The basic public health tenet of maintaining societal functioning and community calm was replaced last year with ensuring as much fear as possible. This senseless alarmism has destroyed public health, and predictably resulted in escalating insanities from power grabbing politicians.
Covid-19 vaccinations do not prevent transmission or infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Their sole aim is to reduce symptoms and death in the person receiving the therapy. Symptoms and death almost exclusively occur in a specific subset of the population, who deserve to be protected and for whom the risks of vaccination may well be worthwhile depending on independent circumstances such as previous exposure to the virus.
Herd immunity is not proffered through these vaccines. As such, the stance taken by Governor Ivey in the news item below, regardless of its sinister nature, serves no purpose except perhaps to highlight her ignorance and her propensity for tyranny. I hope that enough people understand this as we start to see politicians pushing for increased societal division. No good can come to the world if people believe these nonsensical claims.
The situation in Canada is extremely concerning with very clear connections between some of their leading politicians, and main players within the Chinese Communist Party and World Economic Forum. Four physicians daring to speak out, and a lawyer representing them via the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), shared an online discussion at the beginning of July hosted by Dr Sam Dube. The Persecution of Canadian Physicians By Organised Medicine During the Pandemic.
It is a very worthwhile two hours, with six of the most ethical humans you could hope to meet. A summary of the points made is as follows:
Dissent is a part of the scientific method, and it is being aggressively shut down. Free speech is one of the pillars of free society and the rationale for freedom of speech includes:
- Search for the truth
- Consideration of all evidence and viewpoints;
- Public discourse;
- Determining good laws which cannot happen without debate.
If we lose all other freedoms, but retain freedom of speech, we can use it to gain all of our other rights back. Democracy crumbles without the right to free speech.
Closing debate on unsettled matters, such as lockdown as a public health intervention, is unscientific. No society has ever succeeded at vanquishing a virus by destroying the economy and shredding the fabric of civil society.
Each of the doctors in this discussion describes their personal experience of censorship through disciplinary action from the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians. Each scenario is quite different but relates to their daring to speak out against the established narrative relating to the pandemic response and vaccination rollout.
One uses the word “Covidology” to describe the phenomenon that lockdowns are now seen as the only public health solution. Historically this has never happened before. Use of early treatment, recognition and protection of high risk groups, and epidemiological processes such as comparing the outcomes of possible responses have all been aggressively shut down.
The lack of informed consent is a major obstacle to the practice of these physicians who have been censored for daring to suggest that the consumers of vaccines deserve to be informed of the risks and benefits. A strong signal which cannot be ignored is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in the USA, where thousands of vaccine associated deaths are now documented. Association is not causation but the associations need to be investigated, and it appears not to be happening.
Free speech, debate of scientific ideas, and the scientific method are all under threat in today’s political climate.
This pandemic, as shown by the data, seems to be somewhere in line with the Asian Flu of 1957 or the Hong Kong Flu of 1968, but it does not come remotely close to the Spanish Influenza of 1918.
The consequences of lockdown which include such impacts as cancelled surgeries, cancelled diagnoses, suicides, alcoholism, domestic violence, mental health issues from loneliness and isolation, are huge and there has been no cost-benefit analysis, which is utterly irresponsible of all governments.
The media are now an arm of government, as they receive significant government funding.
An example of the failure of media to report appropriately is the fact that over eight days in May, Manitoba held a trial in which an expert witness for the government, in charge of the laboratories in Winnipeg, stated that at least 56% of people who tested PCR positive did not have Covid. This was admitted under oath. Zero media reports shared this information. Other media outlets are proving useful to share information such as this to the public, who deserve to be fully informed.
Consequences of doctors who break “the code of silence” on the corruption playing out face profound consequences. Dr Hodgkinson received death threats. All of the others speaking have experienced a cut in their incomes as tenures have been cancelled and jobs suspended. This successfully keeps most medical practitioners quiet. Another consequence is being discredited and Dr Hodgkinson, with some amusement, describes a letter he received from the Associated Press which stated in writing “Dear Mister Hodgkinson, we want to debunk you”.
Many doctors are also being threatened with loss of employment if they refuse to take the experimental vaccine. Hodgkinson describes the phenomenon of being forced to choose, and that most feel a need to choose income over ethics, with tragic consequences for society as the general public are led to believe that there is no counter-narrative to support their feelings that something is not quite right.
“We have never before called someone with a strand of mRNA in their snot a case of disease” ~ Dr Rodger Hodgkinson
The doctors all discuss their concerns with the dangers related to these experimental vaccines, especially being given to young and healthy people who are at high risk of unintended consequences such as myocarditis. The narrative has described “mild cases of myocarditis”, when in fact there is no such thing and every case of myocarditis places a person at risk of long term consequences.
There is abundant literature on the dangers of isolation and loneliness, which are the outcome for many as a result of lockdown policies. In May 2020 the death statistics of Covid-19 put it in line with a bad seasonal influenza. Protecting the vulnerable was warranted but locking down society was not.
Dr Milburn describes a case in Canada of a young man presenting to the Emergency Department and being sent home by staff who were wearing “Covid blinders”. The Medical Officer of Health for Nova Scotia had publicly stated that “the new variants don’t discriminate by age”, which is completely untrue as Covid does not threaten young people and has a 1000-fold risk to the elderly. But the MOH’s claims had influenced emergency doctors and nurses into focusing on Covid as a diagnosis for this young man who ultimately died from meningitis due to faulty clinical assessments. Milburn goes on to describe this as “Medical Lysenkoism”, explaining that Lysenko imposed scientific conclusions by government resulting in multiple disasters such as crop failures leading to mass starvation.
Dr Christian, who lost his job for daring to practice against the narrative of promoting vaccines without offering informed consent, has studied the political history of both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. He makes multiple parallels with what is happening today. Pitting the vaccinated against the unvaccinated is one tactic he draws a parallel with. He describes the fact that major advances in science have always been arrived at by practitioners not towing the line, but vigorously questioning official narratives in pursuit of the truth. “This is the scientific method and it is under assault … When tyranny is imposed on society, often by the time people wake up to what is happening, it can be too late. And ultimately, people do wake up“.
Dr Hodgkinson describes the suppression of information as contributing to the absence of informed consent, and obstructing protests about lockdowns which have serious medical consequences including death. He speaks without fear to the colleges, accusing them of medical malpractice by forcing doctors to put income before ethics.
Dr Milburn states that the colleges, tasked with enforcing safe and reasonable medical practice, are instead enforcing unanimity, ensuring doctors don’t prescribe drugs off-label <for early treatment> and obstructing all dissent. Early treatments could save lives but instead they are being obstructed, which will eventually be recognised as a crime against humanity that has been committed in this pandemic.
Parallels are made with the Soviet Tribunals in which academics were deplatformed, sent to the gulags or to concentration camps. Academics were targeted, as they have been in all such regimes, as their removal made the imposition of totalitarian rule easier.
The doctors appeal to their medical colleagues, and to the general public, to “join the right side of history” and “wake up to the creeping dystopian darkness that is approaching; if you don’t it may be too late“.
One way of doing so would be to watch this intelligent discussion in its entirety.
The Persecution of Canadian Physicians By Organised Medicine During the Pandemic
One thought on “Medical Ethics and Human Rights”
The issue of how the site of infection – the upper respiratory tract – has made it difficult to develop a successful coronavirus vaccine was discussed by Prof Ian Frazer in this article https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616 back in early 2020. I suspect this is still the case.
LikeLiked by 1 person