malpractice 101.

(12:01) What prompted today's program? As you know, I'm on the mailing list for the doctor information. This is Medscape. They are a major information source, totally pro-doctor, and I mean, like, boy, golly gee, they understand. So, we're going to take a look at their portrayal of what's going on, and I'm going to, as always, give you the English translation. Yes, it's not the Spanish edition. This is the English translation.

(12:24) Okay, so here's the topic. This is July 27, 2020. Hot off the press. So it says, shield, that means protect, physicians for postponed, that means delayed, procedures, AMA says, and then colon more. What more? A lot more.

(12:38) Should doctors be free from malpractice lawsuits stemming from delayed treatments as a result of C-O-V-I-D? As doctors reopen their practices after several months of closure, of a related slowdown, they face a surging demand for long-delayed elective procedures. The return to some semblance of normality should be welcome news, but the American Medical Association is eager to protect physicians who are picking up where they left off.

(12:55) The AMA's reasoning is clear. Since non-emergency surgeries and procedures were placed on hold by a variety of federal, that'd be the federal government, state, state government, and local, that'd be the local government, pandemic-related directives, all states should now grant doctors immunity, immunity from claims that might arise as a result of the postponements.

(13:24) Listen to this. In effect, the AMA is asking states, as well as the federal government, in the form of a bipartisan bill now in the U.S. House of Representatives, to shield physicians from consequences only partly under their control.

(13:41) Well, wait a minute. If the consequences are partly under the doctor's control, shouldn't he get a partial shield? I mean, just saying.

(13:51) But not everyone thinks this is a good idea. Really? Let's see. You have to get a little deeper. We're going to see some similarities here across the board.

(14:07) To suggest that medical procedures, foregone or delayed, in any specific arena should be bundled into a non-liability event because we are in a public health event around this, that is quite exceptional, says Mr. Hodge, a professor of law at Arizona State University.

(14:24) Another lawyer says, I agree. I think it's shameless. It's not a good look for people responsible for health and welfare to be saying, "Please make sure we're never questioned as to whether we acted carefully enough."

(14:43) Currently, 37 states offer liability protection. Listen very carefully to this. We're going to go back over it again, or I'm going to explain it to you.

(14:46) Liability protections to doctors caring for patients during a public health emergency. Of those, 22 states have enacted additional pandemic-related protections. In some cases, those protections are so broadly drafted, they cover any actions in support of the current emergency.

(18:14 - 26:18)

(18:14) Well, a lot of people were saying, "Oh, it's terrible in New York what happened. All those people died." And now, investigation is showing that they died because doctors were coerced, pressured, forced, instructed, commanded—however you want to put it—to follow a different but deadly standard of care that was guaranteed to create more deaths. And that nursing homes were instructed, coerced, blah, blah, blah, to follow a different standard of care that resulted in those deaths.

(18:42) So what this says then is that those doctors who were just following orders—does that sound familiar? Just following orders—are protected, immune from any legal prosecution arising from actions in support of the current emergency. And this has presumably included delayed treatments.

(19:29) But you see what's going on here is under the pretense of protecting doctors from liability for presumed treatments, doctors are now protected from the liability of people discovering that it was actually the medical care that created all the excess deaths during the first wave. And that the first wave had nothing to do with any virus in terms of deaths.

(19:59) So what this means then is legally, legally, all the medical action which occurred during that period and even can be established to have resulted in those deaths, each and every one of them, is something that neither doctors, nor hospitals, nor clinics can be held responsible for.

(20:18) Now I'm not saying this because I think they should be responsible. I'm saying this to let you know that you are responsible, whether you like it or not, for protecting and defending yourself. There is no legal shield for you. The legal shield is for the doctors following orders.

(20:53) So in other words, we're back to Nazi Germany with the concentration camps. Everyone says, "Hey, we were just following orders." And so what this says is that is a perfectly reasonable defense.

(21:12) So liability defense experts support the existing protections. So they support that. They support the doctors following orders because it's an emergency situation and would like to see them expanded even further.

(21:18) Another lawyer who lobbies on behalf of a medical malpractice insurer—it's the insurance company, doesn't want to pay out—says it would be unfair and unreasonable to hold the doctor liable for delaying care if the doctor felt that was the best possible thing to do under the circumstances.

(21:32) But wait, doctors were told to delay care whether they wanted to or not. So the decision to shut down clinics and hospitals and stop and not allow elective surgery was not an individualized medical decision on the part of doctors. Just saying.

(21:53) So the doctor did not feel it was the best possible thing to do under the circumstances but did it anyway. Well, where does that leave them?

(21:59) Is the threat facing doctors over delayed care overblown? Some experts think so. So one thing that has happened during the pandemic is death from infant mortality. Infant mortality is death in the first year of life. For those of you who are keeping up, know babies get a lot of vaccines. Well, because they shut down, they didn't get their vaccines, and infant mortality went down. Cancer deaths went down. So biopsies were delayed. Chemotherapy was delayed. Many cases stopped, and deaths from cancer went down. Even heart disease deaths went down.

(22:54) Okay, so the threat facing doctors over delayed care might be overblown.

(23:00) So let's see what we have here. The ordinary common law standard of care, the standard derived from custom and judicial precedent—that means the standard of care—is flexible enough to account for special circumstances in which physician and human resources are not available, and doctors are doing the best they can.

(23:10) Said a professor of law at Stanford. Okay, so this is saying if the doctor didn't have access to the hospital to do the surgery, the hospital's not permitting these surgeries to happen, you can't hold the doctor responsible.

(23:23) Remember we had that big huge gap here.

(23:32) Pushback on pandemic-related protections. In a related pandemic liability story, immunity protections passed in, wait for it, New York, have come under fire from those who say they go too far, reports Newsday. Well, let me tell you right now, the pandemic protections for doctors in New York, it can't go far enough. They need a blank check. I mean, you're going to kill 20,000 people. I mean, you know, come on, you need some exemption here. So let's see how this goes.

(23:49) Those protections pass first as an executive order by the governor, who, by the way, also demanded the ventilator use, and then as a law incorporated into the state budget. The protections apply to qualified but unlicensed doctors and other healthcare workers, their hospitals, and to nursing homes. That means residents, so qualified but unlicensed, that would be like a resident. They were passed in response to a severe pandemic crisis by late March, projections which were found to be erroneous, show that the state would need more than twice its available hospital beds, which never happened, along with the additional physicians and nurses to staff them. Again, never happened.

(24:32) Under state's new immunity standards, injured patients or their survivors must prove gross negligence to win their day in court, rather than prove error as a result of simple negligence. In New York, gross negligence is defined as intentional wrongdoing that shows a reckless indifference to the rights of others.

(24:52) You know, when a doctor puts a patient on a ventilator and he's dead in 10 minutes, and then a doctor puts another patient on the ventilator and he's dead in 10 minutes, and then the doctor puts another patient on the ventilator and he's dead in 10 minutes. At what point is it reckless indifference to the rights of others? I don't know. I guess it's for court to decide. But of course, the doctor was definitely following the standard of care.

(25:37) These protections were and are urgently needed, their supporters say. I guess so. Now, the little digression here.

(26:18 - 29:04)

(26:18) Okay, so I am in a foreign country on foreign soil. There's no malpractice in this country. If the patient dies as a result of something a doctor did, and the doctor goes to jail for murder, like, I don't know, seven years, whatever, 12 years, whatever. And there are many doctors in this country who are in jail because their patients died.

(26:42) I would like to suggest that if a similar situation were the case in the United States, patients would be a lot safer. Just saying. And as you might guess, the pharmaceutical companies are working very, very, very hard to get the concept of malpractice established in this country.

(27:28) Now, the Senior Vice President of Communications for the New York Hospital Association, which helped to draft and aggressively lobby for the legislation, I guess they would, said except for certain behaviors, including gross negligence, hospitals and their workers should not be second-guessed for trying to save as many lives as possible under the equivalent of wartime conditions. And what's wartime conditions? Wartime condition is when you take orders from the top, no matter what, without question. That's a wartime condition.

(27:45) Some attorneys and state legislators think the emergency law raises the mail bar too high. So, it raises the bar too high for the definition of wrongdoing.

(28:03) Richard Gottfried, I know him. There's no justification for that, says New York Assembly person who chairs the Assembly Health Committee. That's interesting. And he worries that the new law is so broad it would shield, for example, a radiologist who failed to detect breast cancer. Richard, you would hope that's all it would protect, but really what it's protecting is all those doctors who put people on ventilators knowing that they would die.

(28:45) The President of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association agrees. Too often, it's the most vulnerable New Yorkers who are victims of medical mistakes, negligence, and substandard care. Powerful corporations, nursing homes, and hospitals must make sure they do not harm the patients who turn to them for care.

(29:04 - 36:01)

(29:04) Patients need to be able to hold them accountable. Now, the problem here is these killings—they're documented, it's straightforward, everyone knows it, right? It's not a secret—are not compensable under malpractice. They are not. Why? Because the doctors were following the standard of care.

(29:36) All that said, chances are good the new protections will remain in place for as long as a state of emergency does. Really? Really? So how long? So how do we know it's a state of emergency? Well, as long as masking is required, and that's probably the next several years, which means, yeah, you guessed it, you have the patina of legal recourse, but if the doctor follows the standard of care, even though that standard of care has proven to be lethal, he is not in any way responsible, and his survivors, because he's dead, are not or cannot in any way be compensated.

(30:10) Now, so what they do then is they give you an example. I love these examples. Examples are like not quite relevant to like the school of what's happening now, but let's see the example.

(30:36) So Florida Appeals Court ruled last month that the state's medical malpractice laws do in fact apply. In the case of a hospital that failed to transfer an ill patient, according to News Florida.

(30:49) The case involves a person who was taken to the emergency department, and an emergency doctor determined she required intensive care. The facility's ICU, however, did not have an available bed. Patients admitted to the hospital, but not the ICU, and the person died during a time in the facility.

(31:32) Now, this is law, so in law you just, you know, argue back and forth, but we're not lawyers. We're just like regular ordinary people who've got no skin in the legal game. We're just trying to understand where the risk is. Okay, so it turns out just being admitted to the ICU increases your death chance of dying to 17 percent or by 17 percentage points. That's a lot of increase in death.

(31:59) And so it would be tough to make a case that being in the ICU was necessarily beneficial to someone. In fact, the sicker they are, the less likely they are to benefit from it. It's more an act of drama and revenue enhancement, but if you have a court that is going to compensate people when those Hail Mary drama, revenue-generating, but no patient benefit gestures are followed, then that creates an avalanche of doctors who will now follow these measures which are totally non-productive in terms of patient outcome, very productive in terms of hospital revenue outcome, and it doesn't allow that discussion.

(32:43) So just the act of intubating someone creates a 17 percent death rate. Just intubate it. All right, 17 percent chance that one's going to die, and then if that person is positive for the pandemic virus, that probability of death goes up to 90 percent.

(33:11) And so here they're saying because the person didn't receive intensive care, then the hospital is or can be held economically responsible. So you see what's going on here is a law is actually being used to enforce a standard of care or a medical practice that is harmful, deadly, and at best futile.

(33:44) So following her death, her survivors filed a lawsuit which included the hospital, its owner, and the doctors. I don't know why they wouldn't unless the doctors were employed by the hospital. Among other things, the suit alleged the hospital's failure to transfer its patient to a facility with an available ICU bed was financially motivated. Of course it is. What people don't realize is that your insurance has more to do with the care you receive than your diagnosis. Literally, literally.

(34:18) So way back, and this is the dark ages, this would be 1982. 1982. So 1982 is when AI moved into the hospital. What did AI do? You hand them your insurance card, they stick it into a machine, and AI scans your card. This insurance company, these symptoms, it'll pay for all these things. Every single thing that your insurance company will pay for, they print it out, and that is a roadmap to revenue optimization.

(34:43) And you may not need those, any of those services, tests, or whatever. You may have a doctor who's, we'll call him Dr. Senior, who's seen this one a few times and knows what's going on without all these tests, but he has got to order them. Why? Revenue generation.

(35:21) So what also happens then is the hospital has relationships with other hospitals in terms of transfer, no transfer, and it's kind of an unwritten thing. "Hey, you transfer me three paying patients, you get to transfer me one low-paying patient." And that is honestly, unfortunately, the way it is.

(35:32) For example, when I was in medical practice, I had a very high-end practice. So my patients, black or white, were paying people. They were in the habit of paying their bills. Not that they were rich, but if they had a bill, they paid it. And so literally, I could see where even a drug company, if I prescribed their very expensive drug to, say, three people, then if I had one person who couldn't afford it and didn't have insurance for their drug, they would give me the samples for that. But that's the way it goes.

(35:56) So you don't have the ability to just send all of your clients, regardless of their insurance, onto the next level of care. Now that may not be a bad thing for the ones who are not referred because a lot of times these drugs are deadly and the next level of care itself is deadly. So the defendants sought to have the suit dismissed on the grounds that plaintiffs had not filed a pre-suit notice, a requirement in Florida in medical malpractice cases.

(36:01) But a circuit judge denied the motion. And so this is back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. In this ruling, the panel said, "We're going to waive the 30-day rule because, I mean, the patient did die."

(36:01 - 39:55)

(36:01) Then Connecticut's highest court upheld the verdict against a Norwich OBGYN practice for injuries to a baby sustained during childbirth. And this was 2009, so it doesn't really apply to our present situation. So this wasn't care that was delayed due to the pandemic.

(36:18) But the point is, what's happening now is the pandemic is being used as an excuse to expand, we'll call it judicial license, so that what we now know to be dangerous, deadly interventions on the part of physicians, hospitals, and even you can say politicians, the victims and their survivors are totally exempt from any compensation.

(36:44) So this is something that is, that's huge. It's a very, it's a very big deal. And the point is that malpractice does not prevent or even protect the patient. Instead, it operates as a pivot point, a lever point, a leverage of coercion hanging over the head of a doctor who's got an ethical decision to make, do I follow the standard of care, which I know is going to kill people, or do I withhold the standard of care and let this person have a better life?

(37:28) And because of the definition of malpractice, that doctor is more often going to make the decision to administer the standard of care. Now, what happens in most cases is the doctor is indoctrinated—yeah, pun intended—in medical school to accept these procedures and these interventions as established, as proven, and he might see people dropping dead from them, but the scientific studies show them to be beneficial, so he's going to keep doing them.

(37:49) And so what's happened with the pandemic, though, is the doctor knows that these things he's being asked to do are not proven, that they're just starting them like yesterday. And so when he sees three or four patients in a row drop dead, he's like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh."

(38:01) I know there's been no research showing otherwise. And so they can't give the doctor the okie-dokie excuses that he was given in medical school. I went to medical school and I got those excuses all day long, day in, day out, and they sounded like this: "This issue has been looked at, the researchers have done their research, and it has proven that this is overall beneficial. It may not be beneficial to the patient that's right in front of you, but it has proven to be statistically beneficial. And if you keep doing it and allowing the patients you're treating to drop dead, then patients someplace else are actually going to get better. Because it's going to average out, right? So if for every person I kill, that means that four people over there actually benefited from it because, well, research here."

(38:49) Now remember, half of all research, the numbers are fake, the research is fake, that's pretty much established. And that's how they know that half of everything in medical school is false at the time it's taught because it's based on, well, research. So with this new situation called a pandemic, then people know that they are being asked to use methods that are unproven. So when they see three or four or five people in a row drop dead from therapy, like, "Whoa, this is not right."

(39:04) So what is now happening is we have legislation being passed to protect those doctors who are following orders, protect the hospitals that pressured them to follow orders, and to protect any lawmakers that gave those orders or state health boards slash departments that gave those orders.

(39:36) So we have a situation here then where we have, in medicine, a situation that we see in politics all the time, which is something is done which is, let's say, wrong. People are killed. We have a body of law, call it malpractice, that's supposed to protect people who are harmed by medicine, and instead it is flipped the other way to where it protects people who are killing patients, and not only protects them, but gives them an incentive, or worse, a harsh penalty for refusing to kill patients.

