The Crime of Caring for Humanity

OPINION

Persecuted doctors and the ‘crime’ of caring for humanity

The New Zealand Herald has often been the most vociferous proponent of State propaganda and has, for four years, been instrumental in the vilification of dissenters who have challenged Covid-19 government public policy. We note that the Herald was a major recipient of government funding from former Minister Kris Faafoi on his way out the door of government. The Herald refused to answer an OIA as to their financial relationships with chosen vaccine cheerleaders in various academic institutions.

Who can forget the Herald’s 07 October 2021 epic title, with (former) MCNZ chair Dr Curtis Walker’s smiling mug:

Medical Council has ‘zero tolerance’ for anti-vax messages from doctors as it receives 23 complaints

Our standard around this is that any advice provided around vaccination has to be evidence-based and expert informed and the medical evidence is that the vaccination is safe, effective and overwhelmingly supported by the healthy (sic) evidence, and certainly the best way to predict (sic) our whānau and communities from this pandemic.

– Dr Walker

It can be argued, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Walker’s statement set forth a definite new public policy, without any enabling legislation, or opportunity for public comment as a nod to democratic process; that the Medical Council intended to persecute any doctor who questioned the safety of the vaccine. It then became “official NZ government policy” that the vaccine was “safe and effective”. This article openly declared that the Medical Council was now the “enforcement arm” of the pandemic response that was being rolled out not by the Ministry of Health, but by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE), which brokered the contracts with Pfizer – which (in its own documents) knew at the time that the mRNA inoculation did not reduce transmission and that it caused clots, myocarditis and a host of other health concerns. Was our leadership told of this, or was it fraudulently induced into these contracts?

As many of us suspected at the time, there was no “healthy evidence” to support this blatantly false claim of “safe and effective”. The government would later admit in an OIA that they didn’t know where “safe and effective” came from!

Was the Medical Council’s word “predict” a Freudian slip, ensuring their ability to predict the communities who would be most devastated by the Covid-19 “vaccine” roll out? The ascertainment bias of most readers would have substituted the word “protect” to attribute virtue to the Medical Council in this context. Their slogan, after all, is “protecting the public and promoting good medicine”.

At the time, the ‘guidance’ document from the Medical Council – to get jabbed and keep quiet – contradicted its own stated policies related to vaccines, but this guidance was nonetheless used to persecute doctors of conscience who stood for health freedom and informed consent. Up unto this day, many of these doctors are still facing disproportionate and inappropriate persecution and prosecution through the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal. This would seem to be contrary to the public interest and any existing modicum of medical ethics.

Heralding a witch hunt

The New Zealand Herald, now three years later, still makes the most of every opportunity to vilify doctors of conscience as in their “Open Justice” segment reported by Ric Stevens on 04 July 2024.

“Covid-19: anti-vax Hawke’s Bay doctor found guilty after switching registration to unsanctioned ‘tikanga’ council”

Upon further reading, the crux of the matter was that the doctor had made a conscientious decision not to accept the Covid-19 mRNA inoculation which had, like for all NZ doctors and without sufficient evidence for safety or efficacy, become an arbitrary condition for his practice through “vaccine mandates”. Importantly, the doctor was not found guilty of harming a patient or being unqualified to practice medicine. The Ministry of Health was able to solicit 13 apparent snitches to complain that they were successfully treated by an otherwise qualified doctor with an alternate registration and practicing certificate.

The court ignored the well-established jurisdictional framework of Māori Customary Law under which the Wakaminenga Health Council (WHC) was established. The “guilty” charges were based solely upon the fact that the doctor had been seeing and treating patients without a current registration and practicing certificate from the Medical Council of New Zealand. Ric Stevens, “open justice reporter”, failed to mention directly that the practitioner did have a current APC and registration with the WHC.

Tikanga Only When It Suits

It is noteworthy that there is nothing in the Health Practitioner’s Competency and Assurance Act of 2003 (the civil statute allegedly violated by the doctor) that precludes a registration from an alternate jurisdiction. Did the ruling acknowledge that a certificate and registration with the MCNZ does not correlate with qualification? Importantly, the court made a great distinction between a doctor’s qualification, skill and experience and the statutory MCNZ “seal of approval”. Although District Court Judge Earwaker “found him guilty of all charges” (related to seeing patients without a Medical Council registration and practicing certificate), the court stipulated that, “This is no challenge to the doctor’s qualifications or experience … He chose not to get a Covid-19 vax and this changed the way he was allowed to practice.” The judge seemed to have genuine empathy for the doctor, and granted him name suppression, but was under political compulsion to serve him up to the Ministry of Health.

The Herald stated that the judge acknowledged that “the WHC sought to utilise the principles of tikanga to set itself up as an alternative health authority in response to the Covid-19 pandemic; however tikanga cannot usurp the clear provisions of the HPCA Act. Judge Earwaker said that the doctor’s belief that he could lawfully practice under the WHC registration was a ‘mistake of law’.”

The WHC would later be subject to a spurious injunction (under the Fair Trade Act) in 2023. It is noteworthy that, at the time the doctor was practicing under the WHC, there was no injunction against the WHC. How could the doctor have therefore made a “mistake of law”, when there was no law precluding his practice in a Maori Customary Law jurisdiction at the time of the Ministry of Health claim?

The ruling seems disingenuous and hollow, as such. It is out of step with any interpretation of the “principles” of Tiriti o Waitaingi 1840, or He Whakaputanga 1835. It is out of step with the needs of every NZ patient who sits on a wait list for specialty services. We would observe the legal and lