Below are two letters of complaint from doctors sent to various officers (Bloomfield, Ardern, Hipkins) in September 2021 regarding a medical conditionOpen letter from Mary Hobbspublished through NZDSOS and on our (NZDSOS) website. They may have been written by two colleagues from the same team, as one describes a peer meeting where the concerns were discussed. Both refer to the same letter from Mary Hobbs and not specifically to our articles or letters and were sent only a few days apart.
These New Zealand doctors were troubled by the content of Mary's letter, but more importantly, they seemed troubled by the questions and distrust the patients showed them. "Our patients are confused, some quite agitated and angry."
The blame for disturbing her patients seems to lie entirely with us. Did they think their patients were intelligent enough to be worried and skeptical or to ask questions long before NZDSOS came together and were desperately looking for doctors they could trust and believe when their own doctors didn't have the answers, support or provide it respect they expected?
Have they stopped and wondered why patients might be considering this?“hard working and well trained medical communitymuzzleAndcontrolled by the government”or"gagged and misinformed""Perhaps these patients were aware that the government had entered the consulting room and told doctors they could not prescribe hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and knew that doctors had never before been so restricted." fully informed consent has been obtained. The tense and angry patients certainly knew thatBackground history of ivermectin.
Could it be that these patients knew that MCNZ had given?guidanceto doctors who say they need to talkOnly the benefits of vaccinationwithout mentioning risks or alternatives? Perhaps they knew that MCNZ had threatened doctors with sanctions if they said or did anything that could be perceived as "anti-vaccination" and that it was a breach of the Medicines Act not to discuss the risks of medicine.
Patients were aware that there were financial incentives to be tested and vaccinated – financial incentives that did not necessarily align with the patient's clinical needs or wishes.
They were also aware of the fear campaign (well documented in Laura Dodsworth's book, A State of Fear) and the millions of dollars spent on "influencers" and 24/7 saturation advertising. They knew that the government controlled the mainstream media.
They expected their doctors to stand up and protect them from all this. In many cases, these confused, agitated and angry patients knew far more than their doctors, and the doctors could have learned from them if they had used the best tool in medicine – the art of LISTENING.
„People read this and question the entire ethics of the medical systems.”
Yes, the ethics of healthcare professionals are indeed being questioned, because never before have so many ethical principles been violated.
- The sanctity of pregnancy
- consent form
- First, no harm
- Right to refuse medical treatment
Let's look at some of the other points raised in these letters.
Although the doctors acknowledge that this was not the case.given mandateTo represent all doctors, they imply that their opinion is the opinion of the majority and that they speak for the majority of doctors and that "Almost all doctors support the goals of elimination, cluster reduction and vaccination’.
How do you know? NZDSOS may only have a limited number of publicly visible faces and names, or even members who have joined, but how many doctors are quietly cheering us on from the sidelines? How many doctors have tortured their souls trying to make peace between the part of them that knows what is wrong and goes against ethical medicine, and the part of them that knows they are mocked, attacked, cast out and possibly kicked out, will not be able to generate income if they speak up?
We are not aware of any surveys or questionnaires asking doctors' opinions about the various measures taken during the Covid response. In fact, the doctors were deliberately encouraged to follow the instructions and not ask questions. There was no opportunity for discussion and debate. We were given guidelines from above and told what to do and how and when to do it. We were never asked for our opinion. We had to listen to the "experts" (who were generally not front-line clinicians in patient care) without being able to give advice or challenge them.
As far as we know, no one has asked doctors whether they support forcing patients to undergo unwanted medical procedures.
Since there is no evidence for what the majority of doctors believe, we must look elsewhere for proxies. We found that only 6,500 doctors signed the Stand Up for Vaccination letter. It's over19,000 registered practitionersDoctors in New Zealand and over 33,000 doctors on the MCNZ register. Can anything be inferred from this? Who knows.
As seems natural in this Corona era, many derogatory terms are used in these letters which cannot be backed up by substance.
- rather bizarre and potentially harmful contrarian philosophy
- The details of the arguments are wrong and annoying
- this increasingly divergent message
- influential breakaway medical/medical group
- Views that lie on the edge of reason
- unprofessional doctors
- Opinions are neither provable nor trustworthy
What specifically was wrong and annoying, bizarre or deviant? Why is it unprofessional to take a different view, ask questions or advocate for patients? Many of our letters refer to published scientific results.
