Daniel O'Connor's July 8, 2025, article on Children's Health Defense's The Defender, titled "Hospitals Turned Into Killing Centers During Pandemic — Will We Learn From the Mistakes?" delivers a scathing critique of the U.S. COVID-19 response, arguing that systemic failures, driven by fear, censorship, and corporate greed, turned hospitals into death traps rather than healing sanctuaries. From a conservative perspective, this analysis resonates deeply, aligning with scepticism of centralised authority, distrust of bureaucratic overreach, and a commitment to individual liberty and accountability. O'Connor's call for a reckoning, rooted in evidence of misdiagnosed treatments, suppressed therapies, and inhumane isolation policies, demands a response that champions truth, protects the vulnerable, and restores trust in institutions. This post builds on O'Connor's arguments, showing why conservatives must demand accountability for these failures to prevent future tragedies.
O'Connor highlights the catastrophic misuse of ventilators during the early pandemic, particularly in New York's spring 2020 surge, where nearly 90% of intubated patients died. Hospitals, misinterpreting COVID-19 pneumonia as typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), rushed to intubate patients, including those with "silent hypoxia" who showed low oxygen levels but no distress. This aggressive approach led to ventilator-associated complications like pneumonia, sedation-related injuries, and multi-organ failure. Conservatives, who value individual responsibility and decentralised decision-making, see this as a failure of top-down, homogenised care that erased clinical judgment. The "one-size-fits-all" protocols, driven by fear and flawed guidance from centralised authorities like the CDC and WHO, ignored patient-specific needs, leading to preventable deaths.
This aligns with conservative critiques of bureaucratic overreach. The blind adherence to protocols, as O'Connor notes, reflects a system where "bureaucratic blindness" trumped the art of medicine. Sentiment on X, where users describe hospitals as "killing fields" due to aggressive ventilation and denial of alternative treatments, reflects this distrust. The data, 90–95% of infections being mild to moderate, per peer-reviewed studies, suggests hospitals should have tailored care to the elderly and chronically ill, rather than applying blanket interventions that harmed healthier patients.
O'Connor's critique of the "censorship industrial complex" strikes at the heart of conservative concerns about free speech and the stifling of dissent. The Trusted News Initiative, backed by tech giants and government agencies, suppressed frontline doctors like Peter McCullough and Pierre Kory, who advocated for early treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. TrialSite News, as O'Connor notes, faced de-ranking and demonetisation for challenging the official narrative, while YouTube and Facebook censored peer-reviewed data and Senate testimony. This censorship, conservatives argue, is not just an attack on free speech but a betrayal of the scientific method, which thrives on open debate and scepticism.
The dismissal of low-cost, repurposed drugs like dexamethasone, proven in the June 2020 RECOVERY trial to reduce deaths by one-third in ventilated patients, illustrates the cost of this suppression. O'Connor cites the ICAM protocol, a combination of steroids and blood thinners that saved lives early in the pandemic but was halted, allegedly due to a Pfizer contract. Meanwhile, remdesivir, a drug with no mortality benefit and known toxicity risks, received emergency use authorisation, diverting attention from more effective options. Conservatives view this as evidence of a "Big Pharma" agenda, where profit motives and corporate influence overrode patient care. The $35 billion in fines paid by vaccine manufacturers since 2009, as noted by Children's Health Defense, reinforces this distrust, suggesting a pattern of valuing revenue over safety.
Perhaps the most gut-wrenching failure O'Connor describes is the isolation of patients, who died without family advocates due to hospital bans on visitors. Conservatives, who view family as a cornerstone of society, see this as an unconscionable violation of human dignity. Families, as O'Connor argues, are critical patient advocates, catching subtle changes and ensuring personalised care. Banning them, even after PPE shortages eased, left patients vulnerable to neglect and dehumanised their final moments. A medical journal's assertion that "dying alone is not justifiable, even in times of pandemic" underscores the moral bankruptcy of these policies.
From a conservative lens, this reflects a broader erosion of individual rights under the guise of public health. The state's imposition of isolation, coupled with the silencing of dissenting voices, mirrors the authoritarian tendencies conservatives oppose. Stories like that of Grace Schara, a 19-year-old with Down Syndrome who died sedated while her family watched helplessly on FaceTime, fuel outrage. Fourteen California families filing "wrongful death" lawsuits against hospitals, as reported by The Defender, signal a growing demand for accountability that conservatives should champion.
O'Connor's reference to a recent report, "Constraints from geotemporal evolution of all-cause mortality on the hypothesis of disease spread during Covid," provides statistical weight to his argument. The study found no consistent link between case surges and viral spread, with hospitalisation and death spikes often misaligned with transmission curves. This suggests overreporting or misclassification of deaths, a point echoed by some X users who claim hospitals inflated COVID-19 death counts through deadly protocols. The report also notes that government interventions like lockdowns had inconsistent impacts, often exacerbating mortality in hospitals due to aggressive treatments like ventilation.
