Clare Wills Harrison talks to Dr Bryan Ardis

Midazolam, Remdesivir and hospital protocols

I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Dr Bryan Ardis last week about the use of Midazolam in the UK, particularly at the outset of lock-down in 2020, and we discussed the documents that I have uncovered during investigations about the same. Dr Ardis also talked about the use of Remdesivir in the US, and what he is doing to educate people about the dangers of this drug.

During the interview I explained to Dr Ardis that we now have several cases where Midazolam has clearly been misused and that these are going forward to trial in the very near future. However, I stressed to him that there seems to be wider issues here about why Midazolam was used in conjunction with opioids in 2020, and I also stressed that this protocol is still being used today.

Dr Ardis explained that in 2020, the now seemingly disgraced Dr Fauci recommended that Remdesivir be the only drug used to treat Covid 19 in the US. This drug is extremely dangerous and causes acute kidney, liver, and heart failure. Details of just how dangerous this drug is have been published in the last few months in peer reviewed medical articles. Simply put, Remdesivir is deadly. Dr Ardis also revealed the shocking fact that hospitals in the US receive financial incentives to use Remdesivir, a huge conflict of interest, when you consider that this is effectively bribing medical facilities to use a specific drug. I can only hope that there are no financial incentives in the UK, for hospitals and care facilities to use Midazolam. To date I have no evidence of this but it of course remains to be seen as further investigations are made.

It was clear to both Dr Ardis and I when we talked, that Midazolam seems to have been used to the same effect in the UK, as Remdesivir has in the US. But who in the UK recommended that Midazolam be used to treat Covid along with opioids?

In the interview I take Dr Ardis through the weeks before the House of Commons meeting, the oral evidence of which has been widely shared in the UK, and which alludes to the large 2-year order of Midazolam made by the UK government in March 2020, which of course was later confirmed in a 2020 Pharmaceutical Journal article. I explain that it was in fact NICE who recommended the Midazolam and Opioid treatment programme for Covid, and that this was supported by both the GMC and the BMJ.  Dr Ardis confirmed what I already knew, and which is surely obvious to anyone with any level of medical knowledge, and that is that there is NO anti-viral benefit to using Midazolam and Opioids for Covid. In fact I presented documentation to Dr Ardis, in the form of an open letter from 11 highly regarded doctors and professors, which confirms that alternative treatments could have been considered.

As you watch the interview it is worth remembering that to date the UK’s medical agencies refuse to recommend early anti-viral treatment for Covid in the form of Hydroxychloroquine coupled with Zinc and Azithromycin, shown to work by Zr Zelenko under his “Zelenko Protocol”, the success of which he shared in March and April 2020 (details HERE, HERE and HERE),  refuse to recommend Ivermectin (details on study HERE,) and refuse to acknowledge the benefits of other cheap and effective early treatments such as early high dose Vitamin D and Quercetin coupled with other cheap anti-viral medications. All of these drugs SAVE lives whereas you will see in the interview, Midazolam and Opioids depress respiration when used in combination, and can lead to death.

Over the past 22 months, the primary focus of the UK health agencies in 2020 (and still to date), has been on recommending dangerous respiratory depressing drugs. Now of course there is also a focus on an MRNA gene therapy, which is catastrophically damaging and killing people in the UK, if the governments yellow card data is anything to go by.

I have reproduced some of the key documents from my interview with Dr Ardis below, for your own use, and I have included some minor commentary of my own about them. I have also attached the PowerPoint presentation that I sent to Dr Ardis at the end of this post. Before you look through the documents and the PowerPoint, given that the guidance to use Midazolam and Opioids came from NICE, I really feel it is worth taking a quick look at who NICE proclaim to be. It is also worth reviewing how long NICE guidance usually takes to be written, reviewed, and published.

Background on NICE

NICE is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is an agency of the National Health Service and develops guidance and recommendations on the effectiveness of treatments and medical procedures.

NICE works closely with system partner organisations including NHS England and NHS Improvement, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Care Quality Commission, NHSX, NHS Digital, Public Health England, Health Education England, the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the Local Government Association, ADASS, ADCS, the royal colleges and devolved administrations. NICE International provides global support to help other countries improve their nation’s health and wellbeing, representing the UK on the world stage. They collaborate with international health organisations, ministries and government agencies to make health and care decisions.

NICE guidance is relevant to charities, voluntary and community organisations, residential care homes, private sector employers, patients, carers, service users and the public as well as the NHS and local government. NICE provide support for all these groups to put their recommendations into practice.

NICE claims to be an independent organisation but in truth it seems to be anything but once you look into its structure. On this page HERE you will see the quote “Our Structure – The structure of the organisation and how we work with the government”. Following the link to the “Our Structure” page HERE, and then clicking “Find out more about how we develop guidelines” takes you to a page HERE from which is it clearly stated that  “Topics are referred to NICE from the following organisations”:

  • Healthcare topics: NHS England
  • Public health topics: Department of Health and Social Care
  • Social care topics: Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education.

A copy of the NICE framework is HERE which you can go through at your leisure. As you will see at Clause 4.1 “The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the health system (its “steward”), including NICE”.

All the above information points to NICE not being independent at all. It is clearly part of the UK government, (NICE is funded by and accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care) and operates as an agency of the NHS. Further, and worryingly, given that it does not appear to be an independent organisation, the reach of NICE is extremely wide ranging given their guidance is implemented not only in hospitals, but in GP practices, and care homes and community organisations, along with others, and extends internationally.

It is with all the above in mind, that we must ask the question “Are the UK government, via the Department of Health and Social Care, responsible in any way for NICE guideline NG163, which appears, following our legal teams review of expert evidence in the cases we are dealing with, to have led to the hastening of the deaths of the individuals concerned, by recommending the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the “treatment” of Covid 19?” This question will become relevant as you read on further and watch my interview with Dr Ardis.

Documents discussed in interview

NICE NG163

This document is tricky to find, very tricky. If you search for it on the NICE website, you will reach a page that states that this guidance has been updated by NG191, which supersedes it. There is no library copy of NG163 for you to look at.

I found NG163 some time ago and given that I was shocked by the recommendations in it, saved it, along with multiple other documents which have since come to light and are relevant to the Midazolam issue. Those of us dealing with legal cases in front of us have referred to and used NG163 many times when looking at the circumstances of each case. It is fair to say that in those cases we believe that NG163 has directly led to the incorrect use of a protocol which we call “the death pathway”. I now sadly call NG163 the “death document” and we have as a team come to the conclusion that where the word “pathway” appears in any medical recommendations, this is normally a cause for concern.

You can read NG163 yourself by clicking HERE

When you read NG163, note the date – 3rd April 2020. This was less than 2 weeks after the UK entered lock down. Even if we concede that NICE, via the government, were working on treatment guidelines from January 2020, when early reports of Covid 19 were circulating around the world, that would have given NICE only 3 months to formulate the guidance in NG163. It is inconceivable that NICE could have the evidence and effectiveness information about the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the treatment of breathlessness and anxiety in Covid 19, within this time frame.

Whilst it may be true, and some people will accept, that some urgency was needed to prepare guidelines for the treatment of Covid 19, I do not think that it can be believed that a blanket approach to using respiratory depressing medications for anyone with Covid 19 – an alleged respiratory depressing disease – makes medical sense, in all but the severest of cases, where a person is clearly in the last hour or minutes of life, and severely distressed as a result. As NG163 clearly states, Midazolam did not have a UK marketing licence to be used for breathlessness or agitation at the date of its publication. If prescribed for the same, it would therefore be regarded as being used off label. My PowerPoint explains the extra requirements placed on anyone prescribing a medicine off label, and I recommend you look at that information for yourself. You should also consider the consistent refusal by the UK health agencies to allow prescribing off label for other cheap anti-viral drugs to treat Covid.

Below is a useful graphic taken from an official NICE PowerPoint in 2014 explaining how long NICE guidance takes to get written, agreed and published.

Its clear it does not take 2,3,4, or 5 weeks. It takes 29 months. Something to bear in mind going forward given that most of clinical practice revolves around NICE “guidance” – one body, that is stated as “independent”, (it’s clearly not) driving through “best practice” in medicine.

In my opinion there is always something sinister about an overarching body telling people how they should do things. Is does not allow for free thinking and individual decisions and is a very good indicator of group think.

General Medical Council (GMC) joint statement – 14th April 2020

I mention this document in the interview and it is also worth reviewing for yourself.

The GMC regulates doctors in the United Kingdom. They set standards, hold a register, quality assure education and investigate complaints. They are in the fact the body who tried to have Dr Adil struck off from practising for speaking out about his concerns during lockdown, and who tried to have Dr Sam White never post on social media again, after he spoke out about masks and vaccination concerns. In both cases the GMC lost. Dr Adil now has his license back, and Dr Sam White can now use social media again.

On 14th April the GMC put out a “Joint statement: Community-based prescribing for COVID-19 symptoms” which you can find HERE.

The joint statement irrefutably supports the NICE guidance in NG163 and clearly states: –

  • “We want practitioners to know that it is entirely appropriate to follow these guidelines and that we would not have concerns about prescribing decisions based upon them

And

  • “NICE guidance is clear that sedation and opioid use should not be withheld through fear of causing respiratory depression”.

It is incongruous to me to say the least that the GMC would put out a statement effectively telling clinicians to have “no concerns” and not to withhold respiratory depressing drugs for a so called respiratory depressing disease.

BMJ statement – 20th April 2020

On 20th April 2020 the BMJ published a copy of the NG163 guidelines, (which you can find HERE), I assume because they supported the same and supported the GMC joint statement, but also to alert practitioners to the guidance in NG163. Interestingly on the last page of the BMJ article it states that the BMJ article has not been externally peer reviewed.

PowerPoint presentation

In case it will be of use to anyone reading this post or watching the interview, I have attached a copy of my PowerPoint presentation below. Just click the big red button.

Other

I do now recommend that anyone reading this post reviews our recent legal basics document about Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare (click here for more information), and also that you keep a look out for our Lasting Power of Attorney campaign which will give information about how to make a Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare, a document which allows you to appoint someone to make treatment decisions for you, if you become unable to make them yourself in the future. Information about medicines, medical interventions, along with advocacy at this time, are, I believe, key.