Jacqui Deevoy - Playing God: An Investigation into Medical Democide in the UK

Show Notes and Transcript

We are delighted to be joined by Jacqui Deevoy to discuss her latest documentary film "Playing God," which exposes medical genocide in the UK and sheds light on healthcare injustices. 
She highlights involuntary euthanasia, emphasizing the need for justice in cases of malpractice, and calls for transparency and ethical standards in healthcare. 
Jacqui delivers an important message and urges Hearts of Oak followers and supporters to engage in conversations that hope to promote a meaningful change in the system.

Jacqui Deevoy has been a writer and journalist for over three decades, working mainly for women’s magazines and national newspapers. 
Since 2020, she has been writing mainly for the alternative media. In 2021, Jacqui made her first film ‘A Good Death?’ with Ickonic. Her second film, ‘Playing God’, which was crowdfunded by the public was released on in April 2024.

Connect with Jacqui...
WEBSITE                    jacquideevoy.com
X/TWITTER                twitter.com/JacquiDeevoy1
                                    twitter.com/PlayingGodUK

Watch 'Playing God'  ukcolumn.org/video/playing-god

Recorded  2.5.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
X/TWITTER                 twitter.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE                     heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS                 heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA           heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP                           heartsofoak.org/shop/

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on X twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin 

TRANSCRIPT

(Hearts of Oak)

And today I'm delighted to be joined by someone who I've had the pleasure of watching a lot on Twitter, bumped into once, but never had on, and that's Jacqui Deevoy.

Jacqui, thank you so much for your time today.

(Jacqui Deevoy)

Thank you for inviting me on to Hearts of Oak.

It's great to have you, and people obviously will know you from all different things from your Twitter handle, but also from Unity News Network.

You started writing, I was looking at your bio, back in the 80s for teen magazines and then women's magazines.

You've had articles published in all of newspapers, in the Mail, the Telegraph, the Sun, the Express and many of the women's magazines.

And I want to get into all that, but we're going to talk about this film, which you have written and produced and you have presented, and that is Playing God.

Playing God, an investigation into medical genocide in the UK.

It is a very hard-hitting film, very honest film, and captures the lives of individuals whose lives have been utterly destroyed with the death of family members. And it gives the personal stories behind the facts and the data and the stats, I think, which we often see.

And we're just going to play a clip of it; here is the trailer:

In the last 30 years, you can see good evidence that the National Health Service has become a killing machine.

Elizabeth was killed off after I was criminally assaulted and made to have my baby two months early for absolutely no reason at all.

You can imagine the trauma of watching your perfectly healthy partner of 21 years just die.

In his medication chart it appears he had midazolam and morphine two days after he died.

Now I want to know what happened with my steward.

When you go to a hospital like a national health hospital, you go there to be cured.

You don't go there to die.

The moment they go into hospital, they're being put onto these hospital protocols, which dictate which drugs, which treatment they're going to receive.

And it's a one-size-fits-all blanket policy.

Once procedures are put into a protocol, it becomes a straitjacket.

They're literally killing people at the moment.

She was in no pain, there was no shortness of breath, yet she was on six or seven different forms of medication We hadn't known about these side effects. There was nothing in the paperwork that he was given.

The night nurse just pumped him with midazolam and morphine.

Helena Bai was the first fatal case of the drug Epilim.

These big pharmaceutical companies are money-making businesses.

They're not healthcare companies.

That's what we're dealing with, a money-making, potentially fraudulent, certainly historically criminal enterprise.

And then children are also a market for unlicensed medications.

It's the luck of the draw whether they benefit or it's causation of death.

The CQC said they were doing an investigation, but NHS England stopped it. Those two doctors were playing God.

They were killing people.

She suffered much.

She died needlessly.

She could have been saved, but she was murdered, by the state.

I know people can get the full show, the full film, which is, I think, in our 10 minutes, and that is in the description.

So, whether you're watching any of the platforms, listening on Podbean or the podcasting apps, you can click that and watch it.

Now, maybe we'll start, Jacqui; your work, I think I looked on the Daily Telegraph and you'd written articles in 2020.

I think you'd written one in 2021, a joint article, fewer suffering as much as care home residents.

Why can't we hug our relatives?

And then your time there finished.

That probably seems like a world away, but do you want to just touch on some of your journalism background and maybe how that came to an end?

I assume as you became vocal about what you were seeing.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's actually come to an end. I'm still working as a journalist, and I still aim to get my articles into the mainstream newspapers, into the mainstream media, because I think that the people we need to reach the most are the people who actually read the papers and watch the TV.

But I think a lot of the papers have got a bit fed up with me over the last few years because mainly because I've been trying to um get them to publish stories that are counter narrative. um government narrative and they don't seem to want to do that.

I realized that back in 2020, when I think the first thing I discovered, I mean I knew the whole thing was nonsense anyway anyway, because I've been, you know, following all sort of, that kind of stuff, world agendas for many decades.

But the first thing I noticed was that time when the government decided that the coronavirus, as they used to call it back then, was not a high consequence disease.

And they published this on the government website.

So, I was alerted to this and thought 'oh well that's really good news for most people out there who are scared and worried.'

So, I contacted a lot of newspapers and said, 'hey why don't we run a story' just just to reassure people that it's not a serious thing that'll blow over it in a couple of weeks and none of the papers wanted to run that story strangely, so I actually gave it to an alternative news site they were called News Punch at the time.

And they're now called The People's Voice and they ran it.

A lot of people did see it, but again, you know, it's quite echo chambery, isn't it, sometimes when you're putting stuff out on social media, and not everyone sees it.

The people that you want to see it don't often see it, but it was seen by a lot of people.

And the next story I tried to get out there was about DNRs, because my dad was in a care home in 2020, and I found out that he had a DNR on him; on his notes.

Which is a do not resuscitate, so allowed to die.

Yeah, I'd vaguely heard about them before but it never affected me in a personal way and I thought hang on isn't this when someone is eternally ill and then I kind of remembered my mum had been in a hospice and they had do not resuscitate orders on all the doors of the hospice, I remember.

I thought why has my dad got one of those he hasn't got a terminal illness he was recovering from a stroke and I I was aiming to get him out of the care home when he was better even though the care home manager when I first booked him in, I said 'oh, I'll probably pick him up and get him in a few months get him back home again.

And she went 'oh, no, people don't usually go home after they've been in here.'

He's like, really?

I was telling my dad that I mean my dad apparently had vascular dementia caused by the stroke but he was pretty compos mentis.

I was telling my dad about that story and he said: 'no it's true he said you walk in and you go out the back; he said you walk in the front door and then you go out the back door in a box.'

And he was actually right, most of the people that did go in there didn't ever leave alive and then especially after what we discovered was happening.

All the more reason that they didn't leave alive.

I was more determined than ever to get to get him out.

And some of the stories that the Telegraph did run of mine revolved around that.

So, I think the first one, they liked me writing about care homes, but they didn't really want me to write about anything else.

I wrote this, I did pitch the DNR story to the features editor at the time at the Telegraph and he commissioned it, and liked it.

And a few weeks went by and I said, are you going to run the story?

He said: ‘so, basically I'd spoken to a whistle-blower doctor at that point who told me that DNRs were being put on everyone coming into hospital over 60.

They were being put on people with physical disabilities, people with terminal illnesses, people with even mental health issues, like schizophrenia, people with autism.’

So, this was all revealed in this article and also about the blanket DNRs that were being put on people in care homes.

So, a few weeks went by and I said, when are you going to run the story?

And they said, oh, 'we're actually not going to run it now.'

So, I didn't really say why, but they rarely do.

And so I thought, well, that's a bit strange.

So, again, I got that published on an alternative site and it went out to a lot of people, but not the right people again.

You know, that they were the first two stories but yeah the ones that they did like were about me getting my dad out of the care home; I did a kind of series of four.

I think that last one you mentioned was the fourth one, but the first one was about me; a window visits, I think the first one was about and the second one, and how tragic that was, and how I couldn't leave my dad in that situation and how nobody should be in that situation.

It was like prison visits, it was awful, really awful.

And my dad was actually getting really depressed and actually quite suicidal.

He was saying to me things like through the window, what's the point of being alive if this is what it's gonna be like?

He wasn't old, my dad was 76 at this point in time.

I then decided to get him out of the care home.

People were saying, it's not possible, you're not going to be able to do it.

The care home staff initially said, no, you can't take him home.

That's not allowed.

And I was saying, well, you can't stop me, because I accused them of false imprisonment.

I said, I'd take them to court for false imprisonment and violation of his human rights and my human rights.

And strangely, they had him ready to take home the next day.

Yeah, my second article um along on that subject was um about how difficult it was to look after an elderly parent at home on your own.

I didn't think I hadn't thought it through basically, so I got him back to his house and I thought, 'well I'm gonna have to stay with him now and and look after him.'

After a couple of weeks it was just getting impossible so, because he's a bit quite a bit bigger than me and that was quite hard like just like getting him in and out of the shower and stuff like that.

I'd never done anything like that before either, and it's quite embarrassing, really, for him and for me initially.

You know, you get used to it very quickly, though, taking someone to the toilet and helping them wash, but it was too much, really, for me anyway.

And, yeah, so I got him a carer, and he had a carer for the next year until he sadly died in a most horrible way but that is a separate story I think.

So, all this was happening while I was making a film with Iconic called A Good Death.

That came about, because I was trying to take this story to lots of papers about the euthanasia that was going on in hospitals.

So, this is something I discovered along the way, because I'd been on a couple of podcasts with people talking about what was happening in care homes, that a lot of elderly people seem to be dying quite suddenly in mysterious circumstances.

And then someone came to me and said that their relative had been killed in an NHS setting.

And he had proof.

He had a big file of proof.

I had a look at it and thought, well, you know, this is undeniable that this has happened.

We need to do something about it.

I started speaking out about that.

More people came to me.

At the point when I had about 16 people with very similar stories.

I took the story to the newspapers saying, you know, this needs to get out there.

And I had meetings with two editors and face-to-face meetings.

And after they looked at the evidence, they were absolutely gobsmacked.

And they were like, this is massive.

This needs to be front page news, headline news.

It's the biggest story of the century almost.

I don't know if they actually said that, but they implied that it was a massive story.

And and then they took their copies of the evidence away with them and then over the period of the next few weeks they kind of stopped talking to me.

One of them actually interviewed some of the 16 people he came back to me and said: "yeah I've spoken to them there's not enough evidence really come back when someone's gone to court and won and then we'll consider running a story, but we can't run it now."

The other guy said, ‘oh, I'm a bit busy now, I'll pass it on to someone else, they'll be in touch.’

And then it just, they just disappeared, basically.

They've never really spoken to me since.

So, in any kind of depth.

And one, I do tag him in a lot of things on Twitter, but he's never responded to any of that.

I think he's stopped working in journalism.

I think he works for some pharmaceutical company or something like That's an even better reason to contact me.

I mean, how did the film come together?

It's a difficult-to-watch film because it is –.

You hear people's raw emotion and grief as you're as you're watching it.

It's very well shot and put together, because I think it's essential to tell a story you need to do it well, and you need to have a level of professionalism and certainly kudos to you and the others for for doing that and putting it together.

How did the conversation come around you had heard a number of these stories and you've got difficulty getting the information out.

So, how did the conversations to come and actually the beginning of this coming together?

Yes, so if you're talking about a good death, because this was back in 2021.

Jamie Icke from Iconic came to me and said he knew that I was having trouble getting this story out and he said, why don't we make it into a documentary?

So, that's what we did, we started filming in September and it was finished by December.

So, it's been out for, well, almost three years now and it's been seen by hundreds of thousands of people, I would say, maybe even millions.

I don't know exponentially people share it.

It's on iconic.com if people want to see it.

It's also on Rumble on the Iconic channel.

So, that's the first film.

And obviously after that film, I had more and more people then approaching me.

So, I'd set up a little group at the beginning of 2021 just to keep all the people involved in the film in one place.

And so I had about 16 people in the group to start with and I've kept that group going as a support group and it's now got 142 people in it.

And they've all got horrendous stories, absolutely horrendous, stories about what's how their loved ones were murdered in NHS settings in hospices care homes and hospitals, and the stories are just unbelievable, and I can completely understand how people don't want to listen to them and don't want to believe it because you don't expect your loved one to go into a care home or hospital and be murdered which is what's happening.

We kind of sugar-coat it slightly by calling it involuntary euthanasia but involuntary euthanasia I don't know why that phrase really exists because that is murder if someone is being.

Euthanized being being killed against their will, surely that's murder.

I can't see why it's called anything else.

When you mention euthanasia people generally think, oh that's you that's you can go off to that place in Switzerland you know and and have yourself put down if you're terminally ill or ancient or both.

But that's not that's voluntary euthanasia which is a very different thing.

I don't think that's a good thing either, but involuntary euthanasia is something else altogether, and it carries the same prison sentence as murder up to life in imprisonment.

If you help someone kill themselves that carries up to 14 years in prison so it is a crime in this country.

It's not legal, it's unlawful, and it's a crime, and anyone who does it should pay the price.

