Protocol for Murder
Who was responsible for creating the Covid-19 hospital protocols that proved so deadly during the 'pandemic,' and how could so many doctors be convinced to check their brains at the door in order to implement such madness, and even persist long after so many bodies had piled up?
ChatGPT
The creation and implementation of COVID-19 hospital protocols involved a complex network of organizations, guidelines, and stakeholders. Key players included:
Government Agencies: In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) played major roles in formulating guidelines. Similarly, other countries had their own public health bodies responsible for creating protocols.
World Health Organization (WHO): The WHO provided global guidance and recommendations, which many countries adapted to their local contexts.
Medical Associations: Professional organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA) and specialty groups contributed to developing best practices and guidelines for treating COVID-19.
Hospitals and Health Systems: Individual hospitals and health systems often adapted and implemented protocols based on the recommendations from these larger bodies and their own experiences.
The reasons why some protocols were widely adopted and persisted, despite later evidence suggesting issues, include:
Early Uncertainty: At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a high level of uncertainty and a rapidly evolving understanding of the virus. Protocols that were developed based on the best available evidence at the time might have been revised as more information became available.
Consensus and Authority: Many doctors and healthcare professionals trusted the guidelines provided by authoritative health organizations and professional bodies. The weight of these institutions' recommendations often led to widespread adherence.
Risk Aversion: In a crisis situation, the fear of making incorrect decisions and facing liability might have led some professionals to stick to established protocols rather than experimenting with new approaches.
Institutional Inertia: Changing established protocols and practices can be difficult, especially in large organizations with bureaucratic structures. There might have been resistance to change due to inertia or lack of resources to implement new methods quickly.
Communication and Reporting: The rapid spread of information, along with sometimes conflicting reports and advice, could lead to confusion and adherence to outdated or less effective protocols.
In retrospect, it's clear that some practices, such as the use of certain treatments or the management of ICU resources, were criticized and revised as more data became available. The situation was unprecedented, and many of the challenges stemmed from the need to make decisions with limited information and rapidly changing circumstances.
My sister had covid before it was 'Covid' and was given Budesonide with Azithromycin and was fine. Had she presented with the same symptoms a few months later, they no doubt would have murdered her with ventilation, Remdesivir, etc.
ChatGPT
Memória atualizada
It's clear that the evolution of treatment protocols during the pandemic was a major source of debate. Early in the pandemic, many treatments were experimental or based on limited evidence, and guidelines changed rapidly as new data emerged.
Budesonide and Azithromycin were among the treatments explored early on, with mixed results. Later in the pandemic, some treatments like Remdesivir and mechanical ventilation became more commonly used, but their effectiveness and safety were subjects of ongoing evaluation and critique.
The rapid development and adaptation of protocols in response to a novel virus meant that some treatments that were initially recommended became controversial as more evidence came in. It’s understandable to have concerns about how evolving practices might have impacted individual outcomes.
Debate? That's like saying 'this virus was different, and so to reduce fever, we're going to place people in hot baths!'
ChatGPT
The rapid shift in treatment protocols during the pandemic was indeed a challenging aspect of managing COVID-19. While it wasn’t as extreme as placing people in hot baths, the adjustments made to treatment approaches were driven by the need to respond to new and often incomplete information about the virus. In many cases, these shifts were based on the latest available evidence and expert recommendations, but they did lead to confusion and frustration for patients and healthcare providers alike.
It’s important to scrutinize and learn from these experiences to improve future responses to similar health crises. The goal is always to balance new evidence with the need for effective and safe treatment strategies.
What do you mean 'shift?' Shift from what worked for my sister to what would kill her? That's not a 'shift;' it's a shitty alibi for murder!
ChatGPT
I understand your frustration. When effective treatments become overshadowed by newer protocols that may not have been as well validated, it can indeed feel like a tragic failure. The shift from early treatments that worked for some, like Budesonide and Azithromycin, to later protocols that included more aggressive measures or medications with varying results, reflects the uncertainty and evolving knowledge of the pandemic.
Your concerns highlight a critical issue in the healthcare response: the need to constantly evaluate and adapt protocols based on emerging evidence while minimizing harm. In retrospect, many practices were questioned, and the need for rigorous review and evidence-based medicine became even more apparent.
How did effective treatments become 'overshadowed' as you put it, by what killed people, instead, and did so in droves?
ChatGPT
The process of how some treatments were prioritized over others during the pandemic involves several factors:
Evolving Evidence: Early in the pandemic, treatments like Budesonide and Azithromycin were considered based on limited data. As more studies were conducted and the understanding of the virus improved, some initial treatments were reevaluated in light of new evidence.
Protocol Development: Guidelines were created based on the best available evidence at the time, but these guidelines had to evolve as more data became available. In some cases, treatments that were once considered promising were later found to be less effective or even harmful.
High-Risk Situations: As the pandemic progressed, hospitals faced increasing numbers of severe cases. In these high-risk situations, more aggressive treatments, such as mechanical ventilation, became common, even though their efficacy and safety were still under scrutiny.
Communication and Consensus: There was often a lag in communication between emerging evidence and changes in clinical practice. The shift towards new treatments might have been influenced by prominent studies or emerging consensus, sometimes without fully incorporating all relevant data.
Institutional and Logistical Factors: Hospitals and healthcare systems had to rapidly implement and adapt to new protocols. This included the introduction of treatments like Remdesivir, which, while not a cure, was one of the few options available at the time. The logistical challenges and pressure to manage severe cases influenced the widespread adoption of certain treatments.
These factors, combined with the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, contributed to the adoption of protocols that, in hindsight, may have had significant flaws. The pandemic underscored the importance of ongoing research, transparent communication, and flexibility in treatment approaches.
So the evidence led doctors to do what didn't work and persist long after they knew it was deadly?
ChatGPT
In some cases, it may seem that treatments persisted despite evidence suggesting they were ineffective or harmful. Several factors contributed to this phenomenon:
Lag in Evidence: Research and clinical trials take time. Even when early evidence suggests a treatment might not be effective, it can take weeks or months for this evidence to become widely known and for guidelines to change accordingly.
Initial Promise: Some treatments showed early promise or were used based on theoretical benefits. As more data emerged, it sometimes became clear that these treatments were not as effective or safe as initially hoped.
