Precious Life v. Hospital COVID Protocol

“Precious Life v. Hospital Covid Protocol”

by Dominique Uhl

There was no need for an ambulance. No life flight. John Zingsheim walked into a Wisconsin Hospital in the Aurora Health Care system, and tested positive for Covid. Within ten minutes, the doctor told him, “Mr. Zingsheim, you’re going to die,” and placed him into the Medicare/Medicaid (CMS) hospital Covid protocol (aka “NIH protocol”).

It would not be the last time they spoke death over John. Whether the verbalizations were intended to be a goal, I know not. But this I do know: they did give John unproven Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) drugs baricitinib (which causes blood clots and Sepsis) and remdesivir (which is toxic to the liver and kidneys according to the National Institute of Health [NIH]). They refused to give him life-saving high-dose intravenous Vitamin C and ivermectin.

Indeed, under their care, his kidneys did fail. He did have to be placed on dialysis. He experienced Sepsis numerous times. He had multiple punctures in his left lung. He had countless blood transfusions. He was dying on the Ventilator. The drugs they gave him did their thing.

The hospital sent a hospice team to each family member trying to convince them to “pull the plug” on John, stating there was nothing more the hospital could do.

His nephew, Allen Gahl, his Power of Attorney (POA), fought tooth and nail for him. Not only with the hospitals, but also in the courts.

The County Circuit Court recognized Allen Gahl’s legal authority to knock on the door of the court, his standing as John Zingsheim’s POA; and granted that the POA be upheld and the dying patient be given the family’s request — an outside doctor to administer ivermectin. The family rejoiced, and they signed away any liability toward the hospital for ivermectin.

In a jaw-dropping move, the hospital appealed to a higher court stating that the lower court had no right to intervene for the patient when a medical treatment falls beneath their standard of care for patient safety. In one motion, the Court of Appeals paused the ivermectin order and agreed to take the case, just as the doctor was getting in his vehicle to go to John with the ivermectin.

Eventually, the Appeals Court officially sided with the hospital. Against the POA. Against the family.

Beginning in October of 2021, people across Wisconsin protested for John’s life in front of the Aurora hospital in Oconomowoc. Others across America prayed. Through a series of miraculous events, John Zingsheim shared he was secretly given ivermectin, and with all the prayers going up on his behalf, beat the odds, surviving the CMS protocol and the hospitals’ “treatment” for over 10 months — more than 100 of those days on the ventilator.

Since many people have sadly died on the ventilator within 10 days, it is beyond astounding that John survived over 100 days on it. Today, John is breathing on his own with a little help from supplemental oxygen, and his kidneys are back to full function.

“Does a patient’s right to life

trump a doctor’s desire to implement a standard of care

not agreed to by the patient?” – Scott Schara

This is a crucial case affecting every person living in Wisconsin,

and potentially impacting the decisions made by other State Legislatures

and Supreme Courts across our Nation.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023, John Zingsheim’s court case, Allen Gahl v Aurora Health Care Inc., came before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Attorney Karen L. Mueller, founder of the Amos Center for Justice and Liberty, presented oral arguments on behalf of John’s POA, Allen Gahl, and she opened with this:

“This court need not decide which form of treatment for Covid is best. Rather it is simply called upon to ensure that the Wisconsin Healthcare Power of Attorney Statute is properly interpreted so that the rights it proclaims are not merely suggestions that hospitals can ignore at their pleasure.”

Mueller was emphatic that the first page of the POA is crucial in requesting necessary treatment; it is not merely informative or instructive as the Appeals Court would have us believe. In fact, Mueller clearly explained that even if she customized a personalized POA for a client, she would still be required by Wisconsin Stat. 155.30 (2) to give the first page of statutory rights or sign off that she told them all their rights from the first page of the Statutory Form on POA 155.30(1) which states:

“Notice to Person making this Document

You have the right to make decisions about your health care.

No health care may be given to you over your objection,

and necessary health care may not be stopped or withheld if you object.”

Justice Rebecca Dallet questioned Mueller how a court can be expected to get between the doctor and the patient. Mueller pointed out that in reality the federal government has stepped between the doctor and the patient with this CMS protocol.

Paramount to this case is the inherent power of the Court to intervene for the life of a patient, which is a fundamental right protected under both the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions.

Notice it was more important to the hospital to preserve their protocol than to preserve John’s one precious life, captured in time in the exchange below:

Justice Rebecca Bradley asks the Aurora Hospital’s attorney, Jason Franckowiak,

“…The doctors at the hospital basically said, ‘There’s nothing more we can do, we’ll keep him on a ventilator…’ the other side is saying, ‘Look he has a right to try’… So what is the status quo from your perspective?”

Franckowiak:

“…The status quo…was that Mr. Zingsheim was being treated by a team of four different specialties… 24 hrs per day… under a protocol that…did not include ivermectin….So when the Judge actually made his decision in this case and initially granted the [ivermectin] injunction, he was actually not preserving the status quo, he was actually, actively upsetting the status quo….a change in the treatment plan —”

Justice Rebecca Bradley:

“That’s disrupting the status quo for Aurora, but it’s not disrupting the status quo for Mr. Zingsheim, who is trying to live, right? The status quo for him was he was alive, and they [John’s family] were trying to keep him alive.”

With her profound words, the essence of the spirit of our Founding Fathers’ Declaration whispers through the centuries and permeates the Courtroom that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness must be defended; because if we can’t make our own healthcare decisions, and if we can’t fight for those we love, then individual liberty is swallowed alive into the tomb of the collective.

The Justices have yet to render their decision.

The post Precious Life v. Hospital COVID Protocol appeared first on ROCK RIVER PATRIOTS.