(39:55 - 43:08)

(39:55) Now people who are on malpractice juries are so just upset at how many people are being damaged by medicine that in many cases now they are finding doctors guilty just for deviating from the standard of care. So it doesn't matter if there was minimal harm or even if there is no causality between the deviation and the harm, if indeed there was harm.

(40:03) So now what's happening is juries, out of frustration, are aggressively finding against doctors who deviate from the standard of care because all of these deaths due to medicine are being presented as errors.

(40:09) Now what I think the public needs to understand is what is an error? There are many errors, but the errors that kill the greatest number of patients are when the doctor follows the standard of care and the patient dies without the doctor intending for the patient to die, if you can understand that.

(40:24) I mean, when would the doctor ever intend for the patient to die? That's dumb, you would think. So it is called an error even when the doctor does everything right, which is usually the case, by the way.

(40:34) The medical industrial complex itself calculates at least 227,000, and their own estimate in some cases is as high as 400,000 Americans every year die from properly, correctly administered therapies and drugs. This is amazing. Personally, I wrote a book, "Murder by Medicine is an Accident," it's available on Amazon, check it out. And I do a tally, it's over 800,000. And I started tallying all the additional deaths using Medicare data. Oh my God, it went up over a million people a year die as a result of properly prescribed medicine. We're not talking the doctor was drunk, doctor made a mistake, doctor didn't keep up. Properly prescribed medical intervention.

(41:12) It is shocking. And so then by using the word error, so whenever the patient dies, it's always called an error. It obscures the communication so the public is not aware that if a patient dies as a result of medical therapy, there's about a 90% chance the doctor did everything right, stuck to the book. And that medical care itself, properly administered, is a major cause of death.

(41:36) Again, even the medical district complex admits to being, "Hey, we're the third leading cause of death, what can we say?" So already, just the practice of medicine itself is responsible for more than twice the deaths from the present epidemic, or that are being blamed on the pandemic.

(41:55) So what is happening here is certainly a case of the fox guarding the hen house. So you have the doctors killing more, far more patients than the diseases they pretend to treat. And this is no exception for the present pandemic.

(43:08 - End)

(43:08) And now we have the law, the legal system weighing in like a big elephant tipping the scale saying, "Yeah, well, here, let's do it this way." Make it nice and complicated. We'll get a lot of legal fees out of it, but no settlements in favor of the patients. Certainly no hospitals are going to suffer. There's going to be no responsibility in terms of any administrative decision-making because it's a pandemic, it's an emergency. And the doctors were, of course, following orders. That's the standard of care. It's a set of orders.

(43:36) And so you have to upgrade your medicine, or I should say, your healing practices from concentration camp medicine. So what can you do? There's all this discussion, disagreement about which pharmaceutical intervention to use in the present pandemic. I would say if it was me, none, none, I wouldn't touch any of them. If it's a pharmaceutical agent, they are saying the Midwest and colonial times, "Katie, bar the door."

(44:18) And so there's always this lady in the household named Katie, and Katie would take this big bar and put it on these two U brackets on either side of the door to bar the door so that either the troops of the army that might be coming through town or whatever threat there was would not be able to enter the house. So that was an expression back in the very old days in the time of my grandparents. "Katie, bar the door."

(44:45) And so that's really the effect or attitude you should have towards pharmaceuticals. I personally would not take any. And I would say, "Well, doctor, do you know what about this hydroxychloroquine thing?" So that is the treatment for malaria. And it may be that what people have really is malaria, in which case you want to, one, start testing for it, and two, find out how the heck did they get it. And one thing we know about malaria, there is no person-to-person spread, but barring that, the equivalent would be tonic water. A six-pack of tonic water has as much quinine in it as one 200-milligram capsule of hydroxychloroquine.

(45:27) So I was traveling one year and I was in Brazil and, yep, I got the fever and the chills and the sweats and I thought, "Oh no, that looks like malaria." And so I took care of it with a six-pack of tonic water. Yeah, six-pack of tonic water. The first day and that got rid of the sweats and chills. I still felt quite okay. And so I drank some more tonic water for the rest of the week, as much as I needed, and then I was just fine.

(45:56) So do we need anything more to be over-the-counter? No, we don't. Do you need government permission to be healthy? I would say not. If you want to be healthy, you can be healthy. You don't need anyone's permission. You can just go ahead and be healthy. And your health has nothing to do with what anyone else does, whether they social distance or whether they wear a mask or whether they get tested, all of it, irrelevant, absolutely irrelevant.

(46:20) But the point here is that literally the legal system has wound up in support of what amounts to mass murder that is going on. So what the legal system is doing then is supporting and endorsing the scenario or the narrative that there is a virus. They are supporting the narrative that doctors actually have effective therapy to provide. They are supporting the narrative that people are better off with medical therapy than without it. There's absolutely no scientific or statistical evidence to this effect, unfortunately.

(46:54) And when you have the courts weighing in on the side of a political narrative, then it puts a lot of pressure on otherwise sensible citizens and puts them in a bad position. But the least you can do, I think, is at least make sure that you're not a victim of the scenario, the present narrative. And the best way to avoid that would be to not get tested and not accept therapy at any time. And if your medical care was delayed and you're still alive, guess what? Count yourself lucky. You're probably one of those cancer people who might still be alive because your therapy was suspended. Yep, yep, yep.

(48:02 - End)

(48:02) Okay, I think that is it. So let's go to questions. Where are our questions? There we are. Please point, click, and drag.

(48:37) All right, so we have basically legal complicity and medical deception with the legal system. So here we are. This person says, "Hi, I take Vitality Capsules daily. Yay! I take turpentine twice a week. Wonderful. I want my 16-year-old son who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at age 6 to take the turpentine also, but I don't know if it will interfere with his NOVLOG insulin. Please help."

(49:02) Yes, it definitely will interfere with his NOVLOG insulin. Most diabetics, type 1 or type 2, find that when they take turpentine, they need less, L-E-S-S, less insulin. So you might want to just cut him back, maybe one or two units, and then start it. Now another thing, type 1 diabetics are a little more sensitive. You might want to try him on turpentine and castor oil. So go to VitalityCapsules.com, download the report there, and yeah, that would be the thing to try him on. Of course, this is not medical advice. You won't find this in medical school, by golly, or a residency. This is not approved by, I don't know, FDA or any alphabet agency, or the medical industry for that matter, and so hence it is not medical advice. And of course, I don't accept any responsibility whatsoever, so at your own risk, of course.

(50:05) "I have lupus SLE, which is systemic lupus erythematosus, and someone I know has celiac. Is there a cure for those problems?" Oh, absolutely, absolutely. So SLE, for SLE, you can just get the Candida Cleaning Report and follow that, that one. Celiac is very interesting. So celiac has a different situation. So celiac is basically a case of malnutrition, and the quickest cure for that would be a very high collagen diet, even intestinal diet. So if you have the stomach for it, chitlins would be the cure, and so what chitlins do is they provide the building blocks that you need to fix your intestines. So the doc, you know, "I really, I can't do chitlins." Okay, I get it, I get it. So you could try beef feet, yes.

(51:05) "Dr. Daniels, is it safe for people with diabetes to take the turpentine and sugar?" So it's been my experience that people who have diabetes and do take turpentine and sugar actually experience tremendous improvement in their diabetes.

(51:30) "Hey, Dr. Daniels, I have a question. I have a friend who got herpes through sex. Yeah, he tried everything to cure himself. Is there something accurate to heal it, or what should he do?"

(51:40) Okay, so this is my radical opinion, and it's not, this is not a medically agreed-upon opinion. No medical school will tell you this is the case. Um, it's obviously not medical advice. So what really happened to your friend? What happened to your friend was he had sex, right, normal. And there was some friction there when he had sex, normal. But because of his poor nutritional status, his body did not have the ability to properly fix and repair the skin. And bam, he had ulcers or sores. Now, whether or not his friend had ulcers or sores is actually irrelevant, because what really happened was they shared the same lifestyle. Um, so what's the cure? The cure would be really healthy. A very high collagen, uh, diet. Just boil it up, make a soup out of it, and eat it. It'll probably take you about a month or two, maybe three, to eradicate all of the outbreaks. Because what you need to understand is this so-called herpes on your genitals is just a symptom. You have a severe connective tissue deficiency throughout your body. And your body is going to, your immune system is going to take them through from your diet, fix the other deficiencies first before it fixes your genitals. But it will fix those as well.

