WHAT WE LEARNED from Schara v. Ascension: 16 Lessons to Know

The Transcript and Video Show Us How We Need to Change Our Thinking

We learned some SHOCKING truths and lessons from Schara v. Ascension!

HERE is our Rumble Video, if you prefer to listen or watch:

---

Here are The SHOCKING Things We Learned: 16 Lessons

Not everything was a shock, of course, the #1 lesson being that we need to count on God for our health and wellness.

If you know someone who is beginning to open their eyes, this is probably a bit too much — but if that person is open to the TRUTH, and knows that THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE, then this is exactly what they need.

The Transcript

Margaret Aranda, MD

Hi, this is Dr. Margaret Aranda Ferrante. So happy to have you here with us today on our show. We are so pleased and blessed to have Scott Schara here once again. We will focus on a lot of the medical items that we learned from Schara v. Ascension Health St. Elizabeth's Hospital. I actually have a thank you, Scott, for joining us. We're so blessed to have you here today.

Scott Schara: Well, it's a pleasure is mine. Of course, Margaret, I always enjoy talking with you and to be on a recording is we have an opportunity to share truth with the world today, which is fantastic.

Me: Absolutely. And I know that some people don't like the whole idea of, you know, going to court and they cite Biblical scripture, etc. But I really truly feel had you not taken this case to court, we would not have learned what we now know, and it has allowed us to shine the light on some very, very dark darkness that nobody really understood was there.

Scott Schara: So, I'm going to comment on that very quickly. On a macro basis, you know, Scripture, well, I should say on a micro basis first, Scripture does make a comment about taking your brothers to court, and these were not my brothers.

So I wasn't bound by that command that God gave us.

But there's a bigger command that God gave us, which I am bound by, which is to not participate in the world, in their Antichrist system. And so we're in the world, but we're not of the world.

I would not encourage anybody to do a lawsuit unless God calls you to do it. We were called to do this lawsuit in their system, in their Antichrist legal system. And, you know, as I look at it now, of course, after processing for a couple months, but, you know, I said before we got to trial, which I knew what we were getting into, that God already knows whether we're going to win or lose before we step foot in that courtroom. Obviously, we lost, and God cares about souls.

So, it seems very clear when you realize that God is sovereign, that he believes more people will be saved by a loss than a win in their legal system. So that's my two cents worth regarding the reason why we did it.

Me: Amen. And I believe the same thing, that God is yet again taking Genesis 50:20, that all of these things have called you to a time such as this, and also Genesis, right? How this can be used for the saving of many lives. That's right.

Genesis 50:20

Scott Schara: Genesis 50:20 is our family's calling. And, you know, the book of Esther is my favorite book. And it's interesting because, you know, God uses ordinary people to accomplish His purpose. And when you look back at what He did, He set us up for this time.

Of course, Grace's death was the biggest thing I mean, why did Grace die out of all the people who would die? Why Grace?

Why didn't I die three days later when I went to a different hospital and I was significantly worse than Grace? You know, the in that's just, that's just in the stuff related to Grace. I'm 62 years old now, what about the 62 years that led up to it? I mean, I see my whole life was made for what we're doing right now.

Me: Amen. That's right. So and and speaking of God and faith and having faith in him amongst and in between everything that we go through. I start off my 16 points here of things that we learned with #1: Having faith, not fear.

I know that you have said that you had some fear and you looked at the protocols such as FLCCC that talked about the pulse oximeter, that's my #2: The pulse oximeter, looking at clinical things as a person at home.

#3: The oral admission that they supposedly got from Grace.

#4: Just because they wrote it down, and somebody anonymously put that she had consented to hospital admission, the jury took that as true.

#5: The implied consent, which led to the disability of a battery charge.

#6: Changing the bed to an ICU bed.

This is huge, having been an ICU critical care board certified physician in the past, now since lost and taken away by the American Board of Anesthesiology. And the importance of also looking at the building records, which is how you found out that her bed was switched. That opened her up not only to the PICC line after a false informed consent for a catheter, but also opened Grace up to receive multiple potent sedatives and drugs straight into her heart area.

#7: So that was a bait and switch consent, in my opinion.

#8: When you get admitted to an ICU, you're consenting to all the drugs that they want to give you when you're in there.

Who knew that? Thank God you found that out. That was huge.

#9: Down syndrome. They didn't know a thing about it. They couldn't cite any physical or physiological manifestations of Down syndrome that would have led them to have extra care with her.

And I've looked this up and written on this extensively over the weekend here in preparation to submitting, I hope, a paper on this, to a medical journal.

#10: Precedex, and the side effects of bradycardia and hypotension they claimed were so common as well as number two on that sort of A and B was the use of atropine and dobutamine.

You know, dobutamine is not commonly used in the ICU.

So these were not small drugs that Grace was given.

#11: The feeding tube had no business being a conversation if they were going to cite at the same time that she was in the process of dying and she needed an active DNR.

#12: Your conversation as a DNI, do not intubate, was converted into a DNR without your knowledge or permission.

#13: We're told as medical students, if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen. What we learned from your trial was that if it is, written down, the judge and the jury believe it even if it's not true. So to lie in a medical record is taken as the gospel truth, which is very unfortunate.

#14: The doctor can decide on their own to make you a DNR if they consider that your care is futile, and they can do that without your knowledge or permission despite state laws for informed consent.

#15: The doctor can refuse to reverse a DNR, and the nurses can refuse to even ask for a reversal, even if there is supposedly a DNR on the record. 30 nurses were standing in the hallway, and they didn't do a single thing.

And then those are my main 15 points right there. So let's take it from the top on the faith and fear message. What can you share about that?

NOTE: I added #16: The “Standard of Care” (SOC) changes as the doctors or nurses see fit. In one situation, the medical record is correct, and in another situation, it’s wrong — see below.

Scott Schara: That's a phenomenal list. So the faith and fear message is the one I've invested an awful lot of time in because I think about, you know, what actually happened? What took over for me?