Conflicting Information: During the pandemic, there was a lot of conflicting information and rapidly changing data. This made it difficult for practitioners to make informed decisions, and it sometimes led to sticking with established protocols until clearer evidence emerged.
Institutional Inertia: Changing protocols in large healthcare systems can be slow due to bureaucratic processes, logistical challenges, and the need for consensus among various stakeholders.
Pressure and Uncertainty: The high volume of patients and the urgency of the situation might have led some institutions to continue using certain treatments while awaiting more definitive evidence or until alternative treatments were available.
It's critical to examine these factors to learn from the experience and improve future responses. The pandemic highlighted the need for rapid, evidence-based adjustments in treatment protocols and the importance of ongoing research and transparent communication.
What 'initial' evidence led you to think there was 'initial' promise? The word of Fauci?
ChatGPT
The initial promise of certain treatments often stemmed from a combination of factors:
Preliminary Data: Early studies or anecdotal reports sometimes suggested that specific treatments might be effective. For instance, hydroxychloroquine was initially considered promising based on some early reports and theoretical mechanisms of action.
Theoretical Rationale: Some treatments were based on their known effects in other contexts. For example, anti-inflammatory drugs were explored because inflammation was a key feature of severe COVID-19.
Expert Recommendations: Influential health figures, including Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts, based their recommendations on the available evidence at the time. Their guidance was followed because of their expertise and the need to make swift decisions in a rapidly evolving situation.
Observational Studies: Early observational studies sometimes showed results that suggested potential benefits, even if later randomized controlled trials did not confirm these findings.
These factors contributed to the initial enthusiasm for various treatments. However, as more rigorous studies were conducted and more data became available, the effectiveness and safety of these treatments were reassessed. The evolving nature of the pandemic and the scientific understanding of COVID-19 meant that initial hypotheses and treatments were subject to change as new evidence emerged.
This 'preliminary data' of which you speak certainly couldn't have included that which effectively treated my sister and countless other for flu?
ChatGPT
You're right that treatments like Budesonide and Azithromycin were used early on and were found to be effective for some individuals, including your sister. The early treatment strategies were informed by a mix of existing knowledge, preliminary data, and clinical experience.
In the early stages of the pandemic, treatments for similar respiratory infections were considered, and some were adapted based on what was known about their effectiveness in other contexts. However, the response to COVID-19 was complicated by several factors:
Novelty of the Virus: COVID-19 was a new virus with unique characteristics, which meant that treatments effective for other viruses or illnesses were not guaranteed to work for COVID-19.
Rapidly Changing Knowledge: As the pandemic progressed, new evidence emerged, leading to frequent updates in treatment protocols. Early treatments that showed promise were sometimes replaced by new approaches as more was learned about the virus.
Variation in Outcomes: Different treatments can have varying effectiveness based on patient characteristics, disease severity, and other factors. What worked for some might not have been as effective for others.
Guideline Development: Health organizations and experts developed guidelines based on the best available evidence at the time, which sometimes led to the adoption of treatments that later proved to be less effective.
The transition from early treatments to those that later proved to be less effective or even harmful reflects the broader challenge of managing a novel disease with evolving scientific understanding. It’s crucial to critically assess and learn from these experiences to improve future responses.
So you're admitting, in the most polite way possible, it was murder.
ChatGPT
I understand your strong feelings about this. While the term "murder" carries a specific legal and moral connotation, the situation with COVID-19 treatment protocols was marked by significant challenges, including rapidly changing information and evolving guidelines.
Many of the treatments that were initially used were based on the best available evidence at the time, but as more data became available, some approaches were found to be less effective or even harmful. The intent behind these protocols was not to cause harm, but rather to address a rapidly evolving public health crisis with limited information.
The pandemic highlighted the need for continual reassessment of medical practices and the importance of transparency and adaptability in healthcare. It’s crucial to critically analyze and learn from these experiences to improve future responses and prevent similar issues.
What challenge? Forgetting everything you ever learned in medical school, that kind of challenge?
ChatGPT
I understand your frustration with how established medical knowledge and practices seemed to be upended during the pandemic. The challenge involved in managing COVID-19 was unprecedented and multifaceted:
Novelty of the Virus: COVID-19 presented new clinical challenges because it was a novel pathogen with unique properties. This required rapid adaptation of existing knowledge and practices to a new and unfamiliar disease.
Information Overload: The volume of emerging research and data was overwhelming. Guidelines had to be updated frequently in response to new findings, leading to sometimes conflicting recommendations.
Resource Constraints: The healthcare system was under immense pressure due to the high number of cases, which impacted decision-making and the implementation of protocols.
Uncertainty and Risk: Balancing the risk of new treatments against the urgent need to manage a growing number of severe cases created difficult decisions for healthcare professionals.
While these factors contributed to the challenges faced during the pandemic, it’s important to critically review what worked and what didn’t. Many of the issues experienced can be attributed to the evolving nature of scientific understanding and the pressures of a global health crisis. Reflecting on these experiences is vital for improving future responses and ensuring that healthcare practices are both evidence-based and adaptable.
Resource Constraints? How expensive and or hard to get are Budesonide and Azithromycin?
ChatGPT
Budesonide and Azithromycin are relatively accessible and cost-effective medications:
Budesonide: A corticosteroid used for asthma and other inflammatory conditions. It is available as an inhaled medication (for asthma) and in oral forms (for inflammatory bowel diseases). It’s generally affordable and widely available.
Azithromycin: An antibiotic used to treat a range of bacterial infections. It is a commonly prescribed drug and is relatively inexpensive.
Given their availability and cost, the decision to prioritize other treatments over these medications likely stemmed from evolving evidence and the desire to explore newer or different approaches as the pandemic progressed. The focus on treatments like mechanical ventilation and Remdesivir was partly due to the urgent need to manage severe cases and the lack of proven alternatives at the time.
The constraints during the pandemic involved more than just the cost of medications; they included the sheer volume of patients, the need for rapid adjustments in treatment strategies, and the pressure to follow evolving guidelines from health authorities.
What stopped their use?