But if you or I did it to a loved one; if we drugged a loved one to death no matter what state they were in, whether they were terminally ill or not, we would be arrested, and probably jailed, but when a doctor or nurse does it seems to be okay, and and I don't really understand that.

It's not right and the stories I've heard about these medics who've been carrying out this crime are just horrendous.

They're just unbelievable.

It's almost like…
It's hard to believe that doctors and nurses could be that heartless and cruel and murderous, but I don't think it's all doctors and nurses at all. I'd say 95% of them are absolutely brilliant, you know, but there was this kind of strange death squad that I am starting to believe were actually hired specifically to do this work, because the people I've spoken to, the relatives and friends of victims.

The way they've described them, they're not like your average doctor or nurse.

They're cold and they're sadistic and they're unpleasant.

Sometimes they won't even speak.

Some have been reported not to have any identification or name badges.

They've been very hard to trace afterwards in some cases.

It's very, very strange, and I'm starting to wonder if these people haven't been brought in to do this, because your average nurse or carer or doctor wouldn't be able to do that; that's not why they're doing their job.

They're doing their job to help people not to kill them.

I think a lot of us are more open and questioning than I think we were four years ago.

Certainly this to me actually I've begun to ask questions I think it was Wayne Cunnington putting up stories of how his mum had died and then it seemed to be that she was killed.

And I know there's a massive push this week, I know, parliament were pushing once again to bring in legislation, so individuals can be killed off assisted suicide.

Killing however you want to term it and I passed one of the demos actually against that and our politicians by and large are rushing towards ' actually we need to end life, we need to kill people,' but the the term you use in it is an investigation into medical democide which is the intentional killing of an individual by the state by the government.

And many people may think, actually that's a very strong term, surely this is just failings in the system.

How do you go from, it's not just failings in the system, it's not just the collapse of the NHS, which you've seen, it's actually intentional killing, because that is quite a difference.

You're talking about the new film now, Playing God.

Playing God, yeah.

That was released in April, so just a couple of weeks ago, and it is as you say, an investigation into medical genocide in the UK over the last 50 years.

It's very different to the first film, it's formed very differently and it's much broader, we're looking at all kinds of deaths.

If you watch the film and listen to the people speaking, the people who've lost loved ones to democide, you'll understand what it's about.

So, we're looking at people who've lost loved ones in drug trials.

One woman has been fighting for justice for her 12-year-old daughter since 1978, so coming up for 50 years.

She herself is 90 now.

Joan Bye, she speaks in the film about her daughter, Helenor, who they used in a drug trial for a drug called Epilim, which was an epilepsy drug.

The child didn't even have epilepsy.

They just used her because she was there.

And she died as a result.

And Joan's story is absolutely horrifying.

It's heart-breaking, but it's also horrifying.

I don't want to go into too much detail, but they did have to have five funerals for Helenor, because they found her body parts in five different locations.

A shocking.

Then we have um a story of um Elizabeth and Graham Dixon's daughter, Elizabeth, she was a one-year-old baby when she died.

Terrible malpractice negligence, absolute awful things happened.

They described that in great detail in in the film.

So, then we cover a vaccine, I don't want to call it a vaccine, a jab death from the COVID jab.

That's Vicky, and she talks about the loss of her partner who had the jab and died shortly after.

Again, another shocking story.

We have Elena as well, whose 54-year-old husband was executed, shall we say.

He was euthanized in front of her in a hospital.

And finally, Stephen and his sister Deborah, who tell about the euthanization of their mother, who was perfectly healthy.

She was just grieving the loss of her husband, who'd just died 12 days before she was killed in hospital.

And she just wasn't feeling well, generally.

So, she She went to hospital to be checked out, and within days she was also euthanized.

So, these stories are absolutely unbelievable, but I think when you see the people telling them and see the grief and the suffering that these killings have caused, you will believe it.

I mean, it is hard to believe just when you hear me talking about it like this, but when you actually see them, you know they're telling the truth.

Because there were a number of the stories; one was the couple with the very young child, I think it was, and being in one hospital and then moving to different and things started changing.

And it makes you wonder where as you mentioned there are individuals, whether there are certain hospitals that that participate in this which many do not because if it's all fine in one they said everything was going okay then they were transferred suddenly things changed and the first wouldn't take the child back.

It does seem to be that there are particular hospitals, particular venues, that are maybe selected to allow this to happen.

