3/5 Natural Nurse or Toxic Influence? The Paloma Shemirani Story

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
So Dear Call It Conspiracy.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Welcome to the Son Dear Call It Conspiracy podcast, hosted
by Brentley and Neil Sanders. After nearly twenty years exploring
the world of conspiracy culture, we are taking our guests
and listeners on a guided tour of the rabbit hole,
our mission to discover where the truth lies.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
So, if we remember, in the last episode, we'd seen
that there were certain court statements that were made supposed
by Poloma, that had been published by Kay and I
believe the Sons had both cast doubt over the author
authenticity of it, but also some other people on Twitter

(01:03):
actually did a similar thing. There was a few people
and the thing is, we don't know whether these is true.
We don't know whether it's accurate, but this is something
that was said. So some people basically came on Twitter
and said, I went to school with Paloma, among the
best schools in the country. She was one of the
smartest students, a talented linguist, and got into Cambridge. Reading

(01:24):
the statement K has posted, there's no way Paloma wrote it.
This is surely obvious to anyone with any more than
one brain cell. Somebody else wrote, I attended Paloma's College
in Cambridge before her, and from what I've read, she
was an exceptional student there. I mean no doubt that
someone of a caliber could not have pend the letter herself.

(01:45):
The spelling grammar makes that implausible. So and again it's
very difficult to know what to do with that, because
this is just stuff that has appeared on the Internet
that may not be authentic itself. But what we're here
to do is we're here to chart what's been going
on and people's opinions on all sides. Basically, so if

(02:05):
we remember that Dr Liz o'reardon, the surgeon that deals
with cancer, she'd promoted the fact that she'd been on Panorama,
and she wrote a tweet along the lines of that
Palma had an eighty five percent chances of survival and
it was such a shame that she chose not to
go down that path, and Kay had responded in a

(02:29):
rather aggressive way on Twitter. She then responded again on
Dune the twenty eighth, Kay responds to a tweet from
doctor o'reardon and it was essentially the same tweet advertising
just the fact that she was on Panorama and the
story that was presented on Panorama. This is a lie Liz,
and one of the most damaging and disgraceful accusations that

(02:51):
could be leveled at a mother who has already ensured
the death of her child. Paloma was twenty three years old,
a Cambridge graduate, a polyglote of profound strength, intelligence and independence,
fully capable of making her own medical decisions. She said
no to chemotherapy not because of me, not under pressure,
but because she read the evidence. She reviewed the lack

(03:13):
of confirmed diagnosis. She saw the harm already caused by
the unauthorized administration of drugs like rasbuia case covertly given
without wrisen consent, and so she chose the path of
informed refusal. To twist that into a story of parental coercion,
It's not only false, it is a defamation and of
her voice, her will, and her legal rights under Montgomery

(03:35):
versus Lanarkshire Health Board twenty fifteen UKSC. Eleven. I assume, Liza,
reading you are familiar with that ruling, so I ask you,
is what you have stated medicine or propaganda? And was
it to protect institutions and clinicians who acted unlawfully, who
withheld records, who lied, and who now attempt to shift

(03:56):
flaim to conceal the punct and temporos and the true
medical cause of death onto the one person who fought
for Paloma's life with every ounce of her being her mother.
You do not get to rewrite my daughter's story. You
do not get to raise her choices. You were not there.
I was. Have you ever seen the histology report, because

(04:18):
if you had, you would know that Paloma did not
have confirmed diagnosis of lymphoma. The core lymph mode sample
taken on the thirteenth of December twenty twenty three was
labeled as crushed artifact in over fifty percent of the tissue,
deemed inadequate for fish testing, and described in the report
as showing no definitive features of high grade lymphoma. There

(04:40):
was no complete immunophenotyping, no second opinion, and no MDT
confirmed diagnosis. So that eighty five percent survival was from
what I will not stay silent whilst you attempt to
weaponize your platform to silence the truth. So that's interesting.
I mean, again, the the contradiction within that is that

(05:02):
basically there was no follow up testing. There was none
of this testing and stuff like that. And there's two
ways of looking at that. One. You don't believe that
she had cancer, so why she required that testing until
you took her out of the arena where those tests
could be done, Like, I don't know why. Again, she's
spoken about these other clinics. Maybe she did have tests there,
but we don't know of this and if not, why

(05:24):
not would be there would be the obvious question. Now.
She also decided to drop the hammer so to speak
on Ander and if we remember, was Poloma's ex boyfriend,
and she claimed that Paloma had said that she'd sexually

(05:47):
assaulted been sexually assaulted by Ander during their relationship. And
Kay then released what could you describe as evidence? This
is what she purported to be evidence of this horrible crime,
So Kay tweeted out, it makes us indescribably sad to

(06:12):
share this, but we must correct the record and false
betrayal in Poloma's memory for the parents of ploma Scarlet Schremeranni,
the man who appeared on BBC Panorama claiming to be
her boyfriend, had in fact been reported by Paloma to
Sussex Police for sexual coercion and stalking. Paloma was first
interviewed alone at home by a male officer, a serious

(06:34):
breach of protocol in cases of sexual assault. She was
later contacted by a female officer and had begun writing
her full statement. The police mishandling added to her stress
and suffering. Poloma deserves justice. I fear I may be
in danger and his disgusting conduct could endanger other young women.

(06:54):
Missus Kay Allison Shermaranni, Dr Farrens, Male Schmeranhi blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah. Right, Okay, So just
to clear something up, it's not a breach of protocol
in a case of sexual assault from a male officer
to go and see a female potential victim. It's one
of those strange things where sometimes different people find different

(07:16):
things comforting. Sometimes people would find speaking to a male
more comforting than speaking to a female for whatever reasons.
Sometimes they would feel more embarrassed speaking to a female
than a male, and vice versa. So there are options,
and what would happen in that case is if a
police officer turned up, it was male, and you didn't
want to speak to a male, You just request to

(07:37):
speak to a female. So then she posts what is
supposedly Polonia's statement. Now this is strange, a little strange,
and it may just be confused by the explanation or
my understanding or the explanation that has said. But as
far as I can understand, she went out with and

(07:59):
at some point she split up with, and at some
point this incident happened. Later she spoke to her sister,
who said, yeah, that's a bit cagy. Even later she
split up with and then she explained the thing to
her mum. Then she made a statement to the police.
The initial statement basically she didn't say anything that was
really a crime. So even later than that she then

(08:22):
made another statement via text, and then even later than that,
apparently after her death, Kay SHEMRONI found her diaries which
contains even more incriminating evidence, but nobody's seen that. So
just to understand, that is the timeline. So this is

(08:43):
titled very urgent, and this was sent on the thirteenth
of April twenty twenty four. Good morning, I have your will.
I reported this crime, but there wasn't enough characters for
what I wanted to say, nor was there a place
to attach photos of evidence. I sent you the same
statement as well as other pictures. And this is the

(09:07):
first thing that has shown is a text message from Andy,
which is clearly Ander's and this is from the fifteenth
of January, apparently also in advance of you coming. I
feel a bit awkward. Can we not do sexy stuff?
It makes me feel a bit sad because I can't
really do with any of that stuff. I don't really
ever feel like it either. I haven't really known how

(09:29):
to approach the subjects. I don't want you to feel
bad either. I totally get like you've not changed, it's
just me. But yeah, I just don't really want to
have a sexual relationship right now. It doesn't feel right.
I don't feel right either. And Andrew responds, Okay, I
totally get it anyway, So that is included. And then
there's messages from from Poloma. And remember she's done the

(09:57):
initial statement where she basically didn't feel comfortable saying anything.
She then spoke to a female officer, and then she
sent this in via text. Background. I first met Andrew
in June twenty twenty at a local park. We started
dating shortly after, and we were official by October twenty twenty.
At some point in the first year we were dating,

(10:18):
I found out that Ander had introduced the little sister
Oriana to drugs. I also found out he had asked
her to hide drugs in our house for him, which
my mum later found and handed into the police. The
current matters in January twenty twenty four. Ander came to
visit me at my mum's house on the ninth of
the first twenty twenty four and the twelfth of the

(10:39):
first twenty twenty four, having been discharged from hospital just
two and a half weeks prior. I was ill from
the effects of the drugs that I'd been given in hospital,
which was a high dose of predniss alone. I was vomiting, tired,
and feeling generally low from the stress of the albeit
differential diagnosis. Ander had witnessed me being physically sick at

(11:00):
my house. Despite my described state, and in addition to
my process to anda that my sexual libido had simply
vanished since I'd been admitted to hospital, Ander made noncontential
sexual advances at me. I expressed that I was not
in the mood to engage in any sexual activity, but
not wanting to cause the scene or experience any distress
or ruined the pleasant atmosphere, I began masturbating him. I

(11:22):
was not enjoying the act. I didn't want to have
any sort of sexual encounter at that time, and I
felt too sick. I just wanted it to all be
over very quickly. When it was over, I didn't even
feel relieved. I felt dirty and used. I was sad
that the guilt I had felt hadn't even been taken away.
I felt responsible for the whole situation, since it was

(11:42):
me and my damaged body that had brought all this
strain to our relationship. I insisted that Ander leave shortly
after the sex act, as feeling so bad about having
been violated, I didn't want him to be around me
the time after this. On the twelfth of the first
twenty twenty four, when Ander came around again, I was
in the same physical and emotional state at the time,

(12:04):
feeling ill, weak, and not in a good mood. He
attempted to initiate sexual acts on this occasion, repeatedly attempting
to coerce me and moving my hand to his erect penis.
This was non concernsual, as was the case last time,
I began masturbating him to get this sexual encounter out
of the way so that I could relax again. I
drived absolutely no enjoyment whatsoever from this experience. This time

(12:28):
he even requested that I switched to performing oral sex
on him, which, given that I had been repeatedly thrown
up while he was with me, I was disgusted, appalled
at his callousness and sole interest in self gratification, and
so I declined to do so, since I also felt
so nauseous at the time. Once he'd finished, I felt
the same sadness and dirtiness that I had done sexual
things when I had not wanted to and was coerced.

(12:53):
On the sixteenth of January, I was due to see
Andrew again, but I was absolutely dreading it since I
knew that it would mean that I would be presure
to engage in a sexual act with him again, so
this wouldn't happen. I actually sent him a text to
see the attached text, which is the thing at the top,
asking him not to come on to me. However, my
trust in him by that time had been broken, so

(13:13):
I couldn't relax when he was around, and I was
afraid he wouldn't try again. A slight point is that
I think the dates don't manage. It's the fifteenth and
the sixteenth, Yeah, it's the fifteenth on the text, and
she says the sixteenth in the statement. But that's a
very very mind point. It's not really the most important detail.

(13:34):
On the sixteenth of January, I was did to see
Andrew again, but I was absolutely dreading it, since I
knew this was mean that I would pressure to engage
in a sexual act with him again. So this wouldn't happen.
I actually sent him a text asking him not to
come on to me. However, my trust in him by
that time had been so broken that I couldn't relax
when he was around. I was afraid he would try again.
At this point, I would like to add the andi
sexual advances at my mum's house were decidedly out of character,

(13:58):
and it was mostly uninterested and having a physical relationship
with me. My attempts were often rejected, which made me
feel rejected, terrible, and undesirable. I've deeply disturbed that Ander
took more interest in me sexually when I was well
and vulnerable than when I am fit, confident and healthy.
I have since discussed the incident with my doctor. I
was very embarrassed about the two incidents, so I did

(14:20):
not want anyone to know until I finally confided in
my sister about it in mid February. Her shop response
confirmed that all the negative emotion I was feeling was
entirely normal, that I had been taken advantage of. Only
he then did I feel able to tell my mum
in the car, and when we had returned from Eastbourne
and confided in her friends too, I broke up with

(14:40):
him shortly after, on the eleventh of the third twenty
twenty four, partly because of the assault. On the night
of the twenty fifth of April, at approximately at eleven PM,
a package was delivered to our house that had been
left outside the front door by someone we carried back
had Swedish writing on it. Ander Harris is Swedish, so
I knew that the bank could come from his hair.

(15:00):
The content of the bags were deeply disturbing my black
lacy than that a toothbrush. I began to panic as
these items seemed together seemed to send a taunting message
about what had happened in my bedroom. It was also
the night before a court hearing into which he had
involved himself to attempt me to force into life threatening
treatment for a misdiagnosis which would leave me infertile. I

(15:21):
feel that I am being harassed, taunted, and stalks, and
so now I've become distressed. When I hear car noises
outside late in the evening, I'm frightened to be on
my own and that is why I am now reporting
the sexularsault, as I fear I could be in danger
and his disgusting conduct could endanger other young women. I
believe that the fact stating this witness statement of truth.
I understand that proceedings for contempted to court may be

(15:43):
brought against anyone who makes or causes a false statement
in a document. Yadda, YadA, YadA. Now hmhmm. Interesting. The
very first response on Twitter was from someone who has
sharn't name that anyone can knock up an email and
make it look like it's from someone else, and if

(16:03):
you had a face or fingerprints, you could easily access
the phone and write whatever you wanted, which is a
fair point, but we just don't know. There's three ways
of looking at this, right, Okay. The first way of
looking at this is that you always believe a victim,
and regardless of what you think or what goes on

(16:24):
in your relationship or whatever, if you are coercidal into
doing something that you're not comfortable with that is not
all right. Whether that rises to the degree of sexual
assault is another question. And the middle ground would be
that basically this sounds a little bit like something that
really could have been solved with the conversation. And you know,

(16:50):
I don't know the third times.

Speaker 4 (16:52):
You know, sometimes people aren't comfortable having those conversations, and that.

Speaker 3 (16:56):
Is very true.

Speaker 1 (16:57):
That is true.

Speaker 4 (16:59):
Their feelings are yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:01):
Yeah, oh absolutely, this is the thing. Feelings are always valid,
This is the point. But that is why communication is
so very very vital, isn't it, Because obviously, you know,
miscommunication is going to happen as well. Absolutely, So we're
going from the scale of this was totally not on
to this is a misunderstanding or miscommunication to the other

(17:22):
end of the scale, which would be that this could
very well be somebody attempting to smear somebody after the fact.
Is there any evidence in the text that potentially leads
to that. What's that strange thing about trying to basically
say he was never into sex before and it was

(17:43):
only when I got ill that I got that he
you know, he got all horny around me. That is
strange to me. That reminded me of the character Assassinationsma's
previous statement. Now, obviously, if the previous statements were in
by Poloma Josey's claimed to be, maybe she's just got
this spiteful thing where she goes off on add hominem tangents,

(18:07):
you know, just like a mum, did you know, when
she's called like Gable fat and Marianna spring bad skin
and stuff like that. But perhaps it's just one of these,
you know, like mother like daughter, that that that is
certainly possible. I just thought that was very strange in
that that particular thing. And then then the other thing

(18:31):
that I didn't quite understand as well was the the
carrier bag that's been delivered, the carrier bag that's been
delivered containing nickers and a toothbrush, and how that's a taunting.
I mean, it could be. It could just be that
he was dropping off the nickers and toothbrush that you

(18:54):
left at his house, don't I don't see that as
a particularly strong piece of evidence. If some we'd written that, say,
let's pretend that this is a detective novel, what's it
supposed to symbolize was the nickers and the toothbrush are
supposed to symbolize. I don't understand. And then there was
one thing that that struck me as a bit odd

(19:14):
was this bit where it was an ivy for a
court hearing into which he had involved himself to tend me,
to force me into a life threatening treatment from misdiagnosis
that would leave me infertile. I don't know. There's something
strange about that statement. It reminds me of somebody else.

(19:35):
But as I say, we just don't know. And this
is the horrible, horrible thing about this thing, because like
is a sliding scale, it could be very well the
case that the poloma did feel coerce and and you know,
then you've always got to be sympathetic towards people that

(19:55):
have got themselves in situations where they they've been forced
into something that they don't want to do. It's horrific.
The middle ground is that this is a lack of communication.
The further away from the beginning is that this is
a smear campaign designed to support the story that Kate's

(20:19):
spreading and we don't know. We just don't know. And
you know, the only thing we could do is invite
the listeners to come to their own conclusion. But yeah,
but yeah, but also this happened in January, apparently she
provided in their syst in February, she dumped Hander in March,
and then she waited till the end of April to

(20:39):
contact the police. And then after she died, remember Kay
found the diaries written in her own handwriting that that
show that apparently was deeper than that. So we just
don't know, and it's horrible regardless whatever whatever those scenarios is.

(21:01):
It's horrible because either somebody has had something hot that
happened to them that was not fair. There's been a
complete lack of communication, which is always horrible because then
people think the worst of one another, or somebody's lying
to smear an innocent person, and we just don't know. Anyway.

(21:24):
Sebastian goes on Alive on Twitter and he explains that
the court case that there's been discussed previously was to
try and get Paloma out of the care of Kate
trem Raney, because it was discussed before. According to Kate,
she had got power of attorney over a daughter, which again,
there may well be a very very reasonable explanation for that,

(21:45):
but I personally don't understand it because it's just like, well,
you know, if you're in there, if you trust your
mother and she's your mother, and there's nothing weird going on,
and she makes a suggestion, then you would just do
it or not do it, because again you're an adult,
So who knows, who knows what that's about. Kate responds
by saying, why are Paloma's brothers not outraged that this

(22:07):
happened to their sister? They're aligning with him? And this
is in her own diaries, in her own handwriting. She
really wants to hammer home that it's in her own handwriting,
which you know, again as we've explained, like, of course
it's in her own handwriting, Kate, it's her diary. It

(22:29):
would be very odd if it wasn't in her handwriting. Anyway,
So someone responds to Kate and says, why do the
police not charge him or take action against him? And
they're talking him at Andrew at this point, and Kate
Tremerani's simple responses remains open. Ask them, I don't know,
I don't know, maybe she's got a lot on her

(22:50):
plate or whatever, but like, I don't know, maybe there's
nothing that she can do. But it's strange. She seems
to have this attitude where I could definitely see this person,
but I can't be as I could definitely prove this,
but I can't because that would be a contempt of court.
And you know, I don't have any answers to why
this hasn't been pursued. And again, I'm not even criticizing her.

(23:14):
That may well be the case, but I'm just stating
that this is what she said. So anyway, She then
tweets out, why are the media doing this? This is
why adrenaline organ harvesting and the death of our daughter,
Paloma Scarlet Schremerani a forensic and ethical indictment. We have

(23:35):
all the evidence. Copyright Kate Sheremrani, twenty twenty five. All
rights reserved the para. I think this is a tweet
as well. She's copyrighted the tweet. Good hon her. All
rights reserve. The Paramedic two trial concluded that adrenalineuse improve
short term survival but not neurological outcomes, and its cost

(23:57):
effectiveness is only justifiable when the value of organ donation
is included. This raises critical ethical questions regarding the real
motives behind continued adrenaline use, especially when administered to patients
who may not even be in cardiac arrest. In the
case of our daughter, ploma Scarlet Shremrani, a twenty three
year old multilingual Cambridge graduate, the evidence shows that she

(24:20):
was never in cardiac arrest. Yet she was given adrenaline
doses equivalent to twelve times what her body weight would
warrant and administered into ossius, which is the gun. She
was also given paralyzing agents via femoral line in our home,
commonly used to facilitate organ procurement. Not covering the truth
is undeniable. She did not die of cancer. She died

(24:43):
from gross negligence manslaughter. The Paramedic two trial survival or
supply chain for the original trial showed adrenaline improved return
of spontaneous circulation rosc ROSK, but most survivors suffered severe
brain damage. A twenty twenty economic analysis published in Resuscitation
revealed that following adrenaline was not cost effective when only

(25:05):
directly related costs and consequences are considered. However, incorporating the
indirect economic effects associated with transplanted organs substantially alters cost effectiveness.
This admits that organ donation was factored in as a
justification for giving adrenaline despite its failure to improve real
patient centered outcomes. For Lama's case, no cardiac arrest, no

(25:29):
consent yet to improve real patient yet overdosed prep for procurement.
Body weight thirty seven kilograms which is five stone twelve
pounds approx perte adrenaline given fine excess times twelve and
too rapidly of bn F dose which is ten micro

(25:50):
term mcg over kg in cardiac arrest. Live pack shows
pulse and oxygen saturation present witnessed by bystander and mother.
They confirmed that she was monitored breathing and had a heartbeat.
Used of intriosius and then for moral line indicates aggressive
access and typical use donation scenarios. Use of paralyzing agents

(26:11):
identical to those used during controlled organ donation. We believe
that she was treated as if she was a donor,
not patient. Removal of the paraphernalien, concealment of evidence at
post warts as sorry. At post mortem there were no
medical lines or caniolab routa. This is as badly punctuated
as that statement that Paloma gave to court. Anyway, no

(26:35):
toxicology in a capital letters were performed despite repeated family requests,
coroner did not notify the family before autopsy, breaching regulations.
Regulations got capital are coroner no full stop. Coroner now
claims cause of death is not important, no full stop
no brain damage in capitals. Imaging was performed before withdrawal
of life support e g. Confirmed brain activity, but ventilation

(26:57):
was removed anyway. Was Coloma used in Paramedic three. Paramedic
three trial was currently live in East Sussex. Addrenaling protocols
with intra ossious gun blah blah blah blah blah. Matt
Hancock stated in twenty twenty one that Britain would become
a global leader in organ donations, supplying organs to the Commonwealth.
This aligns with a strategic shift towards harvesting organs from

(27:20):
brain dead donors using policies masked as public health improvement
creating donors. Warning. Paloma was not in cardiac arrest. She
was lucid eating interacting hours before she fainted, then deteriorated
only after the arrival of the ambulance team, and the
drug protocols unprotected. That's apparently an entire sentence unprotected. She

(27:42):
was treated as state property and the actions taken mirror
what is sleep seen in live organ procurement, not life
saving medicine. Right, there's quite a bit to unpat will
forgive the dreadful punctuation because she's obviously across. So here's

(28:04):
the thing, right, Okay, again, they use this thing where
basically say that like Paramedic two showed that adrenaline increases
the survival rate but does potentially give neurological damage and
sometimes very severe brain damage. And they're saying that this
is a bad thing. However, what happens if you don't

(28:26):
give them the adrenaline zero chance exactly exactly, Like nobody's
suggesting that it is perfect, but people do survive. Now
they're saying that the only reason that they want people
to survive is to get them to the hospital for
enough time for them to essentially get their organs out,
because they have this ridiculous idea that you have to

(28:46):
take organs out of a live body or very very
shortly after death. Also, she's got this weird thing where
she doesn't believe in brain death basically, so I don't
quite understand it, because like, did the murder her or
did they take her organs? Because if you have to
kill somebody, If you have to take the organs before
they're dead, then I don't know, it probably doesn't make

(29:09):
any sense because it probably doesn't make any sense, so anyway,
So that's the first point. Does this paper say that
that adrenaline was not cost effective when only directed related
costs with consequences considered, Incorporating the indirect economic effects associated

(29:30):
with transplanted organs substantially alters cost effectiveness. Does this paper
say that yes. Does this basically mean that they're going
around and stealing organs from people to then sell them
so that they can be as Matt Hancock says, what
was it the global leader in organ donations supplying organs

(29:53):
to the Commonwealth? Does that paper say that no, No,
it doesn't. What he's talking about is the fact that
basically medicine is not isolated to the incident that happens.
There's all sorts of other things. And one proposal that
this this paper says is that one factor that might

(30:20):
justify the cost of this adrenaline is that if people
survive cardiac arrest, they can then later later give organs,
and people are always after organs, and therefore people won't
need other expensive things like heart treatments and dialysis, say,

(30:43):
and being put on ventilator type machines. Because when we've
got these organs, they can have organ transplants and that
will that will offset the expensive treatment that they were
that they would otherwise had to have had. Okay, Now,
there's several things wrong with them, this idea that basically

(31:03):
they're stealing organs from people to kill them, to depopulate people,
to then use these organs to sell them. Because what
what do you do with what? What is the result
of organ transplants? People live? So why are you taking
the organs in a depopulation concept? Why are you taking
the organs out of other people and killing them right, Okay,

(31:25):
so that you can then put them into other people
who would have died so that they can then survive. Right.
And the answer to that will be that basically, well,
it does happen in wealthy people. For example, in China,
there is a genuine thing where the government of China
is stealing organs, particularly from people like in the Falogong
and such like that, prisoners and even the Muslims and

(31:50):
stuff like that and selling these organs. Right, But this
there's there's two points one. China has got nearly a
bill is it a billion or nearly a billion people
living there? They need a lot of organs, right, okay,
And here's the other thing, right okay. You know what
would prevent the need for governments to surreptitiously be stealing

(32:12):
organs from people that like that they murder in order
to get enough organs that people need for transplants. If
people were organ donors. And that is something that that
Cay and people and other people in that circle are
virulently against. And I don't understand why. Maybe it's a

(32:33):
religious thing, and you know what, they're perfect entitled to
their opinion. But here's the thing. If there was a
better organ donation system, you wouldn't be need to be
murdering people and stealing their organs. I'm not saying that
that's what has happened, that is what their claiming has happened.
But but that is the irony of that that position
is that the it's it would solve that particular problem. Now,

(33:00):
now these are the things right that that that aren't correct.
Lists They keep saying she fainted and blah blah blah.
Then why did you call the ambulance? Why was CPR required.
Why could you not find the heartbeat? Why did you
in certain nasal canula? Why did her SATs drop too

(33:21):
dangerous levels? This and again, I don't know. This is
what you told us in previous interviews. Either something was
wrong that required the ambulance arriving, or there wasn't anything wrong,
and then the ambulance arrived and for some reason just
loaded her up with adrenaline and killed her. Except she
didn't die. She was then taken to hospital, where she

(33:42):
was on life support for a short time. It's I
don't know, it doesn't I don't know. But secondary benefits
of organ donation, which is the the that the statement
a secondary benefit refers to a potential for organdnames for
patients who achieve URSC and are admitted to hospital but

(34:04):
sometimes do not survive long term. In such cases, if
the patient is a candidate for organ donation and augans
could be donated, they potentially save other lives. This is
considered a secondary benefit because this is an indirect outcome
of adrenaline use, not the primary goal of improving the
patient's survival all the quality of life. But the paper
doesn't suggest that organ donation is a primary intent of

(34:25):
adrenaline administration, nor does it imply any unethical practices by
the NHS. It simply acknowledges that increased hospital admissions due
to adrenaline could lead to more opportunities for augan donation.
Understanding medical and ethical proscourse. Okay, but also, people do
survive with adrenaline, and without the adrenaline, they definitely don't survive.

(34:47):
It's a complicated issue, is it perfect now, It's a horrible,
horrible thing to think about. But the idea that the
only reason that they're doing this is to make them
viable for organ donation, it doesn't even makes sense because again,
as according to according to what case says, she refused
that process. So unless the person is an organ doner anyway,

(35:09):
I suppose to. The argument might be that, well, they'll
just get aware of they're grieving and say, you know
what would be good if you blah blah barahn did this.
This is all rather elaborate. You know what, be a
better idea, some sort of concerted effort to get more
people to carry donor cards. It's not as nefarious and satanic,
but it would probably work better, particularly if they explained

(35:31):
the fact that this will improve other aspects of the
NHS because then when people get these organs in this
depopulation program, other people will survive. And when these other
people survive, they no longer need the long term care
that is associated with having a defective organ, and that
means that potentially you get to see your GP sooner.

(35:51):
I don't know, It just seems to me that basically
the Illuminati, with their like sort of like keen sort
of looking at marketing strategy and stuff like that, might
have approached it in a different way. Like unless, of
course they just love to kill, and you know we're
all guilty of that. It does become somewhat addictive. But also,

(36:12):
if this is a secret plot to harvest organs, right,
why would they tell people in this paper? I mean
it doesn't it doesn't say that at all, But why
would they publish their evil plans? As I say, the method?
That is actually a thing that she said on one
of these interviews. She didn't say revelation of the method.

(36:34):
She says that under common law, under English law, you
have to actually explain it, yeah, which is also bollocks.

Speaker 4 (36:41):
Which is basically yeah, yeah, just taking the magic out
of it.

Speaker 3 (36:46):
Yeah, it's not sinister, right, Okay, Adrenaline is literally the
last option to save somebody's life. Right, It's not perfect,
but the alternative appears to be certain death. And they
keep saying that they gave too many shots. Do you
know what determines how many shots they give? As far
as I can tell, they keep giving your shots till

(37:10):
you respond. M yeah.

Speaker 4 (37:16):
So this also makes me think of like the ventilators,
Like they had a problem ventilators, and that's also used
if like there's that's your last chance exactly. They seem
to not like life saving.

Speaker 3 (37:34):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's just seems the thing with chemotherapy,
like chemotherapy can be horrific, it makes you feel dreadful,
it cannot work. Say the same thing with a lot
of other treatments, right, Okay, you can have surgeries that
go wrong, you can have radiotherapy that ends up poisoning you,

(37:55):
you can have bad reactions to medicines. You can have
all of these things. But to suggest that that is
the point or the purpose of those medicines is to
skew reality, and that's what they're saying here that it's
not even saying that actually this is a bad protocol

(38:15):
and it's not as effective as it should be. They're
saying that this is used to cover up mass murder
and organ theft. But if that was the case, if
that's standard to steal organs, then think about how many
people must be in on it at least like because
if Kate's figured out this right with her nurses knowledge,

(38:38):
and other nurses or other paramedics, other doctors must have
figured out that hang on every time we do this,
this happens, so all the paramedics and nurses must be
on it. It must have been explained to them what
they're doing and why. And if that's the case, I'd
struggle to see why there might not be some more

(38:58):
damning clear evidence that doesn't rely on what might appear
as willful misinterpretation of a document that's talking about cost
benefit offset as an admission of mass murder and organ
harvesting in order to line the pockets of the elite,

(39:18):
which is part of a depopulation program which relies on
giving people the organs that make them survive. I don't know,
I don't know, like it's but as I say, let's
say that, but again, if that is the case of
that is the thing that they're saying. Then the answer

(39:39):
to that is encourage people to become organ donors. Like
that is literally fighting fire with fire. Well it's not
literally fighting fire with fire, but like you know, figuratively,
so anyway, that is the first sort of document that
k puts forward as an explanation. As I say, she

(40:02):
claims that that shows that they are harvest and using
adrenaline to keep people alive solely for the purpose of
stealing their organs, and I don't think that. I don't
think she's been accurate in her interpretation of that paper.
It does say that their organs is a benefit of

(40:22):
it of it, okay, but it's but that's not the purpose.
The purpose is to try and make people survive. That's
why the paper's there. Think about it, Why are we
doing this? It's so expensive making people survive. If the
paper has had to come up with that explanation, it's
after the fact. So look, this is somebody looking to

(40:42):
justify it. This isn't somebody saying before the fact, you know,
if we did this, that would be a good way
to steal our organs. Somebody has said this is adrenaline
thing that we're using it isn't half costing some money?
Is there any way we can justify it? And someone
has gone, oh yeah, he's a way. He's a way
because the NHS works as a system as opposed to

(41:04):
just as an island. Here's a way. If it was
the plot, wouldn't that come first? Otherwise how would they
know to do it? Do you see anyway? Sebastian then
goes on Twitter and says, this week on X the

(41:24):
conspiracy crazies have said that I should be grateful to
my mother. Yes, the one that murdered my sister, that
my sister didn't have cancer, A that I abused my sister,
A me, not the woman that murdered her. It's Murphy's
law for tweets. Whatever can be said will be said
by at least one of them. And well, that's certainly true.

(41:47):
He then goes on to say, of course this isn't
by accident. This is their strategy. Make claims so fantastical
and absurd that you can't disprove them all, and you
lose your motivation insanity and trying. Well, too bad, I
forever will be motivated to get justice coploma. And if
seventeen years didn't take away my sanity. This way, I'm
fucking bulletproof and I'm coming for you, and yeah, so

(42:13):
you know, he's obviously quite cross. He then posts ten
commandments for versus Kay Schremerani, because I think he's found
that she's I don't know if she's strictly a cosmode,
but she's certainly she certainly is Christian and makes her

(42:40):
sort of somewhat of a big deal of it. And
what Sebastian's pointing out is that maybe maybe the way
he sees her doesn't line up entirely with what we
might call classical Christian doctrine. So he posts this on Twitter. One,
I'm the Lord, you'll God. You shall not have strange

(43:01):
gods before me. Kay constantly talks of chakras, energy, lizard people, etc.
Her ideology is a mishmash of concepts from various religions
and cons conspiracies, which is all heretical. Two. You shall
not take the name of your Lord, your God in vain.
From personal experience, I know that the woman has the

(43:21):
mouth of a sailor, and God's name isn't exempt. Growing up,
she referred to our religious family friends as god botherers
behind their backs, including a vicar and a lovely Catholic woman.
She only calls herself Christian to widen the appeal of
her platform to religious people. Three remember to keep the
Holy the Lord's Day. For Kay, every day is a

(43:42):
chance to profit. She's been on fringe podcasts and social
media every Sunday promoting her views and monetizing my sister's death,
who she killed. So the last time she went to
church was to get her kids into a chosen school.
Four honor your mother and father. Case dold ten thousand
pounds from her own father, then did speak to him
for years before he died Thanks to Kay, I never

(44:03):
met my grandfather, right shit. Five you shall not kill Kay.
Do I really need to explain why you failed this?