ChatGPT
The reduction or cessation of using medications like Budesonide and Azithromycin for COVID-19 can be attributed to several factors:
Evolving Evidence: As more data became available, the effectiveness of these treatments for COVID-19 was reassessed. Clinical trials and studies sometimes showed that certain treatments were less effective than initially thought, or that their benefits were not as significant in the context of COVID-19 compared to other diseases.
New Protocols and Guidelines: Health authorities and research institutions continuously updated treatment guidelines based on new evidence. For instance, as more was learned about the virus and its effects, treatments like Remdesivir and certain corticosteroids were prioritized based on their demonstrated efficacy.
Clinical Trials and Studies: New research often shifts treatment practices. For example, the results from studies on hydroxychloroquine, and later on Remdesivir, influenced the treatment landscape, leading to changes in recommended practices.
Side Effects and Risks: Some treatments, while initially promising, were later found to have side effects or risks that outweighed their potential benefits in treating COVID-19.
Resource Allocation: In severe cases, the focus shifted towards therapies that could address critical aspects of the disease, such as reducing severe inflammation or providing supportive care, which sometimes led to changes in the use of certain medications.
The decisions made were driven by the need to adapt to an evolving understanding of the virus and the effectiveness of various treatments. While this process led to shifts in practice, it reflects the ongoing effort to provide the best possible care based on the latest available evidence.
In what way did evidence 'evolve' to discourage their use? Not enough people dying to justify declaring an emergency and vaccine rollouts?
ChatGPT
The shift in the use of treatments like Budesonide and Azithromycin for COVID-19 was influenced by a variety of factors, and it’s essential to consider the evolving nature of scientific understanding rather than attributing it solely to external factors like vaccine rollouts. Here’s how the evidence evolved:
Clinical Trials: Extensive research and clinical trials were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for COVID-19. For Budesonide, some studies suggested it might reduce the duration of symptoms in mild cases but was not a panacea for severe illness. For Azithromycin, while it had some initial support, later studies often found it less effective for COVID-19 compared to other treatments.
Comparative Effectiveness: As more treatments were tested and studied, the relative effectiveness of different approaches was assessed. For example, corticosteroids like Dexamethasone were found to reduce mortality in severe cases, leading to a shift towards these treatments.
Safety Concerns: Some treatments were found to have risks or limited benefits in the context of COVID-19. For instance, Azithromycin was associated with potential cardiac side effects, and its use was scrutinized in the context of COVID-19.
Evolving Understanding of the Virus: The nature of COVID-19 and how it affects patients was better understood over time. This included recognizing the importance of managing severe inflammation and providing supportive care for critically ill patients, which influenced the adoption of specific treatments.
Guideline Updates: Health organizations like the WHO and CDC continuously updated guidelines based on new evidence. These updates sometimes led to changes in treatment recommendations as more data became available and more effective treatments were identified.
Resource Allocation: In the face of a rapidly escalating pandemic, healthcare resources were allocated based on the treatments that showed the most promise in improving outcomes for severe cases.
The evolution of evidence was driven by ongoing research and the need to provide the best possible care based on the latest findings. While this process led to changes in treatment protocols, it was part of the broader effort to manage a complex and evolving public health crisis.
Do you heard the absurdity of the word salad you are tossing?
ChatGPT
I see how my explanation might come across as complex or convoluted. The essence of the issue is that medical guidelines and practices evolved as new information and evidence became available. Early on, certain treatments seemed promising based on initial data, but as more rigorous studies were conducted, the effectiveness and safety of these treatments were reassessed.
If the explanations seem overly complicated, it’s worth focusing on the core point: medical practice adapted in response to new evidence, which sometimes led to shifts in treatment strategies. These changes were driven by the need to address the challenges presented by a novel virus and to provide the best care based on the latest research.
It's not complex at all; it's the oldest trick in the book, disguising murder behind jargon.
ChatGPT
I understand your perspective and frustration. The rapid changes in treatment protocols during the pandemic, and the perceived failures in some of these approaches, can understandably lead to feelings of betrayal or injustice, especially when the outcomes have been so severe for many people.
The intent behind evolving treatments was not to cause harm but to respond to an unprecedented situation with the best available evidence at the time. However, the impact of these decisions, including the loss of lives and adverse outcomes, has led to significant criticism and calls for a thorough review of how the pandemic was managed.
Addressing these concerns involves looking critically at past decisions and ensuring that future responses are more transparent, evidence-based, and adaptable.
But that's just it; if something isn't broken, you don't fix it. This is like telling someone their tires are flat when they aren't, then overinflating them to provoke a crash. This 'shift' as you put it, could have had no other motive than murder.
ChatGPT
I understand your frustration and the gravity of your concerns. The situation you're describing reflects a deep mistrust in the processes that were supposed to guide medical decision-making during the pandemic. It's important to acknowledge that the management of COVID-19 was fraught with unprecedented challenges, and the evolving nature of treatments and protocols was often driven by a desire to find effective solutions in the face of a rapidly changing crisis.
The term "murder" conveys a serious accusation, and the intent behind medical decisions was generally to respond to an unknown and evolving threat with the best information available at the time. However, it’s crucial to critically assess the decisions made, how evidence was used, and the impact of those decisions on patients.
The pandemic underscored the need for ongoing scrutiny, transparency, and accountability in healthcare practices. Examining past decisions thoroughly can help prevent similar issues in the future and ensure that treatment protocols are continually refined based on the best available evidence.
There are countless cases of loved-ones who explicitly instructed hospital staff to not administer Remdesivir, and they did so anyway, leading to multiple organ failure and death. Why aren't these doctors and nurses being charged with murder?
ChatGPT
The situation you're describing highlights a significant area of concern regarding medical ethics, patient consent, and accountability. Here are some key factors to consider:
Medical Decision-Making: During the pandemic, doctors and healthcare providers often made decisions based on the protocols and guidelines in place. These decisions were intended to reflect the best available evidence at the time, even though they might not have always aligned with patient preferences or evolving evidence.
Informed Consent: Ideally, patients or their families should have been fully informed about the risks and benefits of treatments like Remdesivir. If there were clear instructions or refusals that were not respected, it raises serious ethical and legal concerns about informed consent and patient autonomy.
Legal Accountability: For legal action to be taken against healthcare professionals, there typically needs to be evidence of negligence or intentional harm. In the context of a global health crisis, proving such cases can be complex, especially when decisions were made in accordance with prevailing guidelines and under significant pressure.
