New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science
nzdsos.com
Information
Opinion
So, a medical doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath, to First Do No Harm, is proud of the ‘vaccination effort?’ Proud of the data mangling his crew produced, more like.
How inevitable and yet disingenuous and misleading, to refer to the experimental gene-based injections as ‘vaccines’. Even the manufacturers don’t, in their risk disclosures to investors.
Dr Ashley Bloomfield took sole responsibility under his role to either grant or deny exemptions to citizens, although we understand the Director General has a ‘team’ and does not necessarily see the applications people will have sent to him. In some cases these included endorsements from medical specialists. Yet even these were denied.
As health professionals it is unconscionable, unethical and immoral that anyone would refuse exemptions to people who had an increased risk of adverse reactions to an initial or to repeated injections of the same product, which could result in further injury or death. What bizarre, dystopian, parallel universe have we entered? Oh hang on… Ardern’s NZ.
Being informed that a defibrillator and other lifesaving equipment would be available in the event of a serious adverse reaction, would be cold comfort, and resuscitation is not guaranteed to be successful of course. Yet this is what some people were told when their exemption was denied through correspondence.
Exemptions ought not to have been needed, because the experimental injection was just that – experimental. Therefore, requiring exemptions (that were unlikely to be granted in the first place, by this ‘medical doctor’ or any of his ‘team’, who had no professional relationship to those seeking the exemptions) was inappropriate to say the least. Why would any government enforce a mandate for an experimental drug?
This blatant breach of international protections, including the Nuremberg Code which really gave birth to the process of informed consent, has been ignored by the very people we ought to have been able to rely upon. What happened to these people? What motivated them to forgo their oaths and their pledges?
The Director General, also a medical doctor, was complicit in the mandating of a medical procedure, ie vaccination, which begs the question, how can any consent be valid when achieved via a mandate? As a doctor, did he ever pause and consider the implications of this? Where is the ‘choice’ with a mandate, exactly? Why even bother with a consent process, given how pitiful the standard MOH Covid vaccine consent form was?
In addition, how lawful is a consent when gained under duress, or with a threat of penalty, like being excluded or banned from entering public places or losing earning ability? Any medico knows the answer to this Ethics 101 question.
Further, what health professional in their right mind would seek to engage in this process, where the consent cannot be ‘informed’, due to the paucity or absence of safety data for that injection? How can anyone ignore this risky elephant in the room?
Those risks that are emerging are being swept under the carpet, and very early proof of deaths and injuries was buried for 75 years until a courageous court action forced their release.
Regarding the risks, we must not forget the fact that the clinical trial for the ‘vaccine’, is still ongoing and the placebo cohort now nonexistent (early on, both Pfizer and Moderna administered the products to the placebo group), meaning that assessing differences in adverse outcomes between the jabbed and the unjabbed is now not possible. Ergo… we the people are the clinical trial, and global population outcomes are the source of real-time data for the manufacturer. The un-injected are the control group now.
What about kids, one might ask? Is the Gillick Competency Test (a low bar that assesses children’s understanding of consent issues) even relevant for youth considering these injections, because that ruling was not based upon their partaking ‘indirectly’ in a clinical trial, in research, as they obviously are? That would require an entirely different type of consent process. But there isn’t one, as this has never been done before – to give children a drug with no animal or adult trials completed.
The most unbreakable golden rule in medicine lies in shattered pieces. Perhaps it gives some heart that in the UK the parents of 90 per cent of five to 11 year olds have given the finger to their government and declined the jab at the time of writing, four months after its approval. Perhaps they know that almost 100 per cent of the kids are now immune. No doubt Bloomfield knows better than these millions of parents.
One cannot ignore the published list of ‘Important Risks’ and ‘Missing Information,’ on page 161 of the European Medicines Agency’s 195-page Risk Management Plan, last updated in February 2022. Was the Director General not aware of this? Neither can one ignore the numerous ongoing studies, such as Study C4591036, which pertains to children and young adults (<21 years old) and which is assessing outcomes in those with myocarditis post Pfizer BioNTech injection. The date for completion of this study, October 31, 2025. It is not as if myocarditis has not been shown to be a signal with rates in the injected clearly exceeding background rates.
The potential harm or risks are perhaps best summarised by the Frontline Covid Critical Care Alliance. There can be no denial by any health professional, pharmacist or allied health professional once shown these details.
‘Alternatives’, the word that has been censored with discussion banned, are an integral and required part of the process of informed consent. Therefore, the absence of any discussion between the person obtaining the consent and the client or patient is unacceptable. There were after all alternatives available which were safe, effective and economic.
The right to sovereignty over one’s body and ultimately to self-determination, has been eroded, removed and, by many, belittled. All for the “greater good”, for “community immunity”. How’s that working out? Study after study answers that one. So does just looking around.
Lives have been affected, relationships destroyed, society divided, innocent people vilified, dismissed and maligned. Some have been made social pariahs, lost their livelihood, their homes, their friends and tragically in many cases have lost loved ones, through abrogation of human and medical rights and the suppression and denial of risk and safer treatment options.
All for what? A product that does not meet the scientific definition of a ‘vaccine’; a product that results in transmission, shedding and infection; which does not elicit sterilising immunity; and which has resulted in antibodies that can facilitate the virus, whilst selecting out variants and sub variants. This is a product that has failed due to ‘original antigenic sin’, antibody dependent enhancement and a raft of systemic adverse reactions, including death.
Perhaps the most daunting consideration is the ongoing sequelae of adverse outcomes and the impairing of innate and adaptive immune pathways in human beings across the globe. Who is monitoring this? Or rather, who is paid not to?
The NZ Health and Disability Codes, which adorn the walls of health institutions and GP clinics nationwide, are now merely meaningless words on posters, which will continue to collect dust as they hang there redundantly.
Those we are expected to trust to have credibility, to assure and to protect us, have lost their way, for whatever reasons which they will have to face eventually, either privately, or in a court of law.
The accolades afforded to the former Director General of Health will be cold comfort in times ahead. That is for Dr Bloomfield’s conscience. In his role, it was not required that he be a medical doctor, but it is inescapable that he was a medical doctor for that term and, as such, we believe he ought to have done the right thing and to have upheld his Hippocratic Oath, as others did and still are, even though they are punished for doing so. It really just beggars belief.
Scientists and doctors have been professionally crucified for asking important questions, reminding their professional bodies of the important scientific and medical tenets, which are applicable to this current situation. The former Director General has not faced any scrutiny. His silence has been deafening.
Like a latter-day Peter, Bloomfield has denied three times: the impossibility of “safe and effective”; the extent of vaccine death and injury; and, finally, he denied our saviour – in court no less – in the form of proven safe and effective early treatments for Covid-19. Yes, I mean the medicine registered for use in humans since 1987, called ivermectin, but also described as horse paste by the medical cronies. What a whopper! A large study from Southern Brazil has just shown 90 per cent reduction in deaths in regular takers. This only adds to the more than 30 other studies proving its lifesaving ability, all the while being cheap, safe and available.
We can only hope that at some time in the future, Dr Bloomfield will locate his moral compass and begin to atone to those whose lives his words and deeds have adversely affected.
Primum non nocere. It must never get old, Dr Bloomfield.
If nothing else, remember this…
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again, that you did not know.”
WILLIAM WILBERFORCE
