Truly shocking.
This is most horrifying interview I’ve ever seen.
(And furthermore, BTW, all of us have been signed up for organ harvesting [delivering profits of £1.5 million per harvest] unless we’ve opted out).
Very interesting - I’ve just watched the first quarter so far, can be watched at 1.5 times normal speed I find.
Regardless of the actual medical condition and treatment, the hospital’s behaviour does seem illegal and most suspicious. Denying a patient proper ID is illegal and risky, and they treated Pamola S with chemo against her wishes.
Marianna Spring, who wants us to stop believing in conspiracies, should stop fuelling them with her own behaviour. If you wonder how we hear little about Pamola Semirani’s father, it’s because he is a doctor - and shares the views of his ex wife on Pamola’s treatment.
In this piece only a month ago Spring writes
She and her ex-husband, Paloma’s father Faramarz Shemirani, wrote to us saying they have evidence “Paloma died as a result of medical interventions given without confirmed diagnosis or lawful consent”. The BBC has seen no evidence to substantiate these claims
That’s the only mention he gets - and he wouldn’t be mentioned at all if he hadn’t written to the BBC along with Kate.
But no mention of “Dr”.
I haven’t checked all this through but it does seem that the coroner in the Shemiranis’ case is indeed a convicted criminal, and if these accounts are accurate that is consistent with the handling of the death.
It’s also consistent, in my limited experience, with a fact of life - that when something is seriously or criminally amiss, all involved dig a deeper hole trying to cover it up.
Such often criminal actions are nevertheless rational behaviour - protecting oneself from litigation etc, and believing - with justification - that the system will protect you, as long as you are on the right side of it.
Kate Shemirani comes across well.and seems to have a ready grasp of events and their details.
The opprobrium heaped on her tells its own tale, as clearly the story has been honed and re-told dishonestly, and changes the focus from a bad system to a “bad person” (see below).
It’s clear from these accounts that Pamola was, on her own behalf, reluctant to take this chemo drug cocktail, which is associated with heart failure - a risk that many might think worthwhile, but which for me needs a lot more quantification before consent can genuinely be called “informed”.
When the BBC says they have seen no evidence of lack of consent they are being deceitful, at best covering their eyes. So…where is that consent form, then?
It can’t be about patient confidentialty - that would be laughable, the way the BBC have steamed in to parade its self-serving and misleading take on Pamola’s death on the world stage.
The “system” extends beyond the hospital and courts.
Look how the media love it. I won’t be giving the Heil so much as a click for this:
ED