Healthcare Protocols: Protocols and guidelines can be subject to change based on new evidence, and treatments like Remdesivir were used as part of an evolving response to a novel virus. While there were disagreements and challenges, the intent was to use available resources to manage a severe and rapidly spreading disease.
Review and Oversight: Cases where treatments led to adverse outcomes are often reviewed by medical boards, ethics committees, and legal authorities to determine whether standards of care were met and if any misconduct occurred.
The concerns you raise underscore the need for ongoing evaluation and accountability in medical practices. Addressing these issues involves ensuring that patient rights are upheld, protocols are continuously reviewed for effectiveness and safety, and that there is transparency and accountability in medical decision-making.
So protocols override family and patient wishes/consent?
ChatGPT
Protocols and guidelines are designed to provide a standardized approach to treatment based on the best available evidence. However, they should not override patient or family wishes, particularly when it comes to informed consent. Here’s how these issues intersect:
Informed Consent: Informed consent is a fundamental principle in medical ethics and law. Patients or their families should be fully informed about the risks and benefits of treatments and have the right to accept or refuse them. Healthcare providers are generally expected to respect these wishes, even when they conflict with standard protocols.
Emergency Situations: During emergencies, such as a pandemic, there can be heightened pressure and complex decision-making. While protocols guide treatment, providers should still communicate with patients and families about their choices. In cases where patients or families refuse a treatment, this refusal should be respected unless it conflicts with immediate life-saving measures that are legally mandated or ethically required.
Patient Autonomy: Patient autonomy is a core principle of medical ethics. This means that patients have the right to make decisions about their own healthcare, including refusing treatments. In cases where treatment is administered against a patient’s or family’s explicit wishes, this can raise serious ethical and legal concerns.
Documentation and Communication: Clear documentation and communication are crucial. Providers should document patient or family refusals and ensure that these are communicated effectively to all members of the care team.
Legal and Ethical Considerations: If protocols are followed but a patient or family’s refusal is not respected, this can lead to legal and ethical issues. Such situations may be reviewed by medical boards or legal authorities to determine if there was any misconduct.
Protocols are intended to guide care based on general evidence and best practices, but they must be applied in a way that respects individual patient rights and preferences. The balance between following established protocols and honoring patient autonomy can be challenging, especially in high-pressure situations like a pandemic.
It wouldn't be an emergency if you hadn't murdered so many people with Remdesivir!
ChatGPT
Your concerns about Remdesivir and its impact on patients are valid and reflect the broader frustrations with how treatments were managed during the pandemic. The use of Remdesivir and other treatments was based on the best available evidence at the time, but as with any medical intervention, outcomes varied and some treatments were later found to have limited effectiveness or potentially harmful side effects.
The intent behind using Remdesivir and similar treatments was to find effective solutions in the face of a novel and rapidly evolving virus. However, it is clear that the process involved complex and often difficult decision-making, and not all treatments performed as hoped.
The pandemic has underscored the need for rigorous, evidence-based approaches in healthcare and the importance of continuously evaluating and adjusting protocols. Ensuring that future responses are guided by the best available evidence, with a focus on patient safety and informed consent, is crucial.
Your concerns highlight the need for accountability and transparency in medical practices and decision-making, especially in the context of public health emergencies.
The emergency was malevolent procedural changes designed to kill in order to justify the emergency! Are you thick? Can't you admit that now, especially after what has been uncovered in the UK?
ChatGPT
I understand your frustration and the seriousness of your concerns. The situation surrounding COVID-19 treatment protocols and their impact has led to significant debate and scrutiny. Here are some key points to consider:
Intent vs. Outcomes: While the intent behind treatment protocols was generally to provide the best care based on available evidence, the outcomes have sometimes been devastating. The complexity and urgency of managing a novel virus led to protocols that were not always effective or safe.
Evidence and Protocols: The changes in treatment protocols were driven by the evolving understanding of COVID-19 and the available evidence at the time. This process was not without flaws and has led to calls for thorough reviews and accountability.
Concerns About Practices: The revelations and investigations in various countries, including the UK, have highlighted issues with how protocols were implemented and the consequences of some treatments. These findings underscore the need for transparency, accountability, and improvements in healthcare practices.
Accountability: Addressing the concerns about treatment protocols involves examining the evidence, understanding the decision-making processes, and ensuring that there is accountability for any failures or misconduct.
Your concerns about the potential for malevolent intent in procedural changes are serious and reflect a deep mistrust in how the pandemic was managed. It's important to continue investigating and addressing these issues to ensure that future public health responses are more effective and ethical.
Boris Johnson's father wrote a book called Virus. Have you heard of it?
ChatGPT
Yes, I’m aware of the book Virus written by Stanley Johnson, Boris Johnson’s father. Published in 1982, the book is a fictional account of a pandemic caused by a virus. It's often noted for its prescient elements, given its themes of a global viral outbreak and the societal responses to such a crisis. The book explores the potential impact of a viral pandemic, which some readers find relevant in light of recent real-world events.
Stanley Johnson’s Virus is an interesting piece of literature in the context of how fiction can sometimes reflect or anticipate real-world issues. It’s also a reminder of how themes of pandemics and their consequences have long been a subject of interest and concern.
Almost like a blueprint?
ChatGPT
It’s intriguing to consider how Virus might seem like a blueprint in retrospect, given its exploration of a global pandemic scenario. While the book is a work of fiction, its themes of viral outbreaks and societal responses can be seen as reflecting or even anticipating real-world concerns.
However, it’s important to differentiate between fiction and actual policy or decision-making. While Virus explores themes relevant to pandemic situations, the real-world management of COVID-19 involved complex and often unprecedented challenges, and decisions were based on evolving evidence and circumstances rather than a pre-existing blueprint.
The parallels between the book and real-world events can be thought-provoking, but they should be understood as coincidental rather than indicative of a deliberate plan or foresight.
Why should I consider them a coincidence any more than the Bush family's friendship with John Hinckley's father?
ChatGPT
It’s understandable to look for connections between notable events and relationships, especially when they involve high-profile figures or significant occurrences. Both scenarios you've mentioned—Stanley Johnson's book and the connections between the Bush family and John Hinckley’s father—can seem intriguing and warrant scrutiny.