And, you know, that's why my podcast, as you know, is called Deprogramming with Grace's Dad.

How was I programmed? I was programmed to trust the white coat.

I was programmed to trust the hospital. When COVID came, I was programmed to trust the narrative. But bigger picture, I trusted the less evil solution. So the evil solution was, you know, the government jab. And Grace was never jabbed with anything. She never got vaccinated with anything as a child. So we were already awake to the government agenda relative to vaccines. Not as awake as I am now, but I was not awake to the alternative medicine being the less evil perspective.

So we bought into the FLCCC protocols. And I'm not calling those protocols evil. So I just want to make sure, because God judges the heart, and the actions is what we want to judge as good or bad.

So we look at FLCCC as good, government protocol bad. Well, no, that isn't. The dialectic process that Satan uses is evil versus less evil. So we bought into the less evil versus trusting God. And I specifically shouldn't have said we, I should have said I, because I'm the leader of our family.

And so I bought into the FLCCC Protocol and we started following it. And one of the things that we bought was a pulse oximeter because the protocol said to purchase that. So once you're in that, I lost my critical thinking and found a protocol instead of critically thinking about things. So relative to a pulse ox, why would I even buy one of those?

We had no baseline. Now that I understand it, I mean, when somebody gets a cold or flu, their oxygen saturation drops. And so when Grace's oxygen saturation dropped to 88% on the morning of October 6, it would have been no biggie.

But the protocol said specifically if it drops below 94%, that's an emergency, admit yourself to the hospital. So we dutifully followed the protocol. Again, not critically thinking.

So when fear takes over, fear is a sin. When fear takes over, you check out of your critical thinking and you don't follow God.

And I want to just drill down one more very, very specific thing because when I mean you know me well enough to know that I I'd like to find out why until you know the why you know nothing so what was the specific thing that I was programmed to follow — this might shock you when I say it but it's the idea of our “civic duty”. The civic duty is a lie under the satanic principle of collectivism.

What specifically happened is October 1st came around Grace had a cold. We were going to go to Cindy's niece's wedding that evening. It was a Friday evening, I believe, October 1st, and Grace had a cold. And we discussed it and said, well, it's our civic duty that if Grace has COVID, we shouldn't take her to the wedding. So Cindy drove into town, got a home COVID test at Walgreens, comes back, we test Grace, she tested positive for COVID.

So, because of the civic duty lie under the satanic principle of collectivism, that's why Grace is not here today. All those things don't excuse what they did to her in the hospital, but it's so important to start with this message, because we will all fall trap to propaganda unless we choose, by faith, to know that God's got this.

Me: Amen. That's Very true. And those are great points. I want to go back just a little bit to that pulse oximeter reading. And I realized that a lot of the general public doesn't know this, but as an anesthesiologist, we were tested, you know, (American Board of Anesthesiology) tested on the pulse oximeter, how it works, why it works and its limitations.

Interestingly, the FLCCC still has that 94% on their protocol.

I want to just get a quick rundown from you. What did Grace look like, Were her lips blue? Was she having respiratory distress? Was she breathing rapidly? Did she have any raspiness to her breathing?

One part of medicine is we look at the number. The other part is we look at the person.

Scott Schara: I'm glad you asked that question. Grace was perfectly fine. She just had a cold. If it would not have been for the COVID propaganda, we would have not thought anything of it and Grace would be alive today.

Me: And just so you know, on the limitations, which nobody would know this, this is specific to anesthesia. There's nobody that knows pulse oximeters more than an intensivist anesthesiologist.

Studies show if you do a blood gas, you take blood out of the artery and you run a test on it that tells you how much oxygen is in the blood with 60 mm Hg, not a percentage being low, So the correlation between the pulse oximeter and the PaO2, the oxygen pressure in the artery, follows pretty well at 100%. You can't tell if their PaO2 could be 150 if they're on 100% oxygen, right? The pulse oximeter can't go any higher than 100%, but the blood can be saturated with 160 mm Hgsame time, you go down to 99%, 98%, 97%, 96%, you're looking at a PaO2 at about the same thing. So they correlate very magically.

But when you get closer to 90%, and when it reads 90% (and I don't know why they picked 94% — I can't find any literature for 94%), but when it reads 90%, the PaO2 is usually 60.

And that's fine for spinal cord and heart perfusion. Oxygenation, nobody is going to have a stroke unless they had one before, but it's not considered to be extremely crucial.

But lower than a PaO2 of 60 mmHg and a pulse oximeter reading of 90%, if it goes down to 88% or 87%, you lose that correlation.

So just like you can't tell if there's too much oxygen in there because the pulse oximeter is max at 100%, you also can't tell if it's below 90%. So, and if you're black or if you have dark skin, your PAO2 is even lower than those studies.

94% seems to me to be extremely generous and I would like to see them change it because the other, another huge thing that every medical student is taught is never treat the number, only treat the patient.

If you look, there's a big difference between an O2 sat of 94% somebody who has blue lips versus somebody with the same O2 sat and no respiratory distress.

And blue nail polish will change that number. A cold hand will change that number. That's why we switch it and put it on the earlobe sometimes.

So there's a list of limitations on that. So that's why we don't necessarily believe that number. And if you're in doubt, all you have to do is look at the patient and go from there. When in doubt, treat the patient and not the number.

I just want to make sure that the general public knows that. That's a very big point that a lot of people don't know. I never would have expected you to know, but in my opinion, the FLCCC should not just go by that number, they should go by look at the patient and weigh that.

Scott Schara: Interestingly, now that you're drilling that down, I just want to make one other comment. God shows us, if we're paying attention, what's happening ahead of time. And so, as I studied the FLCCC protocol that we ended up following, there was a message that should have showed me, just stay away, ‘Just trust me, Scott’.

That's what God was calling me to do. And the reason I say that is because in their protocol at the time, I kept a copy of it, so I have it forevermore as a reference.

Because it said in that protocol that you should wear a mask.