Speaker 1 (44:14):
One?

Speaker 3 (44:15):
You kill for profit. Six you shall not commit adultery.
Kay's personal life is an endless string of affairs and
the teachers from my secondary school, neighbors, et cetera. She
felt pregnant from another man and had an abortion while
she was with my father. Yet she protests against abortion
and claims it's for organ harvesting. Seven you shall not steal.

(44:38):
For over ten years, Kay has been laundering money for
her ex lover, of Patrick Vickers, another pseudo science salesman.
They run a fraudulent clinic in Mexico where they take
tens of thousands of dollars from vulnerable cancer patients. They
promised them to cure, feed them vegetables, and pocket as
much cash as possible before the victims die. Kay places
this cash into a UK banking system, often via cash

(45:00):
deposits in Uckfield, East Essex. Obviously, she pays no tax
on this or her unregistered business of botox injections, which
she also runs in Uckfield's and hmrcgov dot UK. Are
you interested in this? He shocked his mom to the
VAT people, to the tax people. Nice. You should not
bear false witness against your neighbor. K has accused me

(45:23):
of being paid by the BBC, my brother working for
a six, and my sister's last boyfriend of sexual abuse
anything besides the facts of her own crimes, which is
what K will come out at, which is is what
K will come out of K's mouth. Nine. You should
not covert your neighbor's wife. Good job, K. We found
a commandment that you might not have broken. Ten you

(45:44):
shall not covert your neighbor's goods. K is the most jealous, insecure, materialistic,
class conscious person I've ever met. When I got a
scholarship to attend boarding school, she would not visit me
because she said she was embarrassed to be seen by
the other parents. She trained for years to hide her
native Midlands accent. My whole childhood was a push. Was
her pushing for bigger houses, TVs, cars, wardrobes, and driving

(46:08):
my father nuts in the process. She now kills cancer
victims for cash. Kay, I'd call that a fail. It's
clear that your so called faith is a marketing gimmick.
I pray that Hell is real so that you will
burn there.

Speaker 1 (46:22):
Hmmm.

Speaker 3 (46:24):
Key. So on July the first, Kay then tweets out
paloma had no confirmed diagnosis, only one deadly treatment offered
that could have worsened her real condition. Why her bloods
and symptoms were not indicative of lymphoma, they did indicate infection.

(46:50):
Why not rule this out.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
Right?

Speaker 3 (46:53):
I hate to keep harping on this, but according to you,
you refused other tests and took her out of hospital.
And again, perhaps there is an answer to this, But
if it's an infection, these other clinics that you apparently have,
why don't they treat it as an infection anyway, lied
to and treated without nige or consent deceived. We have

(47:17):
our own pathologists and another expert pathologist the autopsy with
no pathology, toxicology or anything, and no topsy Why to
conceal their crimes. We have all the evidence, we have
the reports. The following points are now incontrovertibly established from
all available histology and four senior histologists. Paloma chemroni was

(47:41):
never definitively diagnosed with cancer. The diagnosis of primary medicinal
large B cell lymphoma I apologize for the butchering of
that remained. Differential and speculative granulomas who are identified in
the biopsy consisted with tuberculosis, funngel, infac or sarcadosis, infection

(48:02):
causes that were never excluded he diagnostic tools CD twenty three.
Immunosed stating fish microbial stains were emitted or impossible due
to tissue is handling. Treatment included BRASBUA, case, corticosteroids, and
chemotherapy was administered without confined pathology and in the absence
of lawful informed consent possible diagnosing testing done question wek

(48:27):
notes tubersculosis no grande loomas noted, but no z end
stain TB, PCR or AFB, cultural fungal infection, asperilligillius flavor
nyga no, no fungal stains or cultures taken. Sarcodosis, no
granulomas present, no ace elysas ime or further markers, grayzone

(48:51):
lymphoma or celt like inclusive only presumed basis on clinical location,
not phenotype. Primary medictinal lymphoma unconfirmed week mum one week
CED fifteen negative. Why wake up people, demand your histology,
get second options, get everything tested. Colona was denied these,

(49:12):
so you had to legally demand them to find out
after they administered drugs that destroy lymphosites and ethocytes, just
what you need to fight infection, mold and cancer. I
thought she didn't have cancer. I don't I don't know.
I still have questions such as like, well, fine, right,

(49:33):
Why don't you get these further tests? Why don't Vickers
do these tests? How come Gerson was used if there
was no diagnosis? Why did the clinkson around in Germany
not help? Why did you no further explanation of possible causes?
Why no second biopsy? Like again, there may well be
answers to all of this, but like it just seems
like fine, if you're saying that you believe there was

(49:57):
a misdiagnosis, then why was she ill for se Oh
you say because of the raspuria case and stuff like that.
I don't know if that's a thing, Like why did
she lose two stone? Like why was she doing girls
in therapy and hyperbaric chambers? If that wasn't the thing,
what caused her seven months after this medicine to go

(50:18):
into such a state that you required the paramedics to
be caught. Don't know. I just don't know. So anyway,
Kate then decides to go on unn again. It's it's
obviously a hard time. So Kate, understanding the gravity of

(50:42):
this situation and not wanting to come across this and
safe list, she decides to title this in a very
sensitive way. The interview is called We're All being gang
Raped with special guests Kate Schremeranni and Stuart will Key,
which somewhat implies that they're doing the gang raping, but

(51:04):
I don't think that's what it means. But anyway, so
in this she basically describes a snod and a snod
it's not one of those sort of half scarf half
balaclava things. It's what it's a specialist nurse in organ donation.

(51:24):
And she describes them as like sort of consultants that
are ascribed to every single hospital. And what the SNOT
does is they stalk up and down hospital wards like
a sort of vulture meets the angel of death, looking

(51:44):
for people that might be potential organ donors. And she
implies that that is all that they're bothered about. Literally,
they're out there looking for organs, just out there trying
to get that. She also says that they're all psychopaths
and they don't care if patients die. Further than that,

(52:07):
she says that there are actually protocols in place to
make sure that people die so that they can then
steal their organs. And she says that what happens is
when these family members have unexpectedly died, the SNOT with
essentially blind side families who are upset, and whilst pretending

(52:28):
to offer comfort, they're basically sort of like doing the
hard sell of getting them to consent to give over
the organs of their loved ones. And again, they do
seem to forget the fact that these organs are used
to save other people's lives, which again does somewhat diminish

(52:49):
the idea that this is a will depopulation plan. But anyway,
Kate says, is your loved one being cared for or
are they being harvested? And she says that these snods
are embedded at all hospitals, every single hospital. And someone

(53:13):
comes into the chat right and says that she works
in the hospital and she's never seen or met a snout,
and Kate responds with really good grace, Oh no, she doesn't.
She gets really shirty and basically implies that this person
is either a liar or an idiot, and then Kate
says that she's got the documents to prove it. Also,

(53:34):
she's drinking what looks very much like piss. It might
be tea, it might be apple juice, it might be booze,
but it looks like piss. Anyway, she quotes this as
proof that this person in the chat is lying. Betsy Bassist,
chief Executive of the NHS Blood and Transport Plant said,

(53:59):
this new strategy sets out our ambitions to be world
leaders in organ donation and transplantation. And that's quite scary,
isn't it less, of course, you read on, which for
some reason she doesn't. I don't know why she doesn't
read on. So she gets to this point. This new
strategy sets out our ambitions to be world leaders in

(54:19):
an organ donation and transplantation. And then what she doesn't
read is we aim to balance the evolution of current
best practice with the revolution in new technologies and research
deliver real improvements for people in need of a transplant.
Despite significant process, these remain substantial challenges and opportunities to
securing a suitable organ for everyone who needs a transplant.

(54:42):
Some initiatives from the previous strategies will continue, whilst we
look to implement new ones with the potential to increase
the numbers of both living and deceased donation. These will
in turn deliver real improvements for people in desperate need
of transplant. Yeah, it's and then the paper goes on.

