Skip to main content
← Suspicious

Suspicious Hospital, Autopsy and Medical

:::caution No clinician is accused of anything Timpanogos Regional Hospital, its staff, Dr. Deirdre Amaro, and every physician named on these pages are accused of nothing. Being the subject of an internet search is not conduct. Treating a patient is not conduct. The items below are attributed claims and open questions about medical process, presented with the ordinary clinical explanation alongside each one. :::

Things citizen investigators find suspicious about the transport, the hospital, the medical examiner, and the autopsy. The wound mechanics live at Suspicious About Cause of Death.

The numbered list​

  1. No on-site ambulance and the scoop-and-run SUV — the "911 call never came through" claim, and why hospitals don't get 911 calls
  2. Charred material and fragments in the SUV — never recovered, never tested
  3. The wound trajectory entrance-exit dispute — three theories, no autopsy
  4. Was a nearer Level II trauma center bypassed? — and the distance claim that contradicts itself
  5. The OR timeline versus the Jerusalem Post — an unsourced time against an unsourced time
  6. The necklace, cavitation and residue — two theories that refute each other
  7. The Timpanogos surgeon search-trends "frenzy" — what Google Trends cannot report
  8. Chest wound accounts versus the neck wound — eyewitness psychology, not a script
  9. The empty ER and hospital personnel changes — and a self-contradiction we will not repeat
  10. The body flown out, and no burial site — answered by the file's own rebuttal

The best item here is a question with a records answer​

Item 1 is the one worth your time, and the reason is that it is answerable. Kirk was moved by his own detail in a GMC Yukon Denali roughly 43–65 seconds after the shot, with no ambulance. That is not suspicious — it is doctrinally correct. "Scoop and run" is trained practice for penetrating neck trauma with catastrophic hemorrhage, where survival depends on time to a surgeon, not time to a paramedic, and waiting on scene with an unlocated shooter would have exposed everyone.

The companion claim — that a hospital source said "a 911 call never came through" — collapses on a structural fact: hospitals do not receive 911 calls at all. Emergency calls go to a Public Safety Answering Point; a hospital learns of an inbound patient via EMS radio or phone pre-alert. If security self-transported, no ambulance was dispatched and no dispatch-to-transport chain would exist. The absence is expected. What remains is a narrow, checkable question: did an EMS pre-alert reach the ER, and what does the intake record show for arrival time and mode? That is settled with records, not argument.

Two claims here are built on things that aren't there​

Item 7 is the clearest methodological failure on this site. A widely recirculated post claims "Israel IPs hunted SEVEN docs" at Timpanogos, naming seven living physicians, and that searches for Dr. Deirdre Amaro spiked from Israel. Google Trends reports normalized relative interest by broad region on a 0–100 scale. It does not report IP addresses. It cannot identify a searcher, cannot detect a VPN, and cannot show "the same IP." The post's own call to "FBI, check those VPNs" concedes the data does not contain what is being asserted. For low-volume names like individual surgeons, a country-level "spike" can be a handful of queries. Seven named doctors are being publicly implicated on the basis of a chart that cannot say what it is claimed to say.

Item 4's premise contradicts itself inside the file. One section says Timpanogos was farther (5.8 mi vs 4.2 mi to a Level II center); another says Timpanogos was closer (2.6 mi) and "essentially on the same corridor as UVU." Both cannot be right, and the version supporting "they bypassed the better hospital" is the unsourced one. Item 5 has the same shape — an uncited pronouncement time compared against an uncited Jerusalem Post timestamp across a nine-hour timezone gap — and the file elsewhere reports Kirk was DOA, which would eliminate the OR window the argument depends on.

Item 9 carries the highest defamation risk in this section and we have handled it accordingly: the file asserts that a named living hospital CEO "was the doctor that treated Charlie" while its own research paragraph three lines earlier states the treating surgeon was never publicly named. A hospital CEO is an administrator. That assertion is unsourced, internally contradicted, and insinuates a foreign-intelligence connection about a real person — so the page states the contradiction and repeats no accusation. Item 10 is answered by the file's own rebuttal: there was a public memorial, and a grave's location is a grieving family's private business. Privacy is not concealment.