Well, over the last um three years, I've been trying to find a pattern, and trying to find a reason, any kind of pattern.

I've been looking at that, is it certain hospitals?

It doesn't seem to be although, there do seem to be quite a few in Liverpool which is quite interesting, because that's where the Liverpool care pathway originated.

So, and there was that scandal, the the old hay hospital, wasn't there, years ago.

Yeah, so quite a few seem to be in the Liverpool region, but I haven't got a big enough sample really to say whether that's a coincidence or not.

I was looking at the ages of the patients, the sort of financial situation of them, because a lot of people believe this euthanasia is to do with saving money, especially on the elderly with pensions and hospital stays that a lot of them seem to have, you know.

But I can't really see any real pattern in my group, which is my sample, really.

I've spoken to hundreds of more people as well, but not everyone wants to join a support group.

I can't see a pattern, I mean, I could say most of them are elderly, and I could say almost all of them are not terminally ill.

Their financial statuses differ, their backgrounds differ, some are wealthy, some aren't.

I have noticed most of them are white, that is something I have noticed.

I don't know if that's relevant or not, again that might just be a coincidence.

But yeah, I can't see any pattern as yet, so for it to be random is also strange,

So yeah, I don't really, I can't say at this stage.

I think that would take decades to work out and as with all scandals, this scandal will probably take decades to come to the mainstream as well, because they're still not interested.

Only a few months ago I emailed them all again.

I've now emailed over 100 editors and staff writers and features editors on newspapers and I regularly just email them and say are you ready to run this story yet and send them the picture again.

And these days I just get tumbleweed.

I get the occasional, maybe some new person in the office, who writes back and goes, 'oh this sounds interesting, tell me more.'

And then I tell them more and then they go completely silent.

It's like someone said, no, you're not allowed to talk about that.

I'm wondering if there's some kind of de-notice on it or some kind of thing,

They've been told not to discuss it.

I've had arguments with them, well, not arguments, but I approached Isabel Oakeshott, I approached Beverly Turner, and...

It results in them blocking me, which is quite strange because I'm never rude.

I just say, would you like to look at my film and then get back to me and see what you think?

Isabel Oakeshott said to me, no matter how much evidence I would provide her, I could provide, she still wouldn't believe it.

So I thought, well, that's not very journalistic of you.

She used to be a journalist, didn't she?

Yeah, I know, that was strange.

So, we had a long conversation on Messenger.

I've never actually spoken to her on the phone or anything, and then out of the blue seemingly, out of the blue, she just blocked me.

I mean, Beverly Turner said she has tried to mention the midazolam stuff, but it's very difficult at GB News to do that and she didn't go into too much detail.

She just said she she doesn't have that kind of power, and she did unblock me after she blocked me, so hopefully she will be able to help at some point.

It's very difficult for me as a journalist to see these people, journalists, doing what they're doing, and working for places that won't let them speak.

Why would you as a journalist work for somewhere that is censoring you?

I don't know, maybe I'm weird because a lot of journalists are working for places that are censoring them, so maybe, you know, and they're a lot richer than me.

But I'd rather live in a tent than do what they do, than lie to the public like that, I just couldn't.

It's like when you talk to James Delingpole and he talks about life prior, and life now.

And realizing that he's a very different person and is now willing to ask difficult questions, but when you, I guess, your you see your role I mean I mean, the role as a journalist is to put a story out and then it lets the public decide.

Or you've got, I guess, a full on investigative piece where you're trying to piece it together.

They're the two ways.

But, I mean, is it for you?

Is it just you're telling the story and then see what happens?

Do you really want to delve into and understand deeper?

Because it's essential that these individuals have their stories told.

That is so important for them, but also the public to hear.

And it's the first time the public will hear many of these stories.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, in the old days, you know, journalists would investigate a story, write it up, the papers would publish it.

And it was the journalist's job to question everything and to try and hold people accountable.

But these days, it's just not like that at all.

The newspapers seem to have become, you know, judge and jury.

Like three years ago, when I was first trying to get the euthanasia story out they were saying, 'well, if you can if you if you can give me a story of somebody who's gone to court and they've won the case then yes we'll look at it.'

And it's like well why can't you just put the story out as it is saying people are saying that this is happening and then your readers can make up their own minds.

How it used to be, but they don't do that anymore, it's it's very frustrating.

Also, a lot of people a lot of the public believe and people I meet who say to me, oh you're a journalist, why don't you publish this and why don't you publish that?