Speaker 4 (55:03):
I mean, at the end of the day, she doesn't
probably think that these organs are being transplanted. She probably
thinks they're being served up for lunch of Davos.

Speaker 3 (55:10):
Well, yeah, potentially, Like yeah, she might well do, but
that's not what the documents say. And if she's saying
that that's what the documents imply or proved. It isn't.
The paper goes on. Anthony Clarkson, Directive Organistician Donation and
Transplantation NHS Blood and Transplant said, there is no doubt
that this is an ambitious strategy, but we need to

(55:32):
be ambitious and set the bar high if we're going
to achieve our aim of saving even more lives by
designing the very best organ donation and transplantation service in
the world. The strategy brings together living and deceased donation
for the first time or relies on all those in
the donation and transplant community across the UK to deliver it.
There is a genuine desire to ensure that every donation

(55:54):
opportunity is taken, that every precious donated organ that can
be safely transplanted and to savings improved someone's life is transplanted.
And now the thing is, what she could say is that, well,
they're lying in that paper. They're lying. That's not what
they're doing with those organs, is you do, implied Brent.
But it's like, fine, but then that's not evidence, that's

(56:15):
your pure speculation. Off the back of that, she then
gets really cross and starts insulting the audience, which is
always a sign that it's going well. She says that
they're stupid, deftumb, and blind. And if I was desperately cynical,
I would suggest that this is because she realizes that
some people in the audience aren't going along with what

(56:38):
she's saying, and potentially even don't believe her. She then
either lies or misinterprets large parts of the NHS explanation
right in this thing. It's the six key areas for
action are one for living a deceased nation to become
an expected part of care, we're clinically appropriate for all society.

(57:01):
And Kate says that what this means is that it
takes away your right to consent or opt out of
organ donation. Let me read that again, for living a
deceased donation to become an expected part of care, we're
clinically appropriate for all in society. That takes away your
right to consent. It doesn't say that at all. It

(57:22):
doesn't say that at all. It's a hope. It's an
ambition that organ donation either by carrying a donation a
donor card when you're living, which is living donation. It's
not taken from like catch him, stick him a carpet
and cut his fucking liver out. It's not that. And
deceased donation, which is basically like if we don't know

(57:45):
that he's donor that the family go okay, yes, that's
fine because it is just one of those things that
is no longer to do all weird in society. It's
not about forcing you to do that. It's about hopefully
changing attitudes so that people want to do that. So
when she says that this takes away you're right to

(58:06):
consent or opt out, it doesn't, does it, So I
think she may have misinterpreted that slightly. It then says
too for optimal organ utilization in every organ group benefiting
from new technologies and techniques and ks kate Kate says, hello,

(58:31):
you're going to have a doctor in your pocket, and
she's referred to like smart watches and health monitoring devices.
And what she seems to be suggested here is that
what this is saying is the smart watches and smart
devices and health monitoring devices and all these apps and
things that we do when we go to the gym
or whatever. They're essentially there to chart to see when

(58:54):
you are right for organ donation, which again that's not
what I took from the sentence. I mean, in fairness,
I haven't worked in nursing, so I don't know the
jargon in the ship, right, okay, But again I may

(59:14):
it may be that she might have she might have
miss introphied that for some reason she skips three in four,
but we're not going to it's possibly because they don't
sound like a depopulation. Agenda Number three says three to
make the most effective use of pression donor organs, ensuring
that recipient outcomes are among the best in the world,

(59:37):
and four says to enable people of all backgrounds and
circumstances to have timely access to the organs that they need.
So it's not I mean, at least according to this document,
it's not about providing just for the elites, and it's
not about depopulating a planet. It's about ensuring that organs,

(59:59):
which they describe precious, get to the recipient everywhere, regardless
of your background, regardless of your circumstance, so that everybody
has the best chance to life. And if that is
the case, it would seem strange to be that in
order to fulfill this that they embark on a campaign

(01:00:21):
of mass murder five to secure substantial service across the UK,
making the most of every opportunity for a donation and
transplant as donation numbers increase due to new legislation. Do
you want to know how? Have a guess at how
she's interpreted that. Let me read it again, for you

(01:00:44):
to secure a sustainable service across the UK, making the
most of every opportunity for a donation and transplant as
donation numbers increase due to new legislation.

Speaker 4 (01:00:54):
I'm not twisted enough to figure it out.

Speaker 3 (01:00:58):
Well. Well, she claims that what this means is that
the government has admitted, in this one line there, that
they can take your organs out of you without your
consent whilst you're still alive. Did you get that? No?
I did not get that from that. No no, no, no, no,

(01:01:18):
nor did I like which is strange and again like again,
who knows? Personally? I think she might have misinterpreted that.
She then quotes from National Standards for Organ Retrieval from
deceased donors, and she quotes right, this was a bit
of a fucker, actually, because she says section one of

(01:01:39):
one the donor has pronounced deceased, but circulatory criteria as usual.
The retrieval surgeon notes that the heart is still beating
in an effective and sustained fashion, and that there's a
pulse in the aorta. Well, excuse me, but hit me
over the head with a bottle. And what she says
there is that basically what that's saying is it's describing

(01:02:03):
an organ donation, a donation of the heart. And then
halfway through the heart starts beating again. Retrieval surgey notes
at the heart is still beating in an effective and
sustained fashion, and there's a pulse in the aorta, which
means that it's at least pumped one shot of blood
round the circulatory system. And she says that this is

(01:02:26):
proof that they are murdering people and they're stealing organs.
She doesn't exactly quote it correctly. Also, and this is
why I struggled to find this right, because there appears
to be two documents with exactly the same name, so

(01:02:46):
titled one's MPD one oh four to three slash nine,
and one is MPD one oh four to three slash ten.
And she's she's quoting from the latter, but both of
them have the same title, which is why I was
really struggling to fight. You Remember I said before, I
was like, I don't think this is in the document
that she said. It is in the document. It's just
in the different version of the document. Okay, but it

(01:03:10):
doesn't say section one one. It's a situation one, right,
And when you read the whole document in context, it
really isn't that well, it doesn't appear to be what
she's saying it is, And in fact, you could even
make the argument that the title of this section disproves

(01:03:34):
what she's actually saying. Okay, the title of this section
from MPD ten one oh four three ten is National
Standards for Organ Retrieval from Deceased Donors. So two points.
One she says that you can't take them from deceased owners,

(01:03:57):
and two she says that this document is about people
murdering people in d whelts. This operation goes on. It
could be that the very title suggests that she may
have misinterpreted that, but let's read the entire thing. Although
exceptionally rare, it is possible that effective and sustained cardiac

(01:04:20):
activity could emerge after death during DCD retrieval. Cardiac activity
after death does not by itself constitute the serious adverse event.
Consider DCD heart donation. It is reperferusion of the brain
which is inappropriate in DCD donors and this must be prevented.
The only exception to this is when the donor has

(01:04:41):
already been pronounced dead by neurological criteria. In this case,
reperfusion has no clinical effect, as the donor is equivalent
to DBD in terms of arch facial percusion, which reads
aspecially death. So note that these directions apply to the
SNOD and retrieval teams or the specialist involved will follow

(01:05:01):
their own protocols and apply their own clinical judgments. It
should be it should be borne out of mind that
DCD retrieval program retrieval proceeds at the fastest possible speed,
which seems logical and ordered in the text below, and
may be challenging to deliver. So that's before the bit
that she explains, do you know what DCD is is

(01:05:26):
donation after circulatory death. Previously referred to it as donation
after cardiac death or non heart beating organ donation, and
this reserves refers to the retrieval of organs for the
purpose of transplantation from patients whose death is diagnosed and
confirmed using cardio respiratory criteria. So there are two principal

(01:05:49):
types of DCD, controlled and uncontrolled. Uncontrolled DCD refers to
organ retrieval after cardiac arrest is unexpected and from which
the patient cannot or should not be resuscitated.