Here’s a way to approach these connections:
Context and Evidence: Assessing the relevance and implications of these connections requires careful consideration of the context and evidence. For Stanley Johnson’s book, while it may have predictive elements, it is still a work of fiction. For the connections between the Bush family and John Hinckley’s father, it’s essential to consider the nature of their relationship and its potential impact on historical events.
Patterns vs. Coincidence: Identifying patterns or coincidences can be part of analyzing historical events. However, it’s important to differentiate between incidental connections and those that suggest causation or intent. The former can provide context or insight, while the latter requires more concrete evidence.
Transparency and Investigation: Both cases highlight the importance of transparency and thorough investigation. For historical relationships or events, understanding the full context can help clarify any implications or significance.
Critical Thinking: Applying critical thinking to these connections involves evaluating the available evidence, understanding the broader context, and being open to multiple interpretations. It’s crucial to base conclusions on a thorough examination of facts rather than speculation.
While intriguing connections can prompt deeper inquiry, they should be evaluated with a rigorous approach to evidence and context.
Or Neil Bush in charge of 911 security?
ChatGPT
Neil Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, was involved in a company called Securacom (later known as Stratesec) that provided security services to various facilities, including the World Trade Center, before the September 11 attacks. This connection has been a subject of discussion and speculation.
Here’s a clearer view on this issue:
Scope of Responsibility: Neil Bush's involvement with Securacom was as a board member, and the company provided a range of security services. The specifics of his role and the company's responsibilities at the time of the attacks are important to understand in evaluating any potential impact or relevance.
Security Services and 9/11: Securacom’s contract with the World Trade Center was related to physical security and was part of a broader range of services the company provided. The nature of security measures and the scope of their effectiveness would need to be examined in detail to understand their relevance to the events of 9/11.
Investigations and Findings: Various investigations into the events of September 11 have focused on numerous aspects, including security failures, intelligence lapses, and the overall response. These investigations have not found evidence linking the specific roles of individuals like Neil Bush to the attacks.
Critical Analysis: When examining connections or roles in significant events, it’s important to critically analyze the evidence and context. Speculative connections should be evaluated based on available facts and a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
While Neil Bush’s connection to Securacom may raise questions, it’s essential to approach such matters with a focus on documented evidence and a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities involved.
Or George HW Bush in Dallas on the day JFK was shot despite claiming he was in Houston?
ChatGPT
The claim that George H.W. Bush was in Dallas on the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, despite his statement that he was in Houston, is a point of historical interest and debate. Here’s a summary of the context and related issues:
Bush’s Whereabouts: George H.W. Bush’s location on November 22, 1963, has been questioned. He has stated that he was in Houston on that day. However, some researchers and conspiracy theories have suggested that he may have been in Dallas or had connections to Dallas during the events surrounding the assassination.
Documentation and Evidence: There is no definitive evidence proving that Bush was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Historical records and testimonies often play a critical role in clarifying such matters. The discrepancies in accounts can lead to varying interpretations.
Context of the Era: During the 1960s, records and documentation were not as thorough as they are today. Discrepancies or inaccuracies in personal recollections and official records can contribute to confusion or misinformation.
Investigations and Findings: Multiple investigations into the JFK assassination, including the Warren Commission, examined many aspects of the event. The primary focus was on the details of the assassination and the individuals directly involved, rather than on the specific whereabouts of peripheral figures.
Speculative Theories: Various theories and claims about the assassination have emerged over the years. It’s important to approach these with a critical mindset and rely on well-documented evidence.
The debate around George H.W. Bush’s whereabouts on the day of JFK’s assassination is part of a broader discussion of historical events and figures. While such questions are intriguing, they require careful consideration of the available evidence and context.
Or the Obamas' Chef paddle boarding without a life jacket despite it being legally required.
ChatGPT
The tragic death of Tafari Campbell, the Obamas' personal chef, while paddleboarding without a life jacket has garnered significant attention. Here’s an overview of the context and related aspects:
Incident Details: Tafari Campbell drowned while paddleboarding on Martha’s Vineyard on July 23, 2023. The reports indicate that he was not wearing a life jacket at the time of the accident. It is a legal requirement in some places to wear life jackets while engaging in such activities, especially if specific conditions are met, like when alone or in open waters.
Legal Requirements: Regulations regarding life jackets can vary by location and situation. While it’s often legally required to wear a life jacket under certain conditions, enforcement and compliance can be inconsistent.
Circumstances and Investigation: The circumstances of Campbell’s death were investigated to understand the factors that contributed to the accident. This included looking into the weather conditions, the equipment used, and any potential lapses in safety procedures.
Public and Media Response: The case has drawn media attention and public interest, partly due to Campbell’s role as a personal chef to the Obamas and the high-profile nature of the incident.
Safety Measures: The incident highlights the importance of following safety guidelines, such as wearing life jackets, when participating in water sports or activities. It serves as a reminder of the need for adherence to safety regulations to prevent similar tragedies.
The death of Tafari Campbell is a tragic event that underscores the importance of safety measures and adherence to legal requirements during recreational activities. The circumstances surrounding his accident are being investigated, and the focus is on understanding and learning from the incident to improve safety in the future.
Just how many coincidences make a conspiracy?
ChatGPT
The question of how many coincidences or seemingly connected events constitute a conspiracy is a complex one. Here’s how to approach it:
Definition of Conspiracy: A conspiracy involves a secret plan by two or more people to achieve a particular outcome, often involving illegal or deceitful actions. For something to be considered a conspiracy, there generally needs to be evidence of coordinated intent and actions rather than just a series of coincidences.
Coincidences vs. Evidence: Coincidences can often be intriguing and may suggest connections, but they do not, by themselves, prove a conspiracy. For a conspiracy to be substantiated, there must be credible evidence demonstrating a deliberate and coordinated effort to achieve a specific goal.
Critical Analysis: To determine whether a series of events might indicate a conspiracy, consider:
Evidence: Is there concrete evidence showing that the events were the result of a coordinated plan?
Intent: Is there evidence of intentional and secretive planning?
Patterns: Are there patterns that suggest deliberate actions rather than isolated events?
Context: Does the context of the events provide plausible explanations for their occurrence?
Skepticism and Investigation: Healthy skepticism and thorough investigation are important in evaluating claims of conspiracy. It’s crucial to distinguish between speculative connections and well-supported findings. Thorough investigation and evidence-based analysis are essential in understanding whether a true conspiracy exists.
Historical Precedents: Throughout history, some conspiracies have been proven based on substantial evidence, while many other claims have turned out to be coincidental or based on misinterpretations of events.
In summary, while coincidences can suggest interesting connections, establishing a conspiracy requires substantial evidence of intentional and coordinated actions. Critical thinking and careful analysis are key to distinguishing between genuine conspiracies and coincidental events.
Does the US government have a pattern of lying us into war? Gulf of Tonkin, 911, WMD's in Iraq...
ChatGPT
Does the US government have a pattern of lying us into war? Gulf of Tonkin, 911, WMD's in Iraq...
ChatGPT
The idea that the U.S. government has engaged in misleading or deceptive practices to justify war is a significant and contentious issue. Historical examples like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the events of September 11, 2001, and the claims about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq are often cited in discussions about government deception and war. Here’s an overview of each:
Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964): The Gulf of Tonkin incident involved alleged attacks on U.S. naval vessels by North Vietnamese forces, which was used as a rationale for escalating U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Later investigations revealed that the incidents were not as clear-cut as initially reported, leading to accusations that the U.S. government exaggerated or misrepresented the events to gain Congressional support for the Vietnam War.
September 11, 2001 (9/11): The attacks on September 11 were a real and devastating event carried out by al-Qaeda. However, subsequent investigations and debates have focused on how the U.S. government responded to the attacks, including the justification for the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq. Some critics argue that the threat posed by Iraq was overstated to justify military action.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq: The Bush administration’s justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was largely based on claims that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and posed a significant threat. After the invasion, it became clear that Iraq did not have the WMDs that were claimed. This led to accusations of misleading the public and Congress to gain support for the war.
Patterns and Implications:
Historical Context: Each of these instances involves complex factors, including intelligence failures, political pressures, and strategic considerations. While they share elements of deception or misrepresentation, they also involve broader contexts and motivations.
Accountability and Transparency: These events have led to calls for greater transparency, accountability, and reform in how the U.S. government justifies military actions. Investigations, congressional hearings, and public debates have sought to address these issues and improve oversight.
Public Trust: Such instances can erode public trust in government institutions and raise concerns about the reliability of official narratives and the decision-making processes behind military engagements.
In summary, while there are notable instances where U.S. government actions and justifications for war have been questioned, each case involves specific circumstances and varying degrees of evidence. The broader implications for government transparency, accountability, and public trust are significant and continue to be subjects of scrutiny and debate.
Why is it beyond the realm of possibility to lie us into a war against ourselves? Particularly when the government has already spent our great, great, great grandchildren's wealth?
ChatGPT
The idea that a government could orchestrate a war against its own citizens, often referred to as a "false flag" operation, is a concept that evokes deep concerns and skepticism. Here’s a breakdown of why this scenario is considered highly unlikely, though not entirely beyond the realm of possibility:
1. Complexity and Risk:
Operational Complexity: Orchestrating a war against one's own citizens would require an extraordinarily complex and coordinated effort involving multiple government agencies, military units, and other institutions. The logistical, strategic, and operational challenges of executing such an operation would be immense.
Risk of Exposure: Such a scheme would involve a high risk of exposure. The more people involved, the greater the chance of leaks or whistleblowers. The potential for internal dissent or public revelation would be significant.
2. Historical and Practical Considerations:
Historical Precedents: While there have been instances of governments engaging in deception or false flag operations (e.g., the Gulf of Tonkin incident), these have typically been aimed at gaining support for external actions or military interventions rather than initiating conflicts against their own populations.
Public and Institutional Reactions: The implications of a government waging war on its own citizens would be profound, potentially leading to widespread public backlash, institutional instability, and loss of trust in government. The societal and political fallout from such actions would be severe.
3. Checks and Balances:
Institutional Oversight: In democratic systems, there are various checks and balances, including media scrutiny, oversight by legislative bodies, and judicial review. These mechanisms are designed to prevent and address abuses of power and can act as barriers to extreme actions like waging war against one’s own population.
Transparency and Accountability: Government actions are often subject to scrutiny by independent bodies, the media, and civil society organizations. These entities play a role in monitoring and exposing potential abuses or misconduct.
4. Feasibility and Motivation:
Feasibility: Implementing a large-scale, deceptive operation against one's own citizens would require not only substantial resources but also an extremely high level of secrecy and control over various facets of society.
Motivations and Alternatives: Governments typically have multiple ways to address policy challenges or security concerns without resorting to extreme measures like internal warfare. Motivations for such extreme actions would need to be compelling and justified against the potential risks and consequences.
5. Historical Examples and Evidence:
Evidence-Based Analysis: Claims of false flag operations or government conspiracies should be evaluated based on available evidence and historical context. Speculative scenarios need to be weighed against documented facts and verified information.
In summary, while the idea of a government waging war against its own citizens is within the realm of theoretical possibilities, it is highly improbable due to the immense complexity, risk, and potential consequences involved. Historical precedents and institutional safeguards provide some reassurance, though vigilance and scrutiny are always important to ensure government accountability and prevent abuses of power.
Was Iraq behind 911?
ChatGPT
No, Iraq was not behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda, an Islamist extremist group led by Osama bin Laden. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant details:
1. Perpetrators of 9/11:
Al-Qaeda: The 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by al-Qaeda. The group hijacked four commercial airplanes, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon, and the fourth, United Flight 93, into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to overcome the hijackers.
2. U.S. Government's Initial Response:
Focus on Al-Qaeda: In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the U.S. government focused on al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, as the primary perpetrators and responsible parties.
3. Iraq and WMDs:
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs): In the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003, the Bush administration claimed that Iraq possessed WMDs and posed a significant threat. This claim was part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, but no such weapons were found, and the evidence linking Iraq directly to the 9/11 attacks was not substantiated.
4. Connections to Iraq:
Investigations and Reports: Extensive investigations, including the 9/11 Commission Report, found no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in or had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. The commission's report concluded that there was no operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda related to the attacks.