And I'm not talking about N95. And these people from FLCCC knew better than that. The mask, the whole concept of a mask, out of all the people, the population could easily be duped. But there's no way any medical doctor, if they believe in viruses, would think that a mask is going to stop a virus, and that was in their protocol, too.

Me: And I'll let you know that — and I agree with you 100% — there's another level that taught me not to believe them 100% also. That was the use of a Budesonide inhaler, a protocol that was initiated by Dr. Richard Bartlett, and there are people like I'm blanking on her name, Gail Seiler California Betrayal Project, whose husband rescued her out of the hospital. Gail got saved by budesonide only and nothing else.

You never needed ivermectin and there's no hospital or pharmacy that doesn't have Budesonide.

I saw that I did my own research and I veered from their protocol and started prescribing that from the very, very beginning.

They didn't even do systemic steroids for a little while either. And also, I never remembered them making a big push for people to stay out of the hospital because the ventilators will kill you. And they should have known as board certified ICU doctors.

So big gaps in there, as far as my opinion. Let's talk about #3, oral admission to the hospital. They took Grace's consent when legally she already had a power of attorney, and legally, she wasn't able to give consent on her own.

Scott Schara: Well, that is probably why we brought that up at the trial. So this was the last day of testimony. We knew this was in the medical records, because I had told our attorneys,

“I never signed any paperwork, no admission paperwork.”

And so when we got the medical records, we saw this admission paperwork. Who thought, oh my gosh, they fraudulently put this admission paperwork in.

Well then, because we knew the judge was leaning towards this idea of implied consent, we just thought, we better bring this up to the jury. So they realized there was never any consent. And it's easily proven by the document.

I have it in front of me, Margaret. And it says specifically, verbal consent per grace due to COVID-19, October 6, 2021, at 1427, which is 2:27 in the afternoon. Grace and I got to the emergency room about 2:10, so this is 17 minutes after we were in the emergency room.

Now, I was with Grace the whole time, so somebody magically walks in the room with me there, has a verbal conversation with Grace about a general consent form, which she could have never understood anyway, with me there again.

I just keep emphasizing with me there. That's why this is a complete fabricated document. It never happened.

They're supposed to, in the document itself, put the name of the person who had the face-to-face conversation with Grace. That's blank.

They're also supposed to put what is the reason the person can't sign the form. So Grace could have easily signed the form.

She was awake. No, you know, there's no biggie.

She could easily sign the form. You know, Grace had beautiful cursive writing. So, both those lines are blank, Margaret. So, this phantom conversation with the two blanks that are supposed to be filled in, it was obviously got inserted to the medical records after the fact. It's a complete fraud.

We just thought for sure the jury would see oh my gosh, this whole trial is a fraud from the defense perspective once they saw this. But they didn't see it that way, unfortunately.

Me: And this is another case of my #4 point where the jury considered that if something was written in the chart, it must be true.

Because they're going by that. They're erring on the side of believing the hospital and the white coats and the administrators and the people that things into the chart.

Scott Schara: What's interesting is that that's in general true, but then when the things didn't go in their favor, they still believed the defense.

And I'll give you a couple of very specific ones: You'll remember from the trial that Grace did not have a blood pressure at 6.08 p.m. In their chart. Okay, in their chart. And then they gave her morphine at 6:15 without a blood pressure.

Okay, so Dr. Burdine said that's the single most egregious thing he's ever seen in 46 years of medical practice, to give somebody morphine without a blood pressure.

Okay, so then when it came time for the defense to rebut that, of course, oh yeah, well that part of the record, you know,

“Obviously she had a blood pressure, you know, we checked it, we just didn't record it, you know…”

Blah, blah, blah. And so then that same pattern got repeated with the shutting off Precedex.

Well, you may not have seen this because you weren't at the trial: these documents got put up on the screen for the jury to see, Margaret. So the morning that Grace was given at 6:15 had a timestamp of 6:15, but then underneath it, it had a timestamp of 6:30, under oath at the trial, the defense acknowledge means the nurse recorded it at a different time than she administered it.

So she administered at 6:15, recorded at 6:30. So then the doctor ordered Precedex to be shut off before morphine. So remember morphine at 6:15, the Precedex was shut off at 6:37.

So the Presidex was shut off 22 minutes after the morphine.

Well, they said, “Oh, well, that was a mistake in the record.”

Well, no, the same nurse who recorded the morphine at 6:30 recorded the Precedex at 6:37. So did she forget how she's supposed to record seven minutes later?

You know, it doesn't even make sense. It makes no sense. They had their cake and eat it too the whole time because, and you know, how I see it, assuming the jury was not compromised, you know, I just see it as a lifelong programming, no different than I would was programmed before taking Grace to the hospital.

You're programmed to trust the system: Doctors would not kill somebody. You trust the white coat. A hospital's a safe zone.

So all that programming, we were up against at the trial. And of course, you're not going to reverse 50 years of programming at a trial.

Me: Exactly. And to that same theme, my #5 is the judge indicated that because you didn't walk Grace out of the hospital, you consented to everything.

So that made the charge of battery kind of fall off because of implied consent. Yeah, so that becomes one of the appealable items.

Scott Schara: You know, the judge dismissed the battery that should have went to the jury. It didn't, you know, we would have likely lost with the jury anyway, but the fact is the judge made that ruling.

And think about how crazy that is. So then what the judge said, and this is ultimately what the verdict said, is that:

“If you go into a hospital, no matter if you signed a general consent or not, you are giving implied consent. And once you are giving implied consent, they can do anything they want to you.”

It's incredible to me, they have really put this medical profession up on a pedestal. They are gods. They are gods that have the right to determine life or death of a patient. It's hard for me to grasp.

Me: It is, it really is. And then you looked at the billing records, #6 and found that they had changed Grace's bed without moving her down the hallway, without doing anything that was particularly noticeable because the same nurse stayed in the room and she had to have been ICU certified.

They changed the bed from a regular bed to an ICU bed, which opened Grace up to having a lot of different things that happened to her that would not have happened or been allowed on a regular floor.

