Brief (Or not so brief)Introduction to Video-39

In early 2020, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell worked in a Brooklyn, New York hospital as, initially, an intensive care physician. He rocketed to fame -- as least in the YouTube world -- when he made a video (The first couple of minutes of the video that is found at the end of this introduction) that gave expression to his disconcerting and frustrating set of experiences concerning a number of patients who had been diagnosed as being COVID-19 positive. Among other things, in the video he noted how the COVID-19 pathology he was observing in his patients did not seem to fit with any of his past training, experience, and understanding concerning pathological conditiions that were being characterized as entailing some kind of form of ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) that was being induced through the presence of an infectious disease. ARDS typically involves an inflamation of the lungs that can give rise to symptoms such as: Bluish skin coloration, rapid breathing, and/or shortness of breath. One of the underlying causes of ARDS can be, but is not limited to, the presence of some kind of pneumonia (ARDS can also show up in conjunction with pancreatitis, sepsis, and certain modes of trauma), and early on, the word from, among other places, China and Italy seemed to indicate that COVID-19 did appear to involve a form of pneumonia whose onset was presumed to be caused by a viral infection -- namely, SARS-CoV-2. However, Dr. Kyle-Sidell saw evidence in the patients he was treating that they were behaving more like people who were being affected by some sort of high altitude-like sickness rather than suffereing from a respiratory infection of some kind. As a result, Dr. Kyle-Sidell indicates that he began to try to treat his patients with an oxygen-first approach (which involves making oxygen available to patients without any, or with only a minimal sort of, accompanying pressure ... and this is not usually the case when ventilators are normally programmed to deal with ARDS) because he had come to the conclusion that resorting to the use of ventilation systems that were programmed to deliver oxygen with excessive pressure might be contraindicated. In other words, he felt that the latter use of ventilation might be damaging the lungs of patients, and, if so, then this was hurting rather than helping patients. However, when he began to treat his patients in the foregoing oxygen-first manner, he ran into resistance from the hospital at which he worked because (and this is true in many, if not most, hospitals in the West) such medical institutions tend to establish various sets of protocols as standardized ways of treating different situations -- in the present case, pathologies that are being characterized in one way (e.g., as an infectious disease of a certain kind such as SARS which is giving rise to ARDS) rather than being characterized in another manner (e.g., as the result of some kind of poisoning or other form of trauma). Apparently, existing medical protocols tend to recommend procedures that require hospital personnel to resort to the use of intubation and ventilation when dealing with a pathology that has been characterized as being caused by infectious disease (i.e., SARS-CoV-2) and that this is considered to be part of what is refered to as the "normal standard of care".

In a video that will be presented a little later in the current series of videos in the Queries section, another diagnostic possibility is going to be considered -- at least in outline form -- in relation to what Dr. Kyle-Sidell is describing in the video below. In other words, given that there is empirical evidence capable of demonstrating that lowered levels of oxygen saturation can be brought about through toxic (that is, biologically traumatic) exposures to certain kinds of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (such as ELF -- Extremely Low Frequency -- and RFs -- Radio Frequencies), then, conceivably, what Dr. Kyle-Sidell and other physicians could have been seeing -- but not recogniziing as such -- in their COVID-19 patients might have been toxidrome-related (that is, for example, instances of excessive exposure to, together with individual sensitivity to, toxic levels of electromanetic stress). The symptoms of the COVID-19 diagnosed patients appeared to present like an infectious disease -- at least in certain respects. More importantly, perhaps, those symptoms were being framed (innocently or otherwise) by doctors in other parts of the world as being due to the presence of an infectious agent -- namely, SARS-CoV-2. But, perhaps, this way of framing things constituted a misdiagnosis because it referred to the symptoms that had been observed clinically as being due to the presence of an infectious agent rather than being due -- possibly -- to the presence of a toxidrome or environmental toxic stressor (such as various kinds of electromagnetic radiation) that might have been causing the observed symptoms.

In view of the foregoing considerations, there is a rather intriguing, if not diabolical, possibility that raises its, potentially, tragically ironic (if unintended), and possibly quite malevolent (if intended), head with respect to the foregoing, alternative approach to the COVID-19 situation. More specifically, what if: (1) someone were responsible -- either unintentionally or intentionally -- for exposing an array of people in different countries to a toxic level of electromagnetic radiation given that in any population, there are likely to be a certain percentage of people who are sensitive to, or traumatically susceptible to (and some individuals more so than others) the presence of what are, for those individuals, excessive amounts of non-ionizing radiation (e.g., 4G and 5G radiation)?

And what if: (2) the foregoing situation -- which was intentionally or inadvertently set in motion -- resulted in people exhibiting, among other symptoms, low oxygen saturation levels (which is consistent, as noted previously, with the fact that there is empirical evidence indicating that electromagnetic radiation can interfere with the dynamics surrounding, among other things, oxygen transport and absorption in biological organisms)?

And, what if: (3) the normal standard of care for treating oxygen related problems like the ones that are being described when physicians believe, or have been led to believe, that such a oxygen-related symptom is due to the presence of an infectious agent that is attacking, for example, ACE-2 receptors in lung tissue, and since this ACE-2 issue constitutes part of the process that is believed to lead to the onset of ARDS, then such a infectious disease related oxygen-problem is -- according to standard protocols of care -- to be treated through the use, in part, of intubation and ventilation in which oxygen is forcibly delivered to the lungs?

And, what if: (4) the initial diagnosis was wrong (i.e., everything is due to the presence of an infectious agent that causes ARDS rather than being due to a condition of toxitrome -- that is, a pathology that is the result of the presence of a environmental stressor such as toxic levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation), and, as a result, the normal standard of care came to be destructively applied against itself since the indicated set of protocols (among other things, involving the use of ventilators and toxic anri-virals) was being implemented due to the belief that the doctors were dealing with an infectious disease rather than a oxygen-related problem that had been brought about by some form of toxidrome -- or toxic poisoning of individuals ... which might happen, for example, if susceptible individuals were exposed to certain excessive levels of non-iodizing electromagnetic radiation?

In other words, what if COVID-19 were due to the impact that excessive exposure to, among other possibilities, electromagnetic radiation has on susceptble or sensitive people -- that is, what if COVID-19 is a case of environmental poisoning and not due to the presence of an infectious agent?

---

Embed Video in Website by VideoLightBox.com v2.1