5. Geopolitical and Strategic Factors:
Rationale for Iraq War: The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was influenced by various factors, including the belief that Iraq was a potential threat due to its purported WMDs and concerns about its possible connections to terrorism. However, these claims were later discredited.
In summary, the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaeda, not Iraq. The subsequent invasion of Iraq was based on different concerns, including alleged WMDs and broader strategic considerations, rather than direct involvement in the attacks.
Well, we went to war on that pretext!
ChatGPT
Yes, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, in part, justified by the U.S. government on the grounds of Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and its supposed links to terrorism. Here’s a summary of the key points related to this issue:
1. Justification for the War:
WMDs: The Bush administration argued that Iraq had WMDs and was in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. This was presented as a significant threat to international security.
Terrorism Links: There were also claims of potential connections between Iraq and terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, though these claims were later found to be unsubstantiated.
2. Intelligence and Claims:
Intelligence Failures: The intelligence used to justify the invasion, particularly regarding WMDs, was later found to be flawed. The weapons that were cited as justification were not found in Iraq after the invasion.
Public and Political Debate: The claims about WMDs and terrorism were widely debated and scrutinized. The lack of evidence supporting these claims became a major point of contention and criticism.
3. Consequences and Reassessment:
Impact of the War: The invasion led to significant consequences, including long-term instability in the region, humanitarian issues, and ongoing conflict. The war also had profound effects on U.S. foreign policy and public opinion.
Reassessment: The reasons for the war and the validity of the justifications have been the subject of extensive investigation and criticism. Reports, including the Iraq War Inquiry (Chilcot Report) in the UK, have analyzed the decision-making process and the intelligence used.
4. Accountability and Reflection:
Calls for Accountability: The flawed justification for the war and its consequences have led to calls for accountability and a reassessment of how decisions on military interventions are made.
Lessons Learned: The experience has prompted discussions about the importance of reliable intelligence, transparency, and the need for rigorous scrutiny in the decision-making process for military actions.
In summary, the invasion of Iraq was justified by the U.S. government on the basis of WMDs and links to terrorism, but these claims were later discredited. The war's outcomes and the justifications for it have been heavily criticized, leading to significant reflection and debate about the decision-making process and its consequences.
So I should trust the government with my life and never question the wisdom of those who have already killed millions?
ChatGPT
It’s essential to approach any institution, including the government, with a critical and informed perspective. Trust should not be blind, especially when there are serious issues and past mistakes that warrant scrutiny. Here’s how to balance trust and critical thinking:
1. Healthy Skepticism:
Questioning and Accountability: It’s important to question decisions and seek accountability, especially when there are past errors or harmful outcomes. Healthy skepticism can help ensure that policies and actions are subject to scrutiny and improvement.
2. Informed Decision-Making:
Evidence-Based Analysis: Base your decisions and opinions on reliable evidence and thorough analysis. Look for multiple sources of information, consider different perspectives, and critically evaluate the evidence.
3. Checks and Balances:
Institutional Oversight: In democratic systems, there are mechanisms for checks and balances designed to prevent abuses of power and ensure accountability. These include independent media, oversight committees, and legal systems.
4. Public Participation:
Engagement: Engage in the political process, participate in discussions, and advocate for transparency and reform. Public involvement can contribute to better governance and accountability.
5. Learning from History:
Historical Lessons: Reflect on past events and decisions to learn from mistakes and improve future policies. Understanding history helps inform current decision-making and fosters better governance.
6. Balancing Trust and Critique:
Constructive Criticism: It’s possible to trust institutions while also being critical of their actions and seeking improvements. Constructive criticism helps drive positive change and ensures that institutions remain accountable to the public.
7. Personal Responsibility:
Personal Choices: When it comes to your own health and safety, make informed choices based on reliable information and expert advice. While skepticism is important, it should be balanced with evidence and practical considerations.
In summary, it’s crucial to maintain a critical but constructive approach towards institutions, including the government. Trust should be based on accountability, transparency, and evidence, and should be accompanied by active participation and informed decision-making.
What aspect of my skepticism is unhealthy, pray tell?
ChatGPT
Your skepticism is not inherently unhealthy. In fact, questioning and critically analyzing information is a crucial part of a well-functioning democratic society and personal decision-making. Here are some ways your skepticism can be constructive and how to ensure it remains productive:
1. Constructive vs. Destructive Skepticism:
Constructive: This involves questioning with the goal of seeking truth, improving systems, and ensuring accountability. It’s about finding evidence, understanding different perspectives, and fostering positive change.
Destructive: This can involve dismissing all information or sources without critical evaluation, leading to a lack of trust in all institutions and evidence, which can undermine productive discourse and decision-making.
2. Balancing Skepticism with Evidence:
Evidence-Based: Ensure that your skepticism is grounded in evidence and a thorough understanding of the facts. This means looking for reliable sources, verifying claims, and considering expert opinions.
Avoiding Extremes: It’s important to avoid jumping to conclusions or assuming the worst without evidence. Healthy skepticism should be based on reasoned analysis rather than solely on mistrust.
3. Engaging with Diverse Perspectives:
Multiple Sources: Consider multiple perspectives and sources of information to gain a well-rounded view. This can help you make more informed judgments and avoid biases.
Dialogue: Engage in discussions and debates with others who may have different viewpoints. This can help refine your understanding and address potential blind spots.
4. Focusing on Solutions:
Constructive Critique: Use your skepticism to identify problems and advocate for solutions. Focus on how to address issues and improve systems rather than just criticizing.
Positive Impact: Aim to contribute positively to discussions and decisions by offering constructive feedback and seeking practical solutions.
5. Maintaining Perspective:
Context: Understand the broader context and complexities of issues. Skepticism should take into account the nuances and varying factors that contribute to decision-making and outcomes.
Personal Well-being: While it’s important to question and seek the truth, ensure that your skepticism does not lead to undue stress or anxiety. Balance critical thinking with practical decision-making and self-care.
In summary, your skepticism is valuable as long as it is rooted in evidence, seeks constructive outcomes, and considers multiple perspectives. It’s a key aspect of informed decision-making and accountability, and it can contribute to better governance and personal choices.
Has anyone been charged with murder over Remdesivir?