And I said well it's not up to me as a freelance journalist what goes in the paper and they're like isn't it?

So, I said no, no, no, it has to go through a process, and invariably nine stories out of ten that I pitched to them they won't publish these days.

So, where it was at a much better rate back in the day, but now, especially talking about and writing about this kind of stuff, where I want the truth to get out there, they're not interested in that at all, so...

That's why I went on to make the second film, because I teamed up with award-winning directors, Ash and Naeem Mahmood.

And Ash has a channel called Planet Uplift and he interviews lots of people.

So, he had people, he said, need to tell their stories.

I still had people that wanted to speak out as well.

So, when we put them together, we came up with this idea that, you know, of playing God because, you know, the doctors and the courts and the nurses and the paramedics and so many people these days are in positions of power where they can play God.

That's how the film was kind of born, and Ash brought people to the film and I brought people too.

We could have included,50 more people in the film really, because we haven't covered all aspects of Democide side, because it's only an hour long documentary, but you could do part two, part three, part four, easily, you know.

Same with the first film, I would like to do, ' good death, part two,' because because we've got so many people and so many stories and they're still they're still coming to me as well.

It's still happening, although not at the same rate as as far as I can gather, as it was in 2020 and 2021, where people were just being euthanised left, right and centre.

And back in April 2020, you were mentioning earlier about the assisted dying bill that they're trying to push.

Matt Hancock in particular has been, you know, dragged out from under his stone to come and, you know, push that again.

He used to be against assisted dying and then in 2020, he did a big turnaround of opinion and decided he was all for it.

And you have to ask now, why have they been pushing it so heavily and so hard since 2020?

I think it's because they want to, once it's in place, and I think it will be passed at some point in the near future, because the way they're selling it, they're making it sound quite attractive, but it's a slippery slope.

And we could end up like Canada, where people are now being euthanized; they could just be poor, or they could be not feeling great or depressed.

I mean, I do know one person who actually was euthanized in Switzerland because they were depressed in 2020.

But it's just awful, it's not the solution.

It is the final solution, but it's not a solution.

There are other ways to get people past these terrible points in their lives.

And most people believe that the people who choose to be euthanized are terminally ill, but that's not always the case, and with the involuntary euthanasia that we've been seeing, I don't think any of the people in my group did their relatives were terminally ill.

I don't think; no, not I can remember.

The vast majority are not terminally ill, let's put it that way and the vast majority are not old either.

Well, a large percentage of them aren't old.

Well, it's like obviously in it's happening in Belgium as well, and they've got some of the worst legislation that if you're a teenager and you feel depressed that day you can kill yourself.

Not really the solution for a teenager feeling down in the dumps, but I mean is it because,

The government expected to push this through quite a while ago.

I remember being involved 10 years ago with demonstrations outside parliament where the government trying kind of force it, and are hell-bent on forcing this through.

And is it that actually the government the NHS decide actually we're just going to start on this.

We will produce I guess polling that shows the public are in favor therefore that that covers us and because they're doing something which is not legal and the individuals don't have a say.

If there is a conversation about, you know, if someone decides after six months that they want to end their life, I don't agree with that.

But that is a conversation.

But this is about people having zero say and simply being their life taken, being killed by another person.

They don't have a choice in that.

And to me, that's the most dangerous part.

And whatever the legislation says when it does come in, which it will come in, whatever it says, that's irrelevant to what will happen, because it's a massive slippery slope.

But yeah, how do you see the NHS doing this?

Well, it's not legal, but the government are clamouring for it to come into law.

Well, as a lot of newspaper editors said to me when I first started pitching this story, they were saying, well, we all kind of know this goes on in hospitals and care homes.

We all know that when someone's very old and very ill, that they get a little bit of helping hand at the end.

And they're given the end of life drugs and they're put on these care pathways, which are actually death pathways.

We all know that goes on, and I said, yes, we do.

And we also know that it's illegal and that it shouldn't be happening.

No one has got the right to hasten another person's death.

No one's got the right to end a life, no matter how ill or old that person is, even if they're terminally ill.

No one's got the right to do that, yet it's happening all the time, and that's bad enough, but when it extends to then killing people who aren't ill real or old.

I don't where's that going to end.

I don't know if you saw the film, Logan's Run, back in the 70s.

It's a sci-fi film where everyone's life ends at 30 and it's something that they all really look forward to.

It's a big celebration, and they go on this carousel thing and basically they're just blown up into smithereens but it's like a big celebration.