Speaker 4 (01:06:02):
And if memory serves correctly, this would mean that the
patient was dead too, kay, because she doesn't really believe
in the brain dead.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Bingo she yeah, okay, cool, yeah, So what this is
saying is that these are people that have been pronounced
dead because their heart no longer has the capacity to beat. Yep, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:06:23):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:06:24):
In contrast, controlled DCD takes plus a place after death,
which follows the plan withdrawal of life sustaining treatments that
have been considered to be of no overall benefit of
critically ill patients. Anyway, a heart may appear to start
beating during organ removal due to several physiological or procedural factors,

(01:06:45):
though it's not necessarily a sign of life or consciousness
here and this isn't from the paper up. Sorry, just
to explain, I'm explaining what the beginning bit says. And
then we're going to go back to the bit that case,
so why might the heart start again? Even though this
is not a sign of life or consciousness. Residual electrical
activity Even after clinical death and cessation of brain function,

(01:07:09):
the heart muscle can retain some automasity. Cardiac cells have
intrinsic pacemaker properties, meaning that they can generate electrical impulses
without brain input during auger removal, stimulation from surgical manipulation,
changes in temperature or electrolyte shifts in the body could
trigger residual electrical activity, causing muscle contractions that resemble the

(01:07:30):
heartbeat reflexive or automatic autonomic responses. The heart is influenced
by the automic autonomic nervous system, which can sometimes remain
partially active for a short period after death. Cutting all
manipulating tissues during surgery might stimulate nearby nerves or at
least chemicals that cause temporary cardiac muscle contractions reperfersion effects.

(01:07:54):
If the heart is being prepared for transplantation, it may
be connected to a perfersion system to prevent it. When
blood or a preservation solution is reintroduced, the heart can
sometimes resume rhythmic contractions due to the return of oxygen
and nutrients, even if the patient is deceased. Misinterpretation of
movement during augan removal. The heart might twitch or contracts

(01:08:16):
slightly due to mechanical stimulation from surgical tools or changes
of pressure. These movements can be mistaken for a heartbeat,
especially by non medical observers, but they do not indicate
a functioning heart or a viable patient. Five post mortem
muscle contractions after death. Muscles, including the heart, which is
a muscle, can sometimes contract due to chemical changes, such

(01:08:37):
as the release of calcium ions in muscle cells. This
is a purely physiological response and not a sign of life.
In organ donation, patients are declared brain dead or have
circulatory death confirmed by strict medical protocols before organ removal begins.
Brain death means that the complete and irreversible loss of
brain functions, so the patient is leadically, legally and medically deceased.

(01:09:00):
Even if the heart shows temporary activity. For donation after
circulatory death, which is what this paper is talking about,
the heart has got to have been stopped for a
defined period, usually five minutes before organ recovery starts, ensuring
no viable function remains Okay, so let's go back to

(01:09:21):
this paper, which we remember is about removing organs from
a deceased patient, and this is specifically about people that
have been declared cardiac dead. Okay, so let's go back
into it. From the quote that Kay decided to use,

(01:09:43):
situation one, the donor is pronounced it that she doesn't
read this bit the donor is pronounced deceased by circulatory
criteria as usual. She then starts to read the retrieval
surgeon notes that the heart is beating in an effective
and sustain in fashion, and or there is a pulse
in the aorta. She then stops reading because it then

(01:10:06):
says this this could be the very start of the
DCD procedure or perhaps subsequently, And she didn't read that
bit out because she doesn't want people to know that
this is about DCD procedure. This is a very specific thing.
But anyway, maybe she's still right. Maybe she's talking about
people like stealing the organs of people who are are

(01:10:29):
still alive in the retrieval. If the retrieval surgeon considers
that there is an effective, sustained cardiac activity which could
profuse to brain, the retrieval team should abandon all retrieval
related interventions immediately, including any form of ventilation, stand away
from the donor. The NAWSE Leaves surgeon should inform the
on called consultant at the NAWSE base. The SNOD should

(01:10:50):
summon support from the donor hospital anesthetic critical care team
as a matter of urgency. The donor hospital anesthetic critical
care team should reinstate ECG and arterial pressure monitoring if practicable,
and consider the administration of analgesic and sedative agents to
prevent the possibility of the patient suffering prior to the
return of cardio respiratory arrests. Cardiac activity is unlikely to

(01:11:14):
be sustained for long and circulatory request will occur if
all team members agree, as it is permissible for organ
retrieval to resume once directed to by the donor hospital
anesthetic critical care team. However, the NORSE surgeon, in discussion
with the on care consultant may consider that the team
are not able to complete surgery. In the situation where

(01:11:36):
donation proceeds, any lungering inflation prior to lung retrieval must
be delayed until at least fifteen minutes after the final ACEOTOL,
the OnCore regional managers should be called as soon as practicable,
and the incident should be reported through both the donor
and hospital and the NHSBT Incident Reporting System. The lead
personnel involved in the incident should be complete and comprehensive
comprehensive account of the incident in the patient's medical records

(01:11:59):
situation to blah blah blah blah. So I think she
may have cherry picked a sentence out of there to
make it sound like that something is being said in
this paper that isn't being said, because what it says
very clearly after that is that if the heart starts,
and we understand the reason why it might appear to start,

(01:12:22):
then they act as if the patient is is alive,
and the alleviate suffering and monitor it. They're in a
position by this time where the heart is previously not
beat for five minutes, which would cause such catastrophic death
brain damage, which she was so concerned about with the adrenaline.

(01:12:43):
The point being, I don't think she is accurately representing
this paper. This paper, to me, does not describe taking
the beating heart out of a patient like that bit
in Temple of Doom it to me describes what you
would do if, due to one of numerous known medical

(01:13:06):
and physiological happenings, the heart starts to pump again. And
what you do is you sedate the patient and make
sure that they are comfortable, even though you know that
they are dead. You do not look about with it. Okay,
you walk away. And as we've discussed all of those

(01:13:28):
that so let's think about this logically. Either those five
reasons that a heartbeat might beat or appear to have
the appearance of beating after death. Either they are all
real things that have been witnessed and talked about and

(01:13:51):
studied throughout the annals of medicine for years, or they
aren't real things that are used as a cover for
stealing organs. Because if they aren't real things, why are
in this paper? Well, because the paper is there as
part of the broader cover up. But the simpler explanation

(01:14:15):
is that this is describing taking organs from a person
who is under cardiac death and due to known physiological
responses that the body has, the heart might give the
appearance of beating after death. But the problem with that

(01:14:36):
is that this is her the crux of her argument,
This combined with the previous paper, which I also humbly
think that she may have misinterpreted, and that's that's a problem.
That is a problem. Then she kind of messes up

(01:14:58):
because she goes to read the para about the surgeon
stopping if the heart seems to be beating, and she
stumbles over. She starts to read the bit about the
DCD procedure, and for whatever reason, she sort of stumbles
over those words and skips ahead to go to the

(01:15:18):
bit where if the retrieval surgeon considers that there is
a stained effective cardiac activity that could profuse the brain,
and the retrieval team should abandoned all retrieval interventionres immediately
and stand away from the donor. She then says that
the SNOD needs to call an anesthetic team straight away
to avoid the patient's suffering. And then she shouts, oh,
come on, even though what she's read doesn't really say

(01:15:41):
what she thinks it says. And then going back to
that previous paper, there was another one that she never
even bothers with at all. You remember she she missed
I think was three or four, and she went to five.
Six says six we need to build a pioneer and
culture of searching, innovation and donation and transplantation in the UK. Again,

(01:16:04):
it's about donation. It's not about harvesting organs for the elite.
It's not about murdering people. It's about trying to save
other people's lives. When when patient is trying to save
patient B, when patient A has had a horrible, horrible,
tragic thing happened to them, it's not about murdering patient A. As

(01:16:26):
far as I can see, David Clues, who's the penfold guy.
He then he raises a concern. Can you imagine what
his concern is? Well, his chief worry is that foreigners
might be getting these organs. Yeah, of course, of course.

Speaker 4 (01:16:55):
Well I was kind of close when I said, Dav,
I mean, you know, haf Schwabez socially a foreigner.

Speaker 3 (01:17:01):
It gets it gets it gets worse slightly later. But
basically he is that maybe foreigners might be getting access
to these organs, which isn't fair obviously, which kind of
focks up the entire point of it, which is I
thought it was a depopulation thing. But anyway, whatever. Stuart Wilkie,
who's the guest that's on, says that obviously this isn't allowed,

(01:17:23):
but it's almost certainly happening. But then they start to
say that all the organs go to the wealthiest, and
they use a specific example. Now, I thought they were
going to use that David Rockefeller has had eight hearts,
things which came from the World Weekly News or something like,
you know, it's obviously not true, or the idea that

(01:17:44):
saw Us has had like several lung transplants and all
these these stupid things that go around. They do actually
use a sort of well, I mean, it is technically real,
but they say that organs always go to the wealthiest people,
and as proof of this, they decide to invoke George Best.