Similar to what Francis Collins of the NIH (National Institutes of Health) wrote to Anthony Fauci in October 2020, calling for:a quick and devastating published takedown' ofGreat Barrington Statementthey demanded a quick, researched, factual and peer-checked response to be published within days. One of them said they wouldn't"to raise their [NZDSOS] profile and popularity by launching a public campaign against them". That sounds a lot like what we discussed in our commentengage with vaccination advocates. No debate, only censorship allowed. Why should those on the fence—their vaccine-unwilling patients—choose to follow the side unwilling to prove or defend their position in a discussion? Why should those who side with the censors side with the censors? If these doctors were so sure of their position, why didn't they dare defend it?
The writers could have talked to us. They could still talk to us, whoever they are. We would be interested in a discussion.
One doctor mentioned that “proven and extremely safe Pfizer vaccine'. We would disagree, even more so than when the letters of complaint were written.
Theoriginal clinical examinationallegedly proved the vaccine was 95% effective. A reading of the first page showed that this was the relative risk reduction (RRR) based on the outcome of 170 patients, and the absolute risk reduction (ARR) could be calculated as 0.84%. Doctors know that ARR is the number to use, while pharmaceutical marketing companies like to use RRR because it sounds better.
The ability of the injection to prevent infection has not been tested. This was not one of the endpoints of the trial, and the government knew they had no evidence that vaccination prevented transmission.
Even before the vaccination rules, Medsafe's "Covid-19 Therapeutic Products - Questions and Answers" asked the question: "Does the vaccine prevent or reduce transmission of COVID-19?"The answer said:"At this time, we do not know whether vaccination will prevent or reduce the transmission of COVID-19". This answer remained here until September 30, 2021, when the question and answer were removed.
As for safety, even the most pro-vaccinationist must now be aware of the significant harm New Zealanders are suffering. We have written many times about the injuries.
One of the more disturbing comments in the letters is the claim that it is "ridiculous" to violate the Nuremberg Code. We have written several times about the Nuremberg Code, i.aHer. This code was written in 1947 after World War II following inhumane experiments on humans by the Nazis.
It contains a set of guidelines or rules that must be followed in relation to medical trials. In our opinion, the Pfizer Covid vaccine meets the definition of experimentation. Never before have synthetic genetic material and lipid nanoparticles been injected into healthy humans. Never before have the majority of Earth's inhabitants been injected with any substance during clinical trials. Of course, it must be subject to the 10 points of the code. What's funny about that?
Agreements, codes and declarations in medicine arose because doctors as a group can be made to do things by unscrupulous leaders that later history despises. The Holocaust did not happen overnight. In the 1930s, doctors led the German people to regard certain groups as subhuman and to accept the euthanasia of those who did not conform to the Aryan ideal. In addition, the American psychiatrist Walter Freeman led a craze to paralyze psychiatric patients with prefrontal lobotomy until it was banned in 1977. The procedure was banned by Soviet doctors as early as 1950 and declared "contrary to the principles of humanity". There is also the Tuskagee Experiment and our own "unfortunate experiment" at Greenlane Hospital. Both involved deliberately not treating a group of patients to see what would happen.
These are two examples of letters people have written about us as a group. A number of other doctors and members of the public have submitted written complaints against us as individuals. But no one has spoken to us in a professional way to understand our position, or to discuss their concerns about our communication, or to explain why we are so wrong.
What the letter writers had in common was that they clearly relied on government information and considered themselves educated, informed and ethical because they were part of the majority. But what about injecting pregnant women and children and discriminating against people exercising their rights under the HDC Code, the Bill of Rights and, yes, the "ridiculous" Nuremberg Declaration?
We know that many doctors are obedient workers rather than original thinkers, and that some are deeply concerned that the collective power of medicine is being undermined by heretics who violate groupthink. However, our allegiance is to the truth and the efforts to discern it are hard-won and humanitarian.
Curiously, no real patients have complained about NZDSOS as a group (although there have been fake patients trying to get stories or "proof" of our alleged mistakes) and we have yet to see evidence of the harm that MCNZ perceives. We have received many, many more messages of thanks and appreciation that inspire us to continue.
Thanks to those who support us.
Sent:Thursday 23 September 2021 at 11.59
To:Ashley Bloomfield <[email protected]>
I hope you are well during this rare time.
I am writing to you today regarding the open letter I am attaching below attributed to the NZDSOS group.
In the peer discussion this morning, many of us expressed concern about the power of this letter to spread misinformation about vaccines. Many of our patients are reluctant to be vaccinated and the power of this letter 'written' by an 'award winning New Zealander' is of great concern.