(53:00) "Hi, Dr. Daniel. I'm a big fan. I have had Morgellons for over 10 years, and Lyme, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever."

(53:30) "Okay, so you've already told me you've had way too many blood tests. All right, I get it. I've been doing it very since I decided to take fewer pharmaceutical agents. There you go. I would like to start taking turpentine. I've seen your videos in the past. Okay, have you discovered any new techniques regarding turpentine or Morgellons?"

(53:50) So definitely go to VitalityCapsules.com and get your copy of the free report, The Candida Cleaner. I've also found though about Morgellons is that the Vitality Capsules extra strength are extremely helpful. People with Morgellons really enjoy those and get a lot of relief.

(54:22) "Hello, I would like to see the report on how to prepare yourself for using turpentine and also learn about how to take it properly."

(54:26) Great, go to VitalityCapsules.com. The report that you want is called The Candida Cleaner. Enter your email address and bam, you get your report.

(54:41) "I'd also like to understand more about the collagen cure for herpes."

(54:45) It's pretty straightforward. It's basically herpes as it is now labeled is not an infectious disease at all. It is simply a collagen deficiency. And so when you eat more collagen, it repairs the breaks in your skin and bam, you are done.

(55:07) "I watched your video with Dr. Kaufman but it's no longer available."

(55:11) That's right, that is right. Yes, a lot of censorship going on out there.

(55:21) "Okay, this person says, I was bitten by two, not one, but two, count them, one, two, two, different types of ticks last night. Got them all out fortunately rather quickly. Well, good for you. Is it better to play safe and take the prescribed antibiotic? Thanks, John."

(55:35) No, John, it is not. The medical industrial complex itself has said that if the ticks are attached to your body for less than 24 hours, your chances of getting any disease from those ticks is zero. Right. So, uh, now we all know your chance of getting side effects from the antibiotics is 100%. So that's a very bad deal.

(56:11) "Doctor, I hope you are well."

(56:16) Thank you very much. I appreciate your good wishes. My question is how and why do elderly people get water in their lungs and how do you get rid of it?

(56:22) Well, first of all, number one, you must get rid of your constipation. So you've got to poop three times a day. There is no two ways about it. There's no getting around it. So a lot of elderly people get water in their lungs because one, constipation. The second reason is part of being elderly is they're kind of tired and they're not really up to cooking from scratch. And so they eat a lot more packaged, canned, bottled, prepared, or take out foods. And those are the two major reasons for it.

(57:02) So poop three times a day. Drink your distilled water. In fact, you can just go to VitalityCapsules.com, download the Candida Cleaner Report, and just follow that diet in there. And that generally gets rid of congestive heart failure or water in your lungs in about a week. You have to poop three times a day as well. And you can either take turpentine or not. It'll work out pretty well.

(57:33) "My question is about downloading the Candida Cleaner Report. Can we download it on a phone?"

(57:37) You should be able to, yes. Just hit that little box with the arrow and send it where you want it to go on your phone.

(57:42) "I want to get your book on. So is it for ladies only?"

(57:47) No, it is not. So my book is, "Do You Have the Guts to Be Beautiful?" And it tells you how to look 20 years younger. And as I said, I'm 63. So there you have it. Here's the evidence right there. But men just love it. They love it because it helps them look a lot better and feel a lot better as well.

(58:05) "Where is it available except Amazon?"

(58:10) VitalityCapsules.com. And so if you have any questions, if you're not able to find it on the website, then you can send an email to J-D-A-A-A-N-I-E-L-S at gmail.com. Now I just want to say that as you might guess, many of my videos have not been popular with the fact-checkers, the authoritative people who determine what you, the public, should or should not hear. So I encourage people, if you like this video, to download it and upload it to any platform of your choice to spread the word so that wherever it is initially uploaded, where you find it, it will keep propagating and people will have access to this information, which can really save them a lot of wear and tear and just aggravation. Especially today's video, I think, can save a lot of lives.

(59:22) All right, as always, think happens and we'll see you in a while.