Conservatives, who prize evidence over narrative, see this as vindication of early scepticism about the pandemic response. The data, showing most deaths occurred in hospitals, not at home, in high-mortality areas, points to medical interventions, not the virus alone, as a driver of excess deaths. This aligns with conservative principles of questioning centralised authority and demanding transparency. The failure to protect nursing home residents, who accounted for a disproportionate share of deaths, further underscores the misallocation of resources driven by panic rather than reason.
O'Connor's article demands a reckoning, and conservatives are uniquely positioned to lead it. First, they must push for accountability through legal and policy reforms. The lawsuits filed by bereaved families, such as those in California, offer a model for holding hospitals accountable for wrongful deaths caused by reckless protocols. Conservatives should support these efforts, advocating for investigations into hospital practices and pharmaceutical influence, particularly the prioritisation of remdesivir over more effective treatments.
Second, conservatives must champion free speech and scientific inquiry. The censorship of doctors and researchers, as O'Connor details, reflects a dangerous precedent that threatens not just medical freedom but all discourse. Supporting platforms like TrialSite News and amplifying voices like McCullough and Kory aligns with conservative values of individual liberty and resistance to Big Tech and government collusion. The ongoing lawsuit against the Trusted News Initiative, as mentioned by O'Connor, is a critical battleground for dismantling this "censorship industrial complex."
Third, conservatives should advocate for patient-centered reforms that opt for family involvement and individualised care. Policies ensuring families can advocate for loved ones, even during crises, would prevent the isolation horrors of the pandemic. Strengthening whistleblower protections for medical professionals, like the Phoenix hospital coder who exposed protocol-driven deaths, would encourage transparency and accountability.
Finally, conservatives must address the root cause: a public health system corrupted by corporate interests and centralised control. The $23.5 million in revenue for Children's Health Defense in 2022, much of it from donors sceptical of Big Pharma, reflects a growing movement to challenge this system. Conservatives should leverage this momentum to push for reforms that limit pharmaceutical influence over agencies like the CDC and NIH, ensuring decisions choose patients over profits.
O'Connor's article is thus a rallying cry for conservatives to confront the failures of the COVID-19 response. Hospitals, meant to heal, became "killing centres" due to misguided protocols, suppressed treatments, and inhumane policies, all underpinned by censorship and corporate greed. This aligns with conservative principles of scepticism toward centralised authority, defence of individual rights, and commitment to truth over narrative. The data, showing preventable deaths, misclassified mortality, and ineffective interventions, demands a reckoning. By supporting legal accountability, free speech, patient advocacy, and systemic reform, conservatives can ensure that the next pandemic does not repeat these tragedies. As O'Connor warns, "our survival depends on whether we've learned from the pain of this one."
By Daniel O'Connor
When historians one day sift through the wreckage of the COVID-19 pandemic, the central question won't be how many lives the virus claimed. It will be: how many were lost to a system that collapsed into fear, censorship and fatal conformity?
At TrialSite News, we chronicled the crisis as it unfolded. We reported — early, relentlessly, and despite immense pushback — that the majority of COVID-19 infections were mild to moderate.
Peer-reviewed research later affirmed what we knew by spring 2020: roughly 90–95% of infections did not require hospitalization, and those at real risk were predominantly the elderly or chronically ill.
Even Bill Gates eventually admitted the fatality rate was relatively low and the disease pattern was akin to the flu. Just think of the implications.
But public health leaders didn't follow the data — they followed panic and centralized narrative control promulgated by a confluence of government, industry and academia. And the price was paid in hospital wards across America.
A misdiagnosed disease met with misguided protocols
Ventilators became the instrument of tragedy. Early guidance — mirroring protocols from China — promoted rapid intubation. In New York's spring 2020 surge, nearly nine out of 10 intubated patients died.
Though that number softened as more data emerged, the damage was done. Hospitals, misreading COVID pneumonia as typical ARDS, deployed invasive mechanical ventilation far too aggressively.
Patients with "silent hypoxia" — low oxygen but no distress — were sedated and intubated when non-invasive oxygen support might have sufficed.
What followed was a cascade of preventable deaths: ventilator-associated pneumonia, sedation complications, ICU delirium and multi-organ failure. We heard the stories. We saw the data. Too many walked in with breathlessness and left in body bags. It was a tragic disaster.
This wasn't just clinical failure; it was bureaucratic blindness and potential criminality. Across hospital systems, the practice of "homogenized care" erased the art of medicine in favor of algorithmic treatment pathways.
Individual patient context vanished. And families — banned from the bedside — couldn't intervene.
The forgotten treatments — cheap, effective, ignored
As thousands perished under sedation, treatments that could have helped were either dismissed or demonized. The RECOVERY trial in June 2020 showed that dexamethasone — a low-cost steroid — cut deaths by one-third in ventilated patients.
But months had already passed. Why didn't we try anti-inflammatory therapies sooner?
Remember the ICAM protocol TrialSite reported on? Early on in the pandemic, a pharmacist for a southern health system was saving lives with a combination of steroids, blood thinners and the like. Yet this was shut down, we were told to due to a Pfizer contract with the health system.
Meanwhile, the government rushed emergency use approval for remdesivir, a drug that shortened hospital stays but did not reduce mortality — and carried notable toxicity risks. The opportunity cost was tragic. Time and attention were stolen from better solutions.
Frontline doctors proposing repurposed drugs like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, in carefully designed early protocols, were silenced or sanctioned.
TrialSite News, remember, scooped ivermectin itself, then gave these doctors a platform — from Peter McCullough to Pierre Kory-publishing observational data, real-world insights and field-tested regimens.
But the Dr. Anthony Fauci-led National Institutes of Health dismissed outpatient care entirely. Americans were told to stay home, take nothing and seek help only once they couldn't breathe. For many, that was too late.
Isolation and inhumanity — dying without dignity, a horror story
As if clinical missteps weren't enough, hospitals enforced one of the most brutal policies of the pandemic: isolation until death. Patients, many alert and conscious, died without family. No one held their hand. No one fought for their care. Loved ones said goodbye through screens, if at all.
This was not just a moral failure. It was a clinical vulnerability. Families are essential patient advocates. They catch subtle changes, speak up for needs and fill gaps when nurses are overwhelmed. When hospitals cut them off, patients suffered alone and unseen.
Even after personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages eased and vaccines rolled out, the bans often persisted. As one medical journal put it: "Dying alone is not justifiable, even in times of pandemic." But by then, the damage had been done.
The censorship industrial complex: science gagged
Throughout it all, a chilling consensus smothered dissent. The so-called Trusted News Initiative, backed by tech giants and government agencies, became an apparatus for narrative enforcement — not truth-seeking.
YouTube deleted Senate testimony on ivermectin. Facebook throttled peer-reviewed data that contradicted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's messaging. Twitter flagged doctors for sharing early treatment findings.
TrialSite News was labelled, demonetized and de-ranked on social media. Not because we spread misinformation — but because we challenged the official line.
We joined Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a lawsuit against the Trusted News Initiative; the legal theory is not freedom of speech but rather antitrust — that a cabal of media companies sought to use the pandemic to put competition out of business. That lawsuit may advance, as we reported recently.
The irony is that as the pandemic evolved, our reporting was repeatedly vindicated. But by then, the public had been force-fed a false sense of consensus. And trust — once lost — became impossible to recover.
A synthesis of systemic failure: What the data really showed
A recent report, "Constraints from geotemporal evolution of all-cause mortality on the hypothesis of disease spread during Covid" — a rigorous and sobering analysis we reviewed — drives the point home: epidemiological modeling and policy decisions rested on flawed assumptions.
According to this report:
There was no robust correlation between reported "case surges" and viral spread metrics in key geographies.
Hospitalization and death counts often spiked without clearly matching transmission curves, suggesting misclassification or overreporting.
Government-enforced interventions (e.g., lockdowns, mandates) had inconsistent, even paradoxical impacts on outcomes.
The data, when evaluated statistically, contradicted the uniformity of the official narrative about COVID-19's trajectory and lethality.
What is the implication? Much of the policy response was driven by fear (and profit motive, we believe), not facts.
This aligns with what we saw in hospitals: intubations without individualized assessments, treatment bans without safety justification and patients left to deteriorate behind locked doors — all in the name of science, while science itself was being gagged.
Final grade equals D for disaster, F for failure
The U.S. COVID-19 response, judged on prevention, treatment and communication, deserves no more than a D. Only the heroism of frontline workers, those who bent rules to save lives, rescued the system from an F.
This wasn't just a failure of medicine. It was a collapse of courage residing in a river of greed. Agencies silenced dissent. Hospitals crushed autonomy. Public health became political theater. And too many Americans paid with their lives.
A reckoning is due
Hospitals are meant to heal — not to kill by consensus. If we do not face these failures honestly, we will repeat them.
Why were nursing home residents left unprotected? Why did we shame doctors exploring outpatient care? Why did we allow censorship to eclipse scientific debate?
I founded TrialSite News to ask these sorts of questions in the biomedical and health-related world. And we will not stop asking them. Because the next pandemic will come. And next time, our survival depends on whether we've learned from the pain of this one.
Originally published by TrialSite News.
Daniel O'Connor is the founder and CEO of TrialSite News.