Scott Schara: What a strange thing. I mean, you know me fairly well, you know I'm not a dummy and yet, you know, on the stand telling them,

“I didn't even know she was in ICU.”

I mean, I look like a complete dummy, but I mean, it's because I didn't know. Grace came in. She just has a cold. We go from the ER to a room. Grace and I are goofing around all day. And all of a sudden, when I get the billing records after the fact, I see, wow, they changed the billing code from regular room to ICU room.

I always perceived an ICU as a completely different room with all kinds of gadgets and and everything.

Well, nothing changed. That's why I didn't know.

And, you know, then I obviously found out through researching that the reason the classification changes as soon as a patient has been prescribed Precedex, they have to be labeled as ICU.

So that just is their Standard of Care. So that's why it happened.

Well, as we went through depositions, we deposed a number of doctors who were not defendants in the case, and one of them was Dr. Zymet. He was their COVID expert.

And he, in his deposition, said that the second floor, which Grace was on, was for the worst patients. So I thought, you know, I've written a number of Substacks, but that Substack, when I wrote after his deposition, was the idea that Grace was toe-tagged as soon as she stepped foot into that hospital.

Why would they put her on the worst floor? She was doing fine.

I allowed Grace to be in the hospital, now that I see it, under false pretenses, which, of course, you heard at the trial, because the ER doc said to me,

“Let's admit Grace to the hospital. We'll put her on oxygen and a steroid for three or four days as a precautionary.”

So, that was the condition. There were two conditions. That was the first condition that I agreed to have Grace in the hospital. And the second condition was, I'm staying with her.

And of course, that's when the objections came because they said,

“Well, you can't stay with her.”

I said, “What's the reason?” And they said, “Well, we don't allow visitors in a COVID room.”

I said, “Well, then I'm gonna take Grace home. And the ER doctor was fine with me taking Grace home.”

And again, you see God's providence because then the head nurse said,

“Well, I'm going to talk with the management and see if we can work something out.”

And she came back about an hour later and said,

“The administration decided you can stay.”

Okay, so then, you know, if they would have said, “You can't stay,” Grace would be alive today, because I would have just taken her home, right?

So you see, you know, I'm very detail oriented with these things. So when you see it that way, you can see, oh my gosh, this is how this whole thing happened. So anyway, your question was about the ICU room and, the billing, right?

Me: How you caught it?

Scott Schara: I caught it in the billing records.

Me: Yeah. And to me, they targeted her to eventually be in the ICU, because they didn't change nurses. And be sure, the nurse beforehand was already ICU certified.

Scott Schara: So yes, so the question, you know, did they target her, you know, and I this never came out at trial, but I It came out in my deposition because they asked me,

“Do you think that Grace's Down syndrome had anything to do with her care?”

I said, “Well, yeah, I do think that. And, you know, what's the reason? Well, you know, there's just a mentality for people with Down syndrome. 90% of Down syndrome babies are murdered in the womb today. So just start with that premise.”

NOTE: This is #9: Targeting for Down Syndrome. We will come back to #7 and #8.

In my research, I found a document that shows doctors are trained to look at syndrome patients as a burden to the family. So they're doing the family a favor by basically euthanizing the Down syndrome person because the Down syndrome person is a burden to the family. This is the programming the doctors get and then I started to go through this at the trial.

The defense objected and you know this is this will shock you what I'm going to share next but the defense objected to this because I'm not a an expert, right? I'm just a dummy. I'm just a Dad.

Well, I read and I see a lot of things that show Grace was targeted.

By the way, in the medical records themselves, there were 22 doctor's reports for the seven days Grace was in the hospital, and they referenced that Grace had Down syndrome 36 different times.

So, just wrap your head around that. What's the reason they had to keep referencing it? On top of that, they acknowledged they had no specialized training relative to Down syndrome.

So, Down Syndrome people have, when they are given morphine and Precedex, they react to those drugs differently than somebody without Down Syndrome. And, you know, they had no idea.

Anyway, the reference that I wanted to give you, I started going through this at the trial, the defense objected, and so I wasn't able to get this out at the trial. But this article, Margaret, is dated December 12th of 2023.

It's from the American Journal of Medical Genetics, and the title is Retrospective Review of the Code Status of Individuals with Down Syndrome During the COVID-19 Era. This article is right on point with people with Down Syndrome, right on point to Grace's DNR order.

And in the article, the article took a sample from January of 2019 through June of 2022 of 1,739,549 patients. So 1.7 million patients in 825 hospitals. So this was a huge sample. And they saw that if a patient had Down syndrome, he or she was 630% more likely to have a DNR status ordered by the hospital.

Me: That is crazy. That's absolutely crazy. So that's why I say that she was targeted beforehand. I mean, they had to know that they were going to admit her to the ICU simply because the nurse didn't change. They had to have targeted her already for the ICU because they didn't switch nurses on you. Otherwise, a new nurse would have been coming in saying, '“Hi, I'm your new nurse.”

Scott Schara: It seems that way to me. I mean, we never got into this at the trial because it was a civil case. It was not about intent. And I get that. I get why we streamline the case that way.

Yet, there's so much that shows, again, now zoom out to the macro level: we know that 1.2 million Americans lost their lives in hospitals. The number one cause of death with COVID on the death certificate in hospitals was in the elderly. Number two was disabled. Of course, those are not causes of death.

Those are just statistics. What's the reason? As you know, I believe there's a much larger population agenda. It's easy under the spirit of collectivism to convince the population that people are too expensive. There's 135 million Americans today on Medicare and Medicaid that is the elderly and disabled.

And so the whole ration care model, when you wrap it into the lie that we need to balance our budget, people can say, oh yeah, we need to ration care for those non-contributing members of society. So, I mean, I'm zooming out there, but I see it as Grace was one of those ‘useless eaters’ that people want to call her. Well, I mean, I'm a useless eater compared to Grace. Grace did what she's supposed to do, which is she shared God's love 24/7. That's amazing. I feel like we all know her too; she would say, “God's got this.”