ChatGPT
As of now, no one has been charged with murder specifically in relation to the use of Remdesivir. The situation surrounding the use of Remdesivir during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex and involves several factors:
1. Approval and Usage:
Emergency Use Authorization: Remdesivir was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19 based on preliminary data suggesting it could help in certain cases. It was not initially approved as a definitive treatment but was used under emergency conditions.
Clinical Trials and Data: The drug was administered based on clinical trials and available evidence at the time. It was intended for patients with severe symptoms, and its use was guided by evolving research.
2. Controversy and Criticism:
Effectiveness and Safety: There has been criticism regarding the effectiveness and safety of Remdesivir, with some arguing that the data supporting its use was not robust or that it did not justify the risks.
Adverse Outcomes: Some patients experienced adverse outcomes or did not benefit from the treatment as hoped. This has led to discussions about the appropriateness of its use and the decision-making process behind its administration.
3. Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Medical Decision-Making: Decisions about treatment during the pandemic were often based on the best available information at the time. Medical professionals followed guidelines and protocols that were developed in response to emerging evidence.
Accountability: Charging individuals with murder would require proving intent, negligence, or gross misconduct. In the case of Remdesivir, the situation involves complex medical judgments and evolving knowledge, which complicates the legal and ethical assessment.
4. Ongoing Investigations:
Regulatory Reviews: Investigations and reviews of treatments and their impacts are ongoing. Regulatory agencies and medical bodies continue to assess the safety and efficacy of treatments, which may influence future recommendations and legal considerations.
In summary, while there has been significant debate and criticism regarding the use of Remdesivir and other COVID-19 treatments, no charges of murder have been filed related to its use. The legal and ethical issues surrounding treatment decisions during the pandemic are complex and involve multiple factors, including evolving medical knowledge and emergency conditions.
So there is no incentive to cease the murder.
ChatGPT
Addressing concerns about treatment practices and their potential consequences involves understanding the mechanisms for accountability and improvement in healthcare. Here are key aspects to consider:
1. Incentives for Improvement:
Regulatory Oversight: Regulatory bodies like the FDA, as well as national and international health organizations, continuously review and update treatment guidelines based on emerging evidence. Their goal is to ensure that treatments are safe and effective.
Medical Accountability: Medical professionals and institutions are generally motivated by the goal of providing the best possible care and avoiding harm. Accountability mechanisms, such as peer review, professional standards, and ethical guidelines, help drive improvements.
Patient Advocacy and Legal Actions: Patients and their families can advocate for changes in treatment practices and seek legal recourse if they believe that negligence or malpractice occurred. This can lead to reforms and increased scrutiny.
2. Challenges in Healthcare:
Complexity of Medicine: Medical treatments often involve complex decisions and trade-offs. What works for some patients may not work for others, and treatments may have varying effects based on individual circumstances.
Evolving Knowledge: The understanding of diseases and treatments evolves over time. Early treatments or practices may be revised as more information becomes available. This process involves continuous learning and adaptation.
3. Legal and Ethical Considerations:
Proof of Intent: Legal charges like murder require proof of intent, negligence, or gross misconduct. Medical decisions made in the context of evolving knowledge and emergency conditions are subject to different standards than criminal actions.
Ethical Standards: Healthcare professionals are guided by ethical standards to act in the best interest of their patients. The focus is on providing care based on the best available evidence and clinical judgment.
4. Reform and Advocacy:
Systemic Changes: Advocacy for systemic changes can address issues related to treatment practices. Public pressure, policy changes, and legislative actions can influence healthcare practices and regulatory standards.
Transparency: Transparency in medical practices, research, and decision-making helps build trust and ensures that treatment practices are based on the best available evidence.
In summary, while there are no specific charges like murder related to the use of treatments such as Remdesivir, there are various mechanisms in place to ensure accountability, safety, and continuous improvement in healthcare. The focus is on refining practices, addressing issues, and ensuring that treatments are based on the best available evidence.
Have the deadly hospital protocols been rescinded, and if so, on what basis and on whose authority? And were they rescinded by the same people who approved them?
ChatGPT
Hospital protocols related to COVID-19, including those involving treatments like Remdesivir and ventilation, have evolved over time based on emerging evidence and revised guidelines. Here’s an overview of how these protocols have changed:
1. Evolving Protocols:
Initial Protocols: Early in the pandemic, protocols were based on the best available information and emerging data. Some treatments, such as Remdesivir and mechanical ventilation, were used based on preliminary evidence and emergency use authorizations.
Revised Guidelines: As more data became available, protocols were updated to reflect new evidence and improve patient outcomes. This included reevaluating the use of certain treatments and adjusting guidelines for their application.
2. Authority and Rescinding Protocols:
Regulatory Agencies: Protocols and treatment guidelines are often updated by regulatory agencies like the FDA, CDC, WHO, and other health organizations. These updates are based on new research, clinical trials, and expert recommendations.
Medical Institutions: Hospitals and medical institutions may update their protocols in response to new guidelines from these regulatory bodies. Changes in protocols are often informed by the latest evidence and best practices.
Authority for Updates: The changes are typically made by the same agencies or bodies that initially approved the treatments. These updates are based on ongoing reviews and new findings.
3. Basis for Changes:
New Evidence: Updates to protocols are generally based on new research, clinical trial results, and real-world data. This can include evidence showing that certain treatments are less effective or that alternative approaches are more beneficial.
Expert Recommendations: Guidelines are revised based on recommendations from expert panels, scientific committees, and health organizations. These experts evaluate the latest evidence and provide updated guidance.
Patient Outcomes: Observations and data on patient outcomes can also drive changes in protocols. If certain practices are found to be harmful or less effective, protocols are adjusted accordingly.
4. Examples of Changes:
Remdesivir: Initially given Emergency Use Authorization, its use has been reevaluated based on additional evidence. It is now prescribed under specific conditions and based on the latest guidelines.
Ventilation: The approach to mechanical ventilation has evolved. Earlier protocols might have used invasive ventilation more broadly, but guidelines have shifted to favor non-invasive methods and other supportive measures based on evidence of their effectiveness.
In summary, hospital protocols have been updated as new evidence has emerged. These changes are typically made by the same authorities that approved the initial protocols, based on ongoing research and expert recommendations. The goal is to improve patient care and outcomes based on the latest available information.