In our work we are introduced by our patients every day with links to the NZDSOS website and links to videos of group leaders talking about their concerns to welcome supportive public gatherings. Some GPs have had cease and desist letters sent to their workplace by patients because they feared their GP was being gagged and misinformed.
I have not been mandated to speak on behalf of GP, but many of us have expressed the view that MOH should take the lead and prepare an open response to their letter. In our view, the response must be swift, researched and collated today, facts and peer-checks done immediately, so that it can be published in the next few days. The response does not have to be defensive and easy to understand, but provide a comprehensive response to each of their claims.
Those who debated this morning believe that a unanimous, soft but open response could then be used by all of us in any area of the media to refute these claims. Today's discussion has shown that we believe this is important to support our vaccine launch.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sent:Sunday 26 September 2021 at 11.26
To:Ashley Bloomfield <[email protected]>
CC:[email protected];[email protected]nz
He:Doctor's concerns over NZDSOS open letter to government.
26. september 2021
Tenakoe Dr. Bloomfield, Prime Minister Ardern and Minister Hipkins,
I am a general practitioner and palliative care physician, and like all other doctors, I am actively engaged in fighting SarsCoV2/Covid-19. I like that most doctors take an evidence-based and collective approach that is consistent with our goals of treating disease through early diagnosis, prevention through mask-wearing and real-world risk management, and vaccination with the proven and highly safe mRNA vaccine Pfizer BioNTech BNT 162b2 to minimize
Thank you all for the efforts you are making to protect New Zealanders from the worst case scenario of a COVID pandemic. I am very keen to draw your attention to a small group of doctors (although you are no doubt well aware of this) who subscribe to a rather bizarre and potentially harmful contrarian philosophy.
Regarding NZDSOS and Mary Hobbs' recent open letter to the Government.
Ashley, Jacinda and Chris Speaking not only from my own perspective but from almost all of our fellow practitioners, we appreciate your continued efforts to manage this COVID pandemic response and strive for elimination until we are on the cusp of community vaccination, so that if endemic and epidemic SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs in Aotearoa, we will be healthier and more resilient, and as a society and a health community we will be able to meet what remains a daunting challenge, but with a lower mortality rate.
To that end, you can be sure that almost every doctor in New Zealand supports the goals of elimination, cluster reduction and vaccination. I am honored that most of our patients also support us and follow the best advice.
It is therefore of great concern to me when I continue to hear from a rogue group of doctors who are spreading misinformation, fear and attacking the very foundations of our best-tested approaches to combating the COVID pandemic. I am referring to NZDSOS and their latest open letter which was sent to me by a concerned patient a few days ago.
I was forwarded this latest open letter from NZDSOS, written by one Mary Hobbs, apparently an award-winning New Zealander (for writing books about mountains) who literally spent pages and pages protesting the entire handling of COVID and created a platform for selfless bravery The very few and many would contest the unprofessional doctors who make up this group, while viewing the hard-working and well-educated medical community as being silenced and controlled by the government. (i) The content and tone of the letter is patently incorrect. The details of the arguments are wrong and annoying. To top off the violation of the Nuremberg Code, the injunctions and injunctions are laughable, if not worrisome, as people in society read this and question the entire ethics of medical care systems in the times we live in.
I am now being asked by some members of the public why we, as doctors who practice medicine for the benefit of humanity, practice such harmful medicine on the basis of this organization and other usually social media led adversarial and conspiratorial groups that run it could in increasingly believe that we know more than we do. I do my best to set things straight with a non-threatening, knowledge-based and evidence-based, informative and educational approach. However, I am concerned that doctors in this group continue to fan these flames and am completely baffled that any doctor with medical training and ongoing patient responsibility and a respectful platform would hold views that are on the edge of reason, and certainly no evidence or credibility.
On the one hand, I feel that we need to do something about this growing dissenting message, but on the other hand, I and many of my colleagues feel that we do not want to publicly campaign against them in order to increase their awareness and popularity. This is a difficult impasse; However, I think a measured response will be needed. Our patients are confused, some quite agitated and angry. As mentioned, most of our patients can see through this and do an excellent job of supporting our collective goals of disease prevention and control.
I really appreciate your attention and guidance on this matter. I realize this is not new information to you, but I hope, on behalf of many of my colleagues in general medicine and palliative care, to express our concern about conflicting interests that could endanger the health of many. Myself and a significant number of my fellow GPs that I know are committed to the goals of COVID control and are extremely concerned about this seemingly small but influential splinter group of medical professionals.
With best regards
So just a little bit of me
Click here to rate this posting!
Share this post