Me: I mean, just all her mannerisms and purple, her favorite color and just Elvis everything. You've done a great job of making us all come to know and love her Scott.

Scott Schara: And that's why I wore I wore purple today because of coming on. There you go.

Me: So let me just continue down my row here. Okay, a little bit. So I'll say that that PICC line and the the prescriptions that were given, the Precedex, lorazepam, and morphine, made her more susceptible to not only respiratory depression, sedation, unconsciousness, but also, as we know, bradycardia and low blood pressure.

So much so, there's actually papers out there showing that Precedex can lead to death from that slow heart rate and the low blood pressure. Big picture.

Scott Schara: I mean, the package insert for Precedex that's not used for more than 24 hours or causes ARDS, acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Me: So I mean, “Hello!”

Scott Schara: Grace was on it for four full days before her last day. On top of that, Grace had a reaction to Precedex on October 7th and second reaction on October 8th.

So I mean, now you, like you said before, treat the patient just because you can titrate Precedex from zero to 1.4 legally. You know, that's, that's just focusing on a number.

Well, this is what, I got to look at this RAS score and then I can titrate.

No, look at the patient!

And they already had two recorded overdoses. So these, I made a list, I brought it up on my screen. So I'll just, I'm going to Read the list of the Precedex side effects that Grace had that were all in the medical records and Dr. Burdine testified to during his time on the stand.

So there were 12 of them. #1 was respiratory depression. These are all side effects of Presidex in the package insert: respiratory depression, hypoxia, agitation. They claim Presidex is to control agitation, but it causes agitation. Acidosis, hypotension, fever, blood pressure fluctuation, anxiety, delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and ultimately cardiac arrest.

Those 12 side effects Grace had from Precedex, and they completely ignored them.

As Dr. Burdine said in his report that was submitted to the defense in preparation for the trial, they, instead of looking at Precedex as a problem with Grace, they kept using a bigger hammer.

They just kept increasing the dose. Exactly.

Me: They should have known better, but somehow that got past the jury as well.

Talk a little bit that #7 “bait and switch consent” with the catheter, because to get a consent for a catheter that you thought was a urinary catheter, a Foley catheter

You would be asked to leave the room while it was applied under sterile conditions to her arm, then weeded IV up to the upper right side of her heart, allowed the drugs to go straight into her heart, larger than a vein, the superior vena cava, and go through the lungs and straight to the brain. She would have had a much more aggressive level of sedation and side effects from any IV drug that was given that way. And you got no informed consent for that.

Scott Schara: Well, yeah, that's a little bit to unpack. So this happened on October 8th. That's when Grace had her second overdose event. And I had no idea. I mean, this is crazy stuff. Dr. Baum was the hospitalist at that time and a way to look at the title of hospitalist all doctors have different gifts.

And a hospitalist one of their gifts is they're able to talk with the patient. So they're like the salesperson for the hospital So Dr. Baum was Grace's hospitalist on October 7th through the 11th. When he came in on the 8th, one of the things that he said to me was after the alarm went off, not physical, but the alarm bell went off when Dr. Murata came in and said,

“You're going to need to put your daughter on a ventilator in the next two hours.”

I said, “What are you talking about? What's going on here?”

And I started getting educated on ventilators. And Dr. Baum does like the one-two punch and says to me,

“Well, isn't a 20% chance better than no chance?”

Remember, Grace walks into the hospital October 6th. Now October 8th, they're saying, ‘isn't 20% chance better than no chance?’

This ventilator is what you got to do, but it only has a 20% chance.

Well, then he goes on and says,

“We're having a little trouble monitoring Grace's ins and outs.”

And I thought, and so he said, “Do you mind if we put in a catheter?”

I thought, well, this is a statistic you guys need to monitor her care. So I thought, yeah, that makes sense to me. And then he said,

“Well, you got step out of the room while we do this.”

So I said, okay. And then they bring in an informed consent paperwork to me, which I signed. And if you, that informed consent paperwork is in the medical records and you'll see that what I ended up signing. It's a generic catheter form, and then they fill in on the top, which my suspicion is they filled it in after the fact, but I can't prove that, that it wasn't for a urine.

It was not a urinary catheter, but a PICC line, because that's handwritten on the top of the form.

This is all in the medical records. And, you know, so was this a bait and switch? Well, I think it was a bait and switch, you know, even if they had the form filled out ahead of time, it was a bait and switch orally. Again, I'm not a dummy.

Dr. Baum says we need to monitor ins and outs. That is not a PICC line, ins and outs. That's a urinary catheter.

Me: That's right. Line has nothing to do with it. Exactly.

Scott Schara: Exactly. So then, you know, So it shows that I gave informed consent for that.

And of course, that's why we did not bring that into the trial because they would have eaten us up with, well, “You signed this form”. And then we would have had to go on this rabbit trail.

And what we tried to do is keep the trial simple. We wanted it to be about the three meds and the DNR order. So we kept our focus on keeping the trial simple, but there's all kinds of these rabbit trails that were in the the records, like the VIP status. And there's so many things that we could have brought in.

But again, you're trying to win a civil jury trial with a group of people who you're never going to educate on all these things. So you just try to keep it simple. So that's why we didn't bring the catheter situation into the trial.

Me: And who knew, also, my #8 point here, that when you get admitted to the ICU, you're giving an automatic consent to all the drugs that can be given in an ICU?

That includes the Precedex, lorazepam, morphine, et cetera, drugs that cause you to have amnesia, like Versed, drugs that cause you to have respiratory depression, etc.

And nobody really knew that in an ICU, you're consenting to every single drug they could possibly give you.

Scott Schara: What's odd about that is it was acknowledged by the defense expert that I wanted to have informed consent. And yet they said that even if the parent wants that, the hospital has no obligation once the patient's in ICU. It's like, what? I mean. Exactly.

Me: I'm hearing these defense experts on the stand and it's like, “WHAT?”

Scott Schara: Do you guys actually believe this BS that you're communicating to the public? And you know, the sad thing is, is I actually think they do believe it. They're just in it for the money to get paid $12,000 a day to come to Appleton, Wisconsin. I actually think that they, they believe that BS that they're sharing.