(01:18:07):
George Best, the footballer.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
The footballer.

Speaker 3 (01:18:10):
Yeah yeah, now alcoholic, Yeah yeah, absolutely. What they say
is this is an example, This is a prime example
of if you can afford it, you could just do
what you want. Because what they claim is that he
drank himself to the point where his liver feiled, he
had a liver transplant, then continued to keep drinking until

(01:18:30):
he required a second liver transplant, and then continued to
drink until he drank himself to death, thus destroying three
livers in the process. And there is a fund. There
is two fundamental problems with that theory. One, he only
ever had one liver transplant, and two the liver transplant

(01:18:52):
that he had was on the NHS at the expense
of taxpayers. So if they're using him as an example
of a person that can buy multiple organs and then
run them into the ground, well he didn't buy them
and he didn't have multiple organs, So unfortunately that doesn't
really work. So they keep using this. They keep bringing

(01:19:16):
up this this place called King's King's County, Seattle, and
they say that this place in King's County, Seattle has
got a sixty one percent cardiac arrest survival rate, and
they keep talking about how this is marvelous and why
can't we do this in the UK and stuff like that.

(01:19:37):
But the problem is, there's not any problem. But do
you want to know why King's County, Seattle has got
such a high cardiac arrest survival rate?

Speaker 4 (01:19:47):
Let me guess, is there like a university or a
medical university there that specializes in it or something.

Speaker 3 (01:19:53):
It's not exactly that, but it's not far off. Basically,
they have a mass campaign of teaching people's CPR like
it's taught to people as a matter of course, through
businesses and through school and through organizations and stuff like that.
And they've got an inordinate amount of defibrillation machines throughout

(01:20:13):
the area. So basically what is happening here is that
they're dealing with people who are going having hard tacks,
are going into cardiac arrest before the need for adrenaline.
Their responding to the campaign for prevention. Yeah yeah, but
now here's the weird thing. Can you remember when during

(01:20:34):
COVID they were suggesting that we put more defibs around
and people out and what was the response from the
conspiracy crowd.

Speaker 4 (01:20:44):
That they're trying to kill us.

Speaker 3 (01:20:46):
Yeah, So it does somewhat seem that, like again, like
hang on, you can't have it both ways. You don't
think that these things are a good idea and that
you are championing this as the solution to the problem
of the Illuminati stealing people's organs. Now, then Kate looks

(01:21:12):
at the screen and very very sort of earnestly says
that she doesn't lie. And then she says that she
knows this top level NHS guy who really wanted to
leave right because he was in on the whole sort
of satanic nature of it, right, okay, but he couldn't,

(01:21:35):
and in order to make him not leave as he
was trying to quit his job, two burly security guards
took him into a room, locked the door, and gave
him a fucking good hiding. And then he who we
presume is still working for the NHS because of fear
of further hidings from burly security guards, told Kate that

(01:21:57):
at the top of the NHS, all the surgeons and
management perform satanic black magic rituals. And we know this
to be true because Kate emphasized at the beginning of
this story that she doesn't lie. She then goes on
to say that the only way that you could harvest

(01:22:19):
organs from babies is to literally cut them up seconds
after they are born without anesthetic, and she says that
there are teams that are literally taking babies out of
women and immediately cutting their lungs, hearts, and retinas out
with no anesthetic because if they gave anesthetic, it would

(01:22:39):
destroy the baby's organs. And we must remember that Kate
said that she doesn't lie, so this must be true.

Speaker 4 (01:22:49):
She definitely sounds like she would share a frazzl drip.

Speaker 3 (01:22:53):
David clues the guy he's been ruminating on his concern
that all these foreigners getting these organs, and when he
hears that babies are being cut up seconds after birth
so that their organs can be harvested, he points out
that there are a lot of African doctors and nurses
who work in the NHS. Maybe they're bought over because

(01:23:18):
they they're used to this sort of you know, chopping
up babies and stuff like that. He doesn't exactly say that,
but it's what he heavily implies that they'd be down
with this, they'd be absolutely cool, presumably because they are African.
Holy fac Yeah whoa. They then pivot onto a new topic,

(01:23:39):
which is basically they say that, don't you think it's
ridiculous that you aren't allowed to call yourself a nurse
if you aren't actually a registered nurse? Yeah? Yeah, and
you know, I think we fully understand why why Kate

(01:24:00):
I think that? But yeah, that's the end of the
interview with thing, and that was pretty much where everything
was going. And then there's been this back and forth
on Twitter between the two sons and Kate Kate's essentially
stinging mud at them there responding and giving their side
of the story, and on July the sixth, Gave tweeted

(01:24:25):
I wasn't going to post these because, unlike Kay, I
respect my deceased sister's priority, But after having learned K
had been distorting my sister's diary entries for her own ends,
I think it's right that I do. In these messages, Paloma,
a week before her heart attack, confines in another family
member how Kay knew that she was dying, but instead

(01:24:45):
chose to emotionally abuse her with it. I don't have
to say anything else, because you could all see with
your own eyes what kind of a woman we're dealing with.
That's Kay what her response is to this, and Poloma
writes in this text, presumably I'm not being funny, but

(01:25:09):
did you tell Mommy that I feel that she makes
me feel like a burden because she's in a foul mood?
And whoever it is responds, no, I didn't say that,
And what we're told to believe is ploma says, and
now that's the party line she's repeating, and she says
that you told her that she's in the foulest fucking mood.

(01:25:32):
I actually hate when she gets this way and there's
nothing you can say, and the person responds, H for
fuck's sake, no, that's not what I've said. She's just
stressed about money, and he's angry. What are you doing?
Eventually I said, this is Poloma responding, Eventually, I said,

(01:25:53):
I'm going to bed so she can leave me alone,
because I know that she's stressed, but she gets so
mean when she is telling me that my bloods aren't
good and at this rate, I'll die. It's all so hurtful.
Mm it's now. Honestly, we don't know if that's that's real,

(01:26:19):
but if it is, that's horrible and horrific. And we
don't know if this is real, but what we do
know is that there are the sentiment of this is
real because and this is the danger that Gave and
Sebastian have said that they fear is happening. Somebody posted

(01:26:46):
on Twitter, and again we don't know if this is
specifically real, but this was not the only thing that
I've seen that is in this particular sort of ballpark,
shall we say. Somebody tweeted Kate trem RANI, I need you.
I can't DM you as I'm not verified. My mum
found a lump in her breast and they've referred her.
Shall I refuse the biopsy while it's inside? Please help.

(01:27:11):
I'm willing to engage wherever and whenever. And I don't
think we really you know, we presume a certain level
of intelligence in our listeners. I don't think we really
need to say much much more about that. Now. Obviously

(01:27:33):
we don't know what the truth is in regards to this.
We simply don't, and we don't really have an opinion.
All we've done here is we've looked at what's in
the public domain and we've tried to examine it and
pass it out and analyze it to see what is happening.
Because something is happening, and it could be that the

(01:27:55):
NHS has got this ongoing plot to murder people through
protracted effort of making them believe that they have diseases
that they don't have, ultimately giving them medicines that make
them ill, driving to them to a point where through
the use of adrenaline, they can murder people to harvest
their organs. That is one potential possibility that is happening here. Well.

(01:28:20):
The other possibility is that somebody believed alternative treatments and
they didn't work, and that's really what it is. And
then if the second or the latter is is true,

(01:28:44):
then it's a question of why did people believe this?
Do they genuinely believe this? And is there anything that
actually supports these beliefs that they would make it so
that this was in any way a sensible decision. Again,
we don't know, because all we can do is look
at what's been presented. But one thing that we can

(01:29:07):
say is that if I were to say whether those
particular pieces of NHS literature showed that Kate was correct
in saying that the NHS has admitted a plot to
steal people's organs or to kill people with adrenaline solely
for the purpose of stealing their organs, I would suggest

(01:29:30):
that I don't think she's interpreted those papers correctly. And
if she hasn't interpreted those papers correctly, then I don't
see what her evidence for this plot is. And you know,
regardless of what's happened, something horrible has happened here, and
it's just about what precisely that is

Speaker 4 (01:30:00):
The witch st

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}3/5 Natural Nurse or Toxic Influence? The Paloma Shemirani Story

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist

All Episodes

3/5 Natural Nurse or Toxic Influence? The Paloma Shemirani Story

Stuff You Should Know