End the Hippocratic Hypocrisy, Stat!

By: Janey B.

MP for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies talking about AHPRA muzzling medical practioners. Source: https://t.me/Aussies_PushBack/881

MP for Mulgoa, Tanya Davies spoke out recently about AHPRA’s position statement on Covid19 “vaccinations”, issued to health practitioners on 9 March 2021 that states (amongst other things):

National Boards’ position on COVID-19 vaccination for registered health practitioners

National Boards strongly encourage all registered health practitioners and students (particularly those undertaking placements in various practice settings) to have the full COVID-19 vaccination course as scheduled unless medically contraindicated.

This is consistent with the National Boards’ expectations, as set out in the codes of conduct or their equivalent, that practitioners have a responsibility to participate in efforts to promote the health of communities and meet obligations with respect to disease prevention including vaccination, health screening and the reporting of notifiable diseases.

Regardless of their own vaccination status, health practitioners must ensure that there are appropriate measures in place in their practice to manage any risk of transmission of the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 to patients, colleagues and the community.

Conscientious objection

In addition to the above, it is important that practitioners inform their patient or client of their conscientious objection where relevant to the patient or client’s treatment or care. In informing their patient or client of a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination. Practitioners authorised to prescribe and/or administer the vaccine but who have a conscientious objection must ensure appropriate referral options are provided for vaccination.

While some health practitioners may have a conscientious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, all practitioners, including students on placement, must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID-19 vaccination. Any queries about these should be directed towards the individual employer, health service, state or territory health department and/or education provider for registered students.

COVID-19 vaccination information sharing and social media

Health practitioners are reminded that it is an offence under the National Law to advertise a regulated health service (including via social media) in a way that is false, misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false, misleading or deceptive claims about COVID-19, including anti-vaccination material, may result in prosecution by Ahpra.

Concerns about the conduct or practice of a health practitioner can be reported to Ahpra via the Ahpra concerns submission portal. National Boards can consider whether the practitioner has breached their professional obligations and will treat these matters seriously and in accordance with established procedure.

(The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives’ Association (NSWNMA) endorsed this in August 2021, followed by Federation University on 7 September 2021, as have other professional organisations and educational institutions.)

In April, AMA Federal President Dr Omar Khorshid sought to assure GP members they are indemnified (presumably against lawsuits), stating:

“Following the initial confusion over the ATAGI decision, the Commonwealth quickly provided updated advice to help GPs and patients in making decisions about vaccination along with new consent forms. The AMA also moved to quickly reassure the community that the Astra Zeneca vaccine is safe and recommended for anyone 50 years and over and that GPs were best placed to advise patients of any eligible age on the merits or otherwise of the Astra Zeneca vaccine.

The AMA has been repeatedly and categorically assured by Medical Defence Organisations (MDOs) that doctors are covered by their policies and MDOs are providing this same advice to their members in the strongest terms. Vaccine manufacturers have also been indemnified by the Commonwealth.” (emphasis added)

Davies is correct to denounce the impropriety of actions by AHPRA. It is reprehensible that regulatory bodies and member organisations are threatening health professionals and GP’s with professional sanction against acting on their education and expertise, whilst simultaneously “reassuring the community…that GPs were best placed to advise patients…on the merits or otherwise of the Astra Zeneca (or any other) vaccine.”

From “reprehensible” to “outrageous”, as the Guardian reported in June:

“But the regulations have also made vaccine promotion difficult during the pandemic.

In response, the TGA amended the rules, though only for the promotion of Covid-19 vaccines. While health professionals, corporate entities and media outlets can now communicate information publicly about TGA-approved Covid-19 vaccines, this information must be consistent with current commonwealth health messaging. Any promotion must not reference brand names such as Pfizer or AstraZeneca or any active ingredients that might identify the vaccines.

The rules do not allow any statements saying vaccines do not cause harm, or any false or misleading information.

But the changes do allow health professionals, corporate entities and media outlets to offer cash or other rewards to people who have been fully vaccinated. Rewards must not include alcohol, tobacco or medicines, however, listed medicines are allowed.” (emphasis added)

Bear in mind these injections are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense, they are experimental treatments. They have not completed clinical trials and are only provisionally approved by the Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA), and highly qualified doctors and scientists have raised serious concerns not only about their efficacy, but their inherent safety.

It is fundamentally dishonest and blatantly misleading to refer to these experimental treatments as “vaccines”, especially as they do not stop infection or transmission.

Both government indemnity and TGA provisionally authority for Pfizer jabs are especially ingenuous considering that company’s criminal history. Since then it has suffered further severe blows to it’s credibility with:

Despite this, the TGA has not revoked the “provisional authority” in any capacity, including for use in children aged 5 -11 years of age that it approved on 5 December 2021. Trusted institutions such as AHPRA and the AMA continue to promote these experimental treatments as “safe”, and deceive the general public into believing it, by blackmailing GP’s and other trusted medical professionals into silent complicity.

How do these “trusted professionals” reconcile this with their Hippocratic Oath to “first do no harm”?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

For Lucie Wilk, a hospital doctor in the UK National Health Service (NHS), the crisis of conscience was plain;

What has been most upsetting for me has been the unquestioning compliance from the medical community as increasingly draconian, non-evidence-based and destructive virus control measures have been implemented. Some of the overt corruption, financial conflict of interests and politicisation has been laid bare in editorials in prominent medical journals such as the BMJ. But the vast majority of doctors have had no interest in asking questions or looking further.

My concern over our professional passivity turned to alarm as our compliance required us to support the roll-out of an experimental vaccine to a trusting population.

Contrary to the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine, pronouncing an experimental medical intervention ‘safe and effective’ now does not seem to require any peer-reviewed evidence of safety or clinically meaningful efficacy. The vaccines have not been shown in clinical trials to reduce transmission, hospitalisation or death. The phase 3 trials are not over and the safety data is not complete; the earliest trials will run into 2023…

And as we remain silent, the destruction continues.

Most of us went into medicine for the right reasons: to help the vulnerable, to reduce suffering. I know my colleagues are kind and well-intentioned and that their faith in our unelected public health policymakers is the result of a lifetime of conditioning. For those of us who have looked at the data and see the truth, I understand the fear: the risk of non-conformity is immense; careers, reputations and livelihoods are at stake. I recognise an even larger threat: a threat to our chosen profession, our life purpose, the possibility that we have been following a false god in our honest intentions to help the ill. We are at a difficult crossroads, but the choice for me is clear.

Although I am not on the front line in the ‘fight’ against coronavirus, and have had nothing to do with the vaccine campaign, I feel complicit in this public deception. I can no longer hide within a system that has proved itself to be weak-willed and unwilling to stand against the irrevocable erosion of inalienable human rights and freedoms in the name of public health safety. It is past the time for us to grow up, stand up and speak out.

Source: Conservative Woman | Why have we doctors been silent?

Wilk is correct. It is “past the time…to grow up, stand up and speak out”; because this is not the first time in history “trusted professionals” have been co-opted into obscene crimes against humanity.

Through accepting the role of experts in these juries, physicians had assumed an executive position within the National Socialist (NS) state.9 Leading proponents of race hygiene, however, believed that involuntary sterilization did not go far enough. In their view it generated human ‘ballast’ and an economic burden which had to be eliminated by other means. Thus, the concept of involuntary medicalized killing, wrongly termed ‘euthanasia’, was developed…

The NS euthanasia programme secretly started in specialized medical departments in 1939. In theory, the programme was aimed at disposing of children suffering from idiocy, Down’s syndrome, hydrocephalus and other abnormalities.10 Even though this programme was not specifically directed against Jews, it was sufficient for physicians to fill in the diagnosis ‘Jew’ to issue what in essence was a death sentence.11 At the end of 1939, the euthanasia programme went into its second stage by being extended to adults ‘unworthy of living’. Almost 100 000 (predominantly psychiatric) patients became its victims.12 The programme disposed of an estimated four-fifths of all psychiatric patients, and psychiatrists started wondering whether there would be enough patients left to keep their speciality alive…13

They sent out questionnaires to psychiatric and other hospitals urging doctors to name candidates for euthanasia. These patients were then transported to specialized centres where they were gassed or poisoned and subsequently cremated.14 Others were executed through lethal injections or starvation in psychiatric hospitals…

Almost without exception, those physicians who had gained experience in ‘action T4’ took charge of the Final Solution.11 The strategy for the anticipated extinction of the Jewish race was decided on 20 January 1942 at the Wannsee-Conference:… ‘in the course of the Final Solution, Jews should be brought… to work in the East… a majority will doubtlessly drop out through natural decimation… The eventual rest… will have to be treated accordingly…’.18 To be ‘treated accordingly’ meant to be killed…

While the pilot project (action T4) had killed thousands, the Final Solution eliminated millions under the trained guidance and supervision of physicians.

E. Ernst | Commentary: The Third Reich—German physicians between resistance and participation

Hindsight is 20/20 and just as the last time; following orders is not an acceptable excuse. Do not continue to be complicit in genocide.

Another UK doctor, Dr Sam White was suspended by the NHS in June last year for having the temerity to speak out on social media about Covid19 policy, informed consent and alternative treatments. Dr White engaged PHJ Law Solicitors and Francis Hoar, and filed an appeal in the High Court in September.

On 3 December, his legal representatives tweeted that the appeal had been successful.

Since then, White and his solicitors have applied for undertakings from UK Medical and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to withdraw the Covid19 experimental treatments. White’s legal team said they would apply for a High Court injunction if they refuse to comply.

Australia has signed and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and both optional protocols.

Source: https://t.me/robinmg/13456 [02/01/2022]

Clearly, “consent” cannot be “free” if it is either;

  • not informed consent, or
  • if compliance is coerced by threat of economic sanction, social exclusion, or any other infringement on fundamental (non-derogable) rights.

Complaints against AHPRA or any of the 15 health practitioner boards (including the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia), can be made to the National Health Practitioner Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner (NHPOPC)

Human rights complaints can be lodged at the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), or your state or territory equivalent.