There's a principle that I learned with zoning. So land, you know, land use and things like that. I was the town zoning administrator for a while. And what I found out is that the government believes in what's called the “public trust doctrine” and the individual believes in “private property rights”.

So I should be able to do anything I want with my property as long as it doesn't impact my neighbor's property. That's the private property doctrine.

Well, the public trust doctrine says, no, the state should manage all land and then you need permission from the state to do anything. Well, that same concept is what these experts for the defense believe, is that the system knows best, the individual knows nothing, and so the system needs to take over.

We see this, Margaret, with child protective services, for example. If your child gets cancer, the parent says,

“I'm not gonna do chemo”,

the state comes in and says,

“Nope, we're gonna take your child from you, they are going to get what they need, but we decide.”

And there's the equivalent on the adult side, adult protective services. So an adult who rejects too much of the system… my wife, as you know, is involved as a guardian now with a disabled lady who got captured through adult protective services by the system. And to get her out of that is near impossible because the system dictates what should happen to her. And if you are advocating, the system takes over.

Me: I'll add to that another layer, Scott. There's a whole big, huge charade going on in America and in the UK where nursing home patients who are wealthy, especially those who are wealthy, are getting their guardianships taken away by professional LLC guardianship companies who then spend down their assets in a grand scheme.

So there's a whole other layer to this, that part of it.

I'll mention also, #9 on mine is Down syndrome.

We mentioned before, you went over this, that the doctors actually admitted that they really didn't know anything much different on how to treat a Down’s patient. And I'll just add here that there are a lot of airway issues with Down Syndrome, you know: a flattened nasal bridge, a bigger tongue, there's problems in the upper cervical spine that can happen as well. And there's everything from fatty liver, there's all kinds of different things that happen in patients with Down Syndrome where you have to use more care, especially when it comes to airway issues that need protection, protecting the airway.

You mentioned that Down Syndrome was mentioned 36 times in the medical record. I also want to point out you, you jarred my memory. They also talked about her being unvaxxed as well.

Scott Schara: Yeah. In fact, I have the quote right here.

So this was in the first day doctor's report. So this was doctors I met again, their COVID expert. So the COVID expert sets the culture of the COVID wing, right? And he wrote in his last point on his October 7th reports, this is the first day Grace was in the hospital.

He wrote this at 11:53 in the morning of October 7th. He said,

“Unfortunately, I think the patient probably would not be here if she's been fully vaccinated.”

You know, so the, you know, the bias towards the unvaccinated, you know, that's, that continues today. I, interestingly, I saw on X, somebody forwarded to me and then I ended up writing to the lady who posted it, but she didn't get back to me. But I saw on X a picture of a nursing manual, which I believe is true. I just, I don't want to cite it until I can see the source myself. So I haven't written about it yet, but I saw it in, in this lady's X account where in the nursing manual, it says that, with a newborn, if you suspect the, the parents are not going to vaccinate and not follow through on their pediatric visits, that the nurse should remove the baby and vaccinate it. That's crazy.

Me: I know nurses have done that.

NOTE: I found the reference:

Me: I know some nurses that have admitted to proudly doing that, even though it seemed like it was against the policy. I'm shocked that it would be in a nursing manual, but then again, not shocked.

Scott Schara: Right? Yeah, the vaccine agenda is virology vaccine, virology vaccine, boogeyman virus vaccination to fix it. I mean, they will never cut off the head of that snake. It's like Bill Gates, right?

Me: With the virus and the antivirus, create the problem, create the solution and make money out of it, left and right, both sides.

Scott: That's correct.

Me: My #10 was the Precedex leading to bradycardia and hypotension with atropine and dobutamine used.

Precedex, they should have known better that it would cause, could possibly cause cardiac arrest, and they should have stopped using it after the first adverse event.

My number 11 is the feeding tube and the controversy over the DNR.

Me: How do you start feeding somebody with a procedure with a tube that's going to go in the nose into the stomach, down the esophagus and start feeding them because on the one hand, they're getting ready to leave the hospital and eat on their own? And on the other hand, Dr. Schara testified that he knew that Grace was in the process of actively dying and she would have died even if that morphine had not been given?

So that was a big eye opener that they can take the feeding tube and the DNR and reconcile those together when they're irreconcilable. I think they're irreconcilable too.

Scott Schara: I mean, that was, you know, when we were preparing for trial, it became, it was like, well, this is something the jury will connect the dots with.

Why would we approve a feeding tube? Because, you know, the whole defense perspective is, you know, Grace got COVID, Grace died of COVID, get over it.

And here, you know, the morning of her last day, Dr. Schara called us, said Grace had another good day. Well, first he he asked us,

“What did you decide relative to a pre-authorization for a ventilator?”

And we said,

“We're not going to pre-authorize a ventilator.”

So he immediately switched gears and said,

“Well, Grace had such a good day yesterday, we should work on her nutrition. We need to get her out of bed, get her bowels moving so that she can get out of here in the next several days.”

So we're thinking this is fantastic. So then under that which I thought he can't be telling the truth both ways, right?

So under that lie that he told us, because if he was telling the truth on the stand that Grace was actively dying, well then, why did he tell us this?

Only God knows which one was the truth, right? But regardless, you know, so this is why we approved a feeding tube, okay? You know, Grace is going to get out of bed.

He even documented in his report that day about Grace getting out of bed and reducing the level of prosthetics and all these things are right in his October 13th report.

I know what I heard. And so we approve a feeding tube. So this phone call, Margaret, was started at 10, 12 in the morning on the 13th. It ended at 1055.

So, you know, probably 10:40 is when he's going through the elaborate discussion on a feeding tube. And I would say he did a fair job of walking through informed consent relative to a feeding tube.

The thing that he didn't do was he didn't talk about the fact that they were going to use lorazepam to set up the feeding tube because that would have set off an alarm bell.

