NZDSOS response to complaints from critical colleagues | New Zealand doctors talk to science (2023)

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.

complaint letters