And Logan's run is about a man called Logan and a girl who's played by Jenny Agata, who was every every boy's fantasy back in the day, and they realize it's not a good system and they try to escape.

Everyone when they're born gets a kind of watch thing put on their wrist with a countdown to to the day when they're 30 and they can actually celebrate, there was a word for it, something like rejuvenation or renewal or something like that when they actually die.

But, yeah, it's a really interesting film, and it's like we're heading towards that kind of system where I think once the assisted dying bill is passed.

There then will be age limits put in place, I'm sure.

I don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, but maybe in our grandchildren's, children's, or grandchildren's life lifetime we might where you have to die at a certain age, you know, because we're going to be costing too much.

And then they'll be bigging it up like it's a good thing.

It's something that people will look forward to and and celebrate .

It's totally warped and inverted to the way life should be um you know that death is a sad a bad thing.

Although, obviously some cultures do celebrate it, but like no life should be ended artificially and to drug someone to death is one of the most horrific ways of killing someone.

These drugs that they've been using on people are used in many states in the US for executions, exactly the same drugs and in fact some states have banned those drugs, because the method is too barbaric, yet they're still using this horrible method on innocent people in care homes and hospitals all over the world.

So, I was going to say as well, back in April 2020, a protocol was put in place, NG163, which must have been handed down from the WHO.

Matt Hancock got his hands on it , he decided to get a panel of doctors and professors to look at it.

They had a look they said, 'no you can't use this.'

They wrote a letter to the BMJ stating that this protocol NG163 should not be used, because it will kill people; that's still available online you can see that letter on the BMJ.

One of the the signatories is Dr. Sam Amadzi, so you could probably look that up and it would it will pop up.

Matt Hancock basically said thank you very much and implemented it anyway, so even though you know he'd been advised not to put it in place he did.

And Matt Hancock also said in the COVID inquiry that he wanted to be the one who decided who should live and who should die.

If that's not someone with a God complex, I don't know what is.

He was playing God in a massive way or wanted to, but the people who were actually playing God were the doctors and nurses who were prescribing and administering these end of life drugs.

What what about because when I when I talked to Wayne and he said the difficulty he had of getting the the medical records from his from his mom, and only when he got that did he realize what had taken place.

Have you had those conversations with people about getting those records, because that proves what happens, but maybe they've suddenly disappeared or not available anymore.

It's bonkers that you have to fight legally to actually get the medical records of your loved ones, but kind of how does that come in this film and the people you've spoken to?

It's pretty shocking, because it takes a long time to get them, that's not accidental, you know.

And then a lot of people I know who've finally got the records after months and sometimes years of chasing them, they're redacted.

A lot of it is redacted, a lot of it has missing pages.

One person, I think Was sent you know a few pages of notes, but when she got a lawyer onto the case there was like a thousand pages of notes.

So, they actually hide a lot from the families and make it very very difficult for them to get the information and then I don't know how they're allowed to redact information, but one person you know got all the notes and there's just big black stripes through most of it, you know.

So, I don't know how they're even allowed to do that and it's obviously why they're doing it, because they're hiding what they've been doing.

I don't really understand why some people's notes are redacted but other people's are actually...

Maybe it's they just don't have the time to do it or something and it's or it slips through because a lot of people have found out, like Wayne, found out so much from the notes that they didn't know before.

You know, even more horrific than they imagined.

It's all there you know, So I don't know why some slip through and some actually don't, but it makes you wonder you know what is actually in the redacted notes.

It must be must be pretty terrible what they're hiding.

Yeah, know completely .

Can I just end off and asking about the big forum in the drugs companies these because obviously Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson have made a shed load of money from these jabs in the last four years, but at the flip side some of them mean talk about midazolam, but that's a generic drug so they're not necessarily making money.

You begin to ask what role the pharmaceutical industry have and obviously in America they're one of the biggest lobby groups on Capitol Hill.

I think maybe less here, but of course we don't have the same lobby power of organizations as as they do in the states, but where do kind of drug companies fit in to this is it failing simply in the NHS or groups within it actually passing this or do the pharmaceutical industries do; they have a part to play in this.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean they They're pretty much controlling the whole thing, aren't they?

They're developing the drugs, they're doing the trials.

They're using people in the trials, in experiments, and they're paying people.

They're making a lot of money, but they're also paying a lot of money to the people who are administering the drugs so not the nurses particularly but GPs doctors; they they get massive commissions for prescribing these drugs with you know whether it's midazolam or any sort of drug.

They get money for doing that.

Yeah, it is all about the money ultimately and the the big pharmaceutical companies have all the power.

I mean even the The big ones like Pfizer, who've been fined many, many times.

I think Pfizer had the biggest fine ever, $2.3 billion or something they were fined.

They just pay it and carry on.

You know, it's like no skin off their nose.

They got that much money, They don't care.

They don't care who dies as a result, and they don't care if they get fined.

I don't know how they're allowed to continue to operate after such a huge fine, but they are.

So, it's very difficult for the little person to get any kind of justice because they're all in it together, they all close ranks as well, as far down as the police, the courts, the coroners and the pharmaceutical companies.

That hey all close ranks at the hospitals and stop people getting justice.

These people as well, these big companies have a bottomless pit of money.

If a small person is trying to sue, it's almost impossible to to keep up, because you'll run out of money at some point, even if you're wealthy.

Or you'll want to run out of energy, or time, or you might you might die, you might get ill in the process, a lot of people do get ill when they're involved in these sort of really traumatic sort of cases, and that's what they're hoping.

They, you know, the enemy is hoping that those things will happen to you, because you'll stop bothering them.

And I've known people who started going down the legal route and they've had to stop,because they've run out of money or because it's making them ill or because they just can't.

Yeah, it's very difficult.

We've got some brave people who are doing it in the background and they're fighting and I hope they're gonna win, and when they do it's gonna be a whole different story.

One other thing, but I just want to ask you about the response you've had from medical professionals, because my conversations with David Cartland, and he's one of the few, and it does seem as though most others are worried.

And in one way, you understand that, because you don't want to throw away your career, but if you're seen killing, then surely as a human being, you need to respond.

But have you had responses or people contacting you from medical community saying, actually, this is what we have seen, or have the majority been from individuals whose loved ones have been killed?

Very few medical professionals have come forward and spoken to me; the ones that have are terrified.

They're not sure whether they want to speak to me or not, but they feel they feel they have to say something, in fact I'm having a phone conversation this afternoon with somebody who's actually tried to speak out and been targeted and has got into trouble with the police and stuff.

It's terrifying when you're trying to do this on your own and no-one's backing you up.

I was trying to write an article for News  Uncut recently.

I wanted to investigate all the dancing nurses.

So I thought, well, it shouldn't be too difficult to speak to some of the nurses to say, you know, what were these dances about?

You know, how did you have time to do them?

They all look a bit weird, you know, can you tell me about it?

Couldn't find anyone.

I could find nurses who'd say, 'no, we would never have been able to do something like that, we wouldn't have been allowed.'

You know, you can't do that in a hospital.

But nobody has come forward and said, yes, we choreographed a dance and we did it and we got professional team filmmakers in to film us on the roof of the hospital with a drone camera, it's like because a lot of these films were very professionally produced.

And I couldn't find anyone who admitted to being involved in a dance like that, which then leads you to believe that they were actors.

They were hired to do these weird rituals in the hospital corridors.

For what reason, I don't know?

And in the same way, when it comes to trying to get people to talk about something even more serious like euthanasia.

Well, firstly they're worried that they'll get into trouble if they come forward and speak out publicly and the ones that have done that have got into trouble have lost their jobs.

It's just and and how many of them are going to come forward and say, 'yeah I actually killed quite a few people.'

They're probably in denial about it.

The lawyer in my film Anna, she's spoken to a lot of medics who are traumatized by what they've been through and what they've seen, but as far as I know we haven't had any confessions yet, we haven't had anyone come forward to say, 'yes, I administered those those fatal drugs.'

For example, people who've who know that their loved ones were euthanized, they can't find the names of the the nurses or they can't track them down or if they do have the names of the nurses they just they don't respond.

It's almost impossible to get any kind of response from the hospital, they just say, 'oh he was he was he died of Covid and they did everything they could to save him, and and we gave him the injections to ease the pain and we were trying to help, and then he died.'

It's when you get the more closing ranks like that and and saying we did our best and we definitely didn't kill anyone deliberately why would we we're nurses and doctors, it's very hard to argue.

You know, very hard.

Jacqui, I do appreciate you coming on.

It's a very well put together harrowing film, but I know that any of our viewers, listeners who have seen it will want to pass on if they haven't seen it then all the links are in the description.

I'd encourage the viewers and listeners to please do share it, pass it on.

It's the power of sharing information like this that actually will lead to change. So, Jacqui, once again, thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you, Peter.