So he just went through the physical process of the feeding tube and that type of thing. So, you know, he did a fair job. He didn't do a great job or a good job on the informed consent with a feeding tube, but ultimately then Cindy and I approved a feeding tube at roughly 1040.

At 1048, the nurse increased Precidex to the maximum allowable dose.

At 10:56, so one minute after we got off the phone with him, he put the illegal do not resuscitate order on the chart.

You know, so this does not line up at all, right? And so that's why we thought this is, this is the flash of the obvious to the jury that this is what happened to Grace:

They over-medicated her, put an illegal DNR, and this is what killed her.

We thought, this is a slam dunk, right? Yet, they didn't even connect that dot. So... Yeah, there you go.

Me:And then we have also that my #12 is that they turned your DNI into a DNR, documented it as the truth, and the jury ended up believing it.

That somehow you were mistaken, that she really was a DNR, and you should have understood that.

Scott Schara: And how we discovered in Nurse McGinnis's deposition that when she said, “internally”:

“We see a DNI is the same as a DNR.”

And again, so we knew this going into the trial. That's why, you know, when I was on the stand, I just said bluntly, I mean, if that was true, so everybody in their whole staff knows DNI equals DNR.

Why didn't Dr. Schara just say to me,

“Hey, just so you know, Scott and Cindy, because you're not going to give us a pre-authorization for a ventilator, I'm going to label Grace as DNI. And just so you know, DNI is the same as DNR to us at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.”

Me: Exactly. It's not the same thing to everybody else in the country. And that was a lie.

Scott Schara: If he would have just said that, Grace would be alive today, because we said, we're not agreeing to that.

Me: Exactly. So that was my #13 - it was another lie in the medical record that he documented the DNR. And so the jury ended up believing that somehow you got it wrong.

But we'll circle back to that, my #14, which you didn't realize and nobody did, as that a doctor can call you a DNR without your knowledge or permission and write it in the chart.

The nurse can know it. They can bypass all of the signs that they would normally have, like a sign on the door, a purple wristband, and make Grace a DNR without your knowledge or permission.

Scott Schara: I mean, that is so mind-blowing to me. So they're experts, again, having this public trust doctrine as their principle, I guess. I would say it's not a godly principle, it's a satanic principle that we're supposed to believe the government, which the medical system is an arm of the government, but then they got up on that stand and said a doctor can unilaterally place a DNR on a patient, unilaterally, doesn't even need two doctors, without consent, without a witness, without a and without a DNR bracelet.

You know, there is no audit trail whatsoever for that DNR order. Nothing.

They didn't even make up a fraudulent document from Grace for that. There's no audit trail for that DNR.

And their experts said that was well within the Standard of Care for a doctor to do.

And as I discussed after the trial, I mean, that should shake any anybody to the core.

Me: Absolutely. That was shocking, extremely shocking. And not only that, but they tried to say it was a DNR and you just didn't understand it.

Here's Jessica sitting by Grace's bed. Grace got a dose of morphine. She's starting to turn blue. She's starting to turn cold. She cries out to the nurse and (I'm sorry, I'm sorry! That breaks my heart as well!)

You know, she's starts calling for help. And the nurse doesn't even come back into the room. She just offers her a blanket and says this is normal.

And while there are 30 nurses standing out in the hallway, that's not normal. So it sure seemed to me that everybody knew something was wrong.

And it shouldn't be happening this way; they wanted to witness it.

But not one person did anything to call the doctor run down the hallway to a doctor that was anywhere on the floor, get them to reverse a DNR or just just start doing CPR.

So they overdosed her on the last dose of morphine. That's when she stopped breathing.

Well, that's going to wear off. All they had to do is give her Narcan, breathe with her for a little bit, call anesthesia, do an Ambu-bag. Breathe with a mask and a bag right there. You don't have to intubate. You don't have to call a code. You just ventilate her and oxygenate her and wait for it to wear off, give the give the Narcan.

And BOOM! I've seen patients literally sit up in bed, because that Narcan reverses the morphine so fast. Instead, nobody did a thing and just watched it.

And we learned, shockingly, not only can they make you a DNR without your knowledge or permission, but they don't have to reverse it if they considered her care to be futile.

Scott Schara: I am I still am in shock as to the jury's decision. And why would I be in shock? Well, because of all this evidence that we just went through but more importantly, even without any of the evidence,

“Doesn't the jury realize that every single one of them is going to be elderly or disabled someday?”

They're going to have a hospital take over their care.

Where's the empathy? Empathy that this could but for the grace of God this could be me?

I still am shocked as we go through this today. It's it's shocking, but it is not surprising. And it's not surprising because of how easily we are programmed and how easily duped we are, and hardly anybody does the work.

I mean, the public fool system has set us up to have a country that has almost no critical thinking anymore. Individuals, I mean, you and I are the rarity in our country. I mean, people, they read headlines. They don't read anything beyond the headline anymore, assuming they even read the headline.

Me: Exactly. And I think that you're absolutely right, how easily duped we are.

And none of us knew how easily duped we have been. And we learned so many different things that we absolutely did not know.

I was in the ICU. I've never sedated anybody without asking the family or without giving them informed consent that this is what we're going to do.

I've never used atropine, but two or three times a year because it's so rare to need atropine. Now with Precedex, I can see that it has known side effects, but you wouldn't be repeatedly giving that to somebody knowingly, causing the same effect that just happened in them. It doesn't make any sense.

And I just want to end with this one part here:

On the reversal, the failure to reverse the DNR, that once again, everybody in the surrounding area, all the nurses knew that something wrong was happening.

And I just want to apologize that nobody did anything and that their training was such that they allowed somebody to die in front of their eyes without even trying, without risking their jobs, without risking their humanity, without having empathy that that could be them.

They knew that it was wrong, and they didn't do anything about it.

I know that some of those nurses are struggling still, and will always struggle and have asked God for forgiveness. But I also want to just bring that point out to nursing professionals, and physicians, if you see something wrong and you know it's wrong, it's your duty to bypass the wrongness and do something right, even if you lose your job.

