Sharing with permission from the Substack Doctors’ Tales, this essay invites readers into a series of questions that cut to the heart of modern medicine. Each asks not to accuse, but to awaken, to expose how easily ethics can erode when obedience replaces conscience. Through the voice of a doctor who began with the accepted truths of his profession, it traces a journey from quiet unease to open recognition of medicine’s betrayal during the Covid years, when evidence gave way to propaganda, consent became theatre, and truth-tellers were punished. It stands as both testimony and warning: a reminder of what is lost when professions bow to power, and a call to stand with those who refuse to remain silent.
Did We Screw Up or Did We Not?
Did doctors foresee the consequences of their surrender, the loss of their professional autonomy?
Some questions cut through the noise. They may expose the upside-down world we’ve been manipulated into accepting.
I don’t ask these as accusations. I write them as invitations, for my brother, my nephew and for anyone teetering, wondering.
Mortality Signal
Did you know the pivotal Pfizer trial signaled higher all-cause mortality in the vaccine group?
Would you mandate a treatment that lowers specific outcomes – say, infections or hospital admissions – yet increases overall deaths?
Even if the difference wasn’t “statistically significant”, the signal pointed to more funerals, not fewer.
Unknown Safety
Did you know the placebo groups in the pivotal trials were dissolved once participants were vaccinated – erasing any chance of evaluating medium- or long-term safety?
Would you mandate a treatment for which no medium- or long-term safety data exists?
Such data could not possibly have existed in 2020 or 2021. They require years of follow-up.
Transmission
If a product doesn’t stop transmission, on what ethical basis would you compel its use?
Spike and Messenger
Would you design a therapy that instructs your cells to manufacture a toxic protein – not in a vial, but within your own tissues, scattered throughout your body?
Would you choose a method that causes the immune system to attack the very cells producing that protein?
Would you extend that risk using modified RNA designed to resist breakdown?
And would you deliver it in lipid nanoparticles that travel far beyond the injection site – into the ovaries, testes, liver, brain, breast milk, and even across the placenta?
Pregnancy
Did you know the effects of the vaccine during pregnancy were never studied before its mass rollout?
Would you tell pregnant women it was “safe and effective” – even essential – when it had never been tested in pregnancy?
DNA and Cancer
Would you mandate billions of doses knowing that studies on DNA damage and cancer potential were never done?
Autoimmunity
Would you compel a treatment that risks triggering autoimmune diseases – like myocarditis, neuropathies, and systemic inflammation?
This gene therapy instructs your cells to produce a foreign protein, mark it on their surface, and effectively flag themselves for destruction.
Would you mandate a treatment that teaches the immune system to attack its own host?
Early Side Effects
Would you classify people as ‘unvaccinated’ during the first two weeks after injection – specifically when tracking adverse events?
They did.
Mass Mandates
Would you mandate – and attempt to inject 80 to 90 per cent of the population – with a product that:
- Doesn’t stop transmission
- Has no long-term safety data
- Was never tested in pregnancy
- Skipped genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies
- Shows concerning autoimmune signals
- May tilt all-cause mortality in the wrong direction
Ethics
Medicine rests on two foundational principles: first, do no harm and informed consent.
Do mandates not undermine both?
Why I Keep Asking
People ask, ‘Why keep talking about this? The mandates are gone. The lockdowns ended.’
That’s exactly the point.
If we bury what happened, we allow the pattern to continue. The machinery that enforced censorship, coercion, and silence remains intact. It waits – for the next virus, the next ‘emergency’, the next justification.
Are You Concerned?
Are you concerned about future mandates, lockdowns, or school closures?
If not, why not?
Isn’t Questioning Essential?
If we want a world where medicine still means first, do no harm, where informed consent actually means informed – and where trust is built on truth, not coercion – then isn’t questioning essential, not optional?
Still Punishing
Did you know doctors are still being censured, suspended, and even struck off – for doing what medicine was meant to honour most: telling the truth as they saw it, and letting patients decide?
One retired doctor – out of practice for a decade – spoke out. She was fined $54,000. Not for harming anyone, but for expressing an informed opinion.
Does it concern you that doctors are being punished for sharing their honest, professional judgment?
If our doctors are discouraged from asking these questions, what do you think will happen next time?
Conscience or Obedience?
If medicine punishes conscience and rewards obedience, what kind of future are we heading toward?
One where obedience is safety and conscience is a crime?
Final Question
Why aren’t we terrified of what’s coming?
The consequences of our passivity, our surrender, and our loss of autonomy are not over.
They’re just beginning.
I remember standing by the roadside in those early days, holding a banner that read: Please stop, think – for your child’s sake. There were 20 of us, spaced 20 feet apart. Cars tooted in support. Others shouted obscenities, gave us the finger. Tears streamed down my face – not sobbing, just a steady river. I asked myself: Why am I crying?
Because it matters. Because I care. Because I know what kind of world generations to come may inherit if truth and conscience are abandoned.
Will you stop, and think – for their sake?
This article was republished by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
