Murdoch's Peta Credlin interviews 'Patient X'. I've watched it so you don't have to. Unsurprisingly the interview is used as a political attack on Dan Andrews. A thread
#auspol #springst #LNPeta #MurdochRoyalCommission #ThisisNotJournalism https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6232895170001

"Accused of spreading the virus through his use of a medical device"

Whether or not he was granted permission to use the nebuliser, Patient X DID spread COVID by using the nebuliser. This is a fact.

Apparently he has "endured two quarantine hotels". Peta Credlin loves hyperbole.

Credlin pushes the Contact Tracing lie again by stating he has "seen Victoria's shambolic contact tracing system up close"

Obviously we know that this is complete nonsense. You except lies on Sky News though so I guess it makes sense. https://twitter.com/DeanRosario/status/1361881840739520515?s=20

"What he tells me helps explain why Victoria has just lived through its third lockdown. This is an incompetent state government that can't be trusted to manage this virus"

So he told you that he used a nebuliser and spread COVID? That would explain it.

LOL

Before getting to the interview Credlin runs a little intro with visuals of empty streets and randoms who oppose lockdown. One lady said "lockdown isn't the answer". Hopefully Sky News got her contact details so health professionals world wide can get the secret to beating COVID.

"12 days later he tested positive for coronavirus. Now a theory started to develop; pushed by the Premier that a nebuliser was to blame."
No Peta, he obviously had COVID whilst using the nebuliser no one is suggesting the nebuliser gave him COVID. Wow you are terrible at this.

2 mins in and we finally hear from Patient X. "I really felt that the way it had been presented by Daniel Andrews was misrepresenting what actually happened." The debate is on the permission for the nebuliser. Stating the nebuliser caused the outbreak is NOT a misrepresentation.

For some reason they include Peta starting the interview by saying "I'm not going to use your name"

That was pretty obvious to anyone watching but I guess when you're not actually trying to determine the facts (i.e is he lying or did the Government mess up) then you need filler.

Patient X says he is doing much better after leaving ICU and is symptom free. His family is also ok. This is obviously fantastic news.

Apparently when you enter HQ there is a brief set of questions on your medical history. Apparently there is no forms or any other information given. Seem sus to me. You have to wonder why this isn't asked by Peta. Perhaps because the answer goes against Patient X?

Patient X claims he told HQ staff that he had ventolin nebules when we went into HQ, if this is the true, then naturally there is blame on HQ here.

In this interview Patient X claims that a nurse (in the second hotel) told him that could use a nebuliser. In the Age article, the term staff is used, not Nurse. Why the change in terminology now? Why not tell the Age that it was a nurse?

When in ICU he received a call from Sutton. This came after he made a complaint to the Health Department. He is disappointed that Sutton didn't apologize or offer to speak to Dan on his behalf. Who does this guy think he is? Does he want a call from Morrison next?

Patient X is annoyed that no one reached out to him to get his side of the story. He is annoyed that their internal audit didn't consult him. It's common sense to get his side of it AFTER he has recovered and that is actually what happened.

The audit doesn't concern him, his input wouldn't change the responses of HQ staff and nor should it. His side of the story is important and essential, the audit is the other side of the 'story'. I'm sorry for what this man went through but he is looking for reasons to complain.

Cassar spoke to X after he left ICU. Credlin highlights that Cassar spoke to him after declaring CQV's position on the nebuliser following their audit as if that was the wrong thing to do. The results of the audit are separate from X's claims. They do NOT affect each other.

Patient X isn't going to see the audit and suddenly change his mind, just as HQ staff aren't going to hear Patient X's claims and change their answers and records for the audit.

And finally we have it. The reason for this 'interview'. Patient X claims that he believes it was Daniel Andrews who decided the nebuliser/Patient X was the spreader and not Emma Cassar. He claims that Andrews has thrown Hassar under the bus.

What a coincidence that Patient X's view entirely matches that of The Victorian Liberals and the Murdoch Media. This mans political views have no bearing on the permission to use the nebuliser issue. From this interview though, obvious Liberal voter is obvious.

Patient X believes Andrews threw Hassar under the bus to deflect from himself. Let's be clear though. Neither Hassar or Andrews would be determining the nebulisers involvement in spreading COVID. That is done by the MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS!

Credlin says "rather than admit the Hotel Quarantine system had failed again, Daniel Andrews chose instead to blame Patient X"

Credlin then plays out of context clips of Dan praising Vics HQ. Naturally she doesn't mention the outbreaks in NSW, QLD, WA and SA.

Credlin claims HQ and Contact Tracing have both failed. She backs this up by stating that CT called X whilst he was in ICU. If true, that is not a failure, we would all rather someone be contacted needlesley than not at all. Again, here are the CT stats. https://twitter.com/DeanRosario/status/1361881840739520515?s=20

Surprise, surprise, X wants a Federal inquiry into Vic HQ. He also provides his unqualified opinion that Victoria can't manage quarantine safely. He is disappointed that Dan won't apologize for 'finger pointing'. X did use the nebuliser, Dan shouldn't apologise for stating that.

So where too from here?
Well, previously X claimed that he was told twice he could use the nebuliser. He never made this claim on ‘Credlin’ despite having the opportunity. He never repeats the dirty room claims either which is just odd.

No interview with patient X asks what information sheets/forms are given to travellers in HQ. I believe this is deliberate. Proper investigative journalism would ask this. Clearly this is an area where Patient X’s claims are likely to break down (if he isn’t telling the truth).

CQV must provide a list of information given to travellers and the records on whether Patient X received this. If Patient X signed agreement to conditions stating nebulisers are banned then we need to know. CQV need to provide full transparency to the Victorian public here.

Whether Patient X is telling the truth or not, this interview was not about that, it was another hack job from Credlin to criticise Andrews and like Deadly Decisions, she failed miserably.

Thanks for reading. Have a good night.