Because somebody shouldn't have to die under your watch. And your watch, just because you're not the nurse on record, if that's before your eyes and you're looking at it and you're doing nothing, that's still on you.

Scott Schara: That's why, I mean, as you know, the #1 reason for the lawsuit was repentance.

You know, if one nurse or doctor involved with Grace's Care repented, that would save more lives than all the podcasts, the lawsuit, everything, because their credibility would have been fantastic… which they would have had to tell once they repent.

And the second reason that we filed the lawsuit was for accountability.

In this system, the medical system, what we learned, I'll just give you a specific example.

One thing you didn't cover in your 15 points is the idea of Standards of Care.

So most people would think, okay, a Standard of Care is something like when you pull a book off a shelf. You go in for a throat culture for a Strep infection. It tests positive, the book says to give you antibiotic for strep. So that's a Standard of Care that is in a book.

Well, the Standard of Care in a legal proceeding is,

“What would a reasonable doctor do in the same or similar situation?”

So while it seems so obvious the meds killed Grace and the DNR was illegal, if you have doctors come in and say, “No, that's the Standard of Care,” then it becomes this debatable item.

It isn't It isn't cut and dry anymore.

And the thing about what is going on that people don't really realize is that the legal system was designed to provide cover for the medical system.

So, you know, statistically in Wisconsin, there's roughly 27,000 medical malpractice situations annually.

Only three win in court. Three out of 27,000.

I mean, in God's economy, there is choice and consequence.

I own a business. If we spill a chemical in our business, it's a pond management company, if we spilled one of the pond chemicals on the person's lawn, we've got to fix the lawn.

Because we did not have the the container tight or whatever, whatever caused the spill, it's on us.

So then that's choice and consequence.

Whether it's negligence or not, it's still choice and consequence.

In this system that we are in, this Antichrist medical legal system combination, there is choice and no consequence.

So what do you think is going to happen when you have that system? An attorney friend of mine… I'm going to just share this scripture verse, because it really tells you where things are at. God knew this ahead of time, as He always does. God wrote in

Ecclesiastes, 3:16 - 17: I saw under the sun there is evil in the courtroom. Yes, even the courts of law are corrupt. I said to myself, in due season, God will judge everyone, both good and bad, for all their deeds.

So, you know, we certainly saw that.

The courtroom is not where you get justice.

Ecclesiastes, 3:16 - 17

Me: Well, Scott, I realize that it's not a whole lot of comfort to you. But I also realize what you have done and how this trial went, has opened up so many eyes that never would have been opened.

If it was a slam dunk case, and it would have settled, everybody would have been like, “Oh, okay, well, what happened?”

But as we look through, the fact that you lost the case and we can look at all of the unfairness and all the situational evidence that could happen to anybody, I think it makes it so much more personal for every single person in our country to stay away from hospitals as much as possible, stay as healthy as possible, stay away from doctors.

And I would be remiss also if I didn't mention that Laura Bartlett and the hospital insider lawyer RN who worked for a hospital CEO for decades, came up with the I Do Not Consent form, which I recently helped edit for today's care.

And so far, that document has helped 100% of the people to not be harmed.

That's at idonotconsentform.com. It is a small thing that may protect you in the hospital from the protocols that they get paid and reimbursed and incentivized to institute on people.

Even if you had a motorcycle accident, they can say you had COVID and start Remdesivir, ventilators, and different things.

That's still happening even to this day.

So, again, Grace's case brings into our forefront that it is possible to protect yourself ahead of time and define the things that you do not consent to knowing that these protocols exist out there.

And I just thank you, Scott. I want to close with a prayer if that's good with you. I know that's good with you.

Scott Schara: Yes, that's great, Margaret.

Let Us Pray

Me: Thank you. Thank you, Father God, I just thank you for bringing Scott with us today. I thank you for all his family, especially Cindy and Jessica have had to go through to relive this with a court trial in such a painful an unfair way.

I ask you to mend all their hearts, Dear Lord, and give them strength and your power by your Holy Spirit, to also give them the peace that surpasses all understanding and the knowledge that grace is in God's presence in a perfect place where that she doesn't want to leave.

I thank you that we've all been able to learn by her life and her death and pass it on to others so that we can prevent other people from going through the same thing, and I praise you and thank you for that, Dear Lord, because I know that you are able to take those things that seem bad and turn them into good. And that all things work together for Your love and for Your goodness for those who love You.

I thank You for sending your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bread of Life and the Blood of all Salvation, because His blood covers all of us and all of this, and all of this will fade into the distance as we spend all of eternity with You, Dear Lord, in our perfect bodies and in Your presence and in the New World to come.

I thank you for spreading this word, for empowering people and inspiring them by Grace's life and death and by the truly selfless motivation that her parents have had to go through this and make it public, Dear God. I ask You to bless the work of their hands and the steps of their feet and multiply their efforts as even now, as we're able to get this word out to more and more people each day, Dear God, so that the truth of the beast system, the truth of the darkness comes out and we can keep shining the light on it.

And I ask all this, Dear God in the Name of Jesus.

Scott Schara: Amen.

Well done, Margaret. God bless you. Thanks for, thanks for doing this today.

Me: Thank you for going through all of this in such detail with me, Scott.

I went through everything as much as I could and came up with some good medical points here. And I am going to be submitting some of my findings to medical journals and the whole world. And the scientific world is going to learn and grow from this.

And I thank you for all that you've put yourself through for this as well.

Scott Schara: You're very welcome.

You know, think about if we would have won, we couldn't have recorded this today. That's why, with a win, everybody's cheering, but they don't realize what happened. So that's why it's easy for me to see why God would get more glory in a loss than a win.

Me: Amen. I agree. Thank you, Scott.

We'll talk to you again real soon.

Scott: OK, awesome.

---

Scott and Grace Schara’s Links:

• Website: OurAmazingGrace.net

• Rumble: Deprogramming with Grace’s Dad

• Grace’s Trial: GraceSchara.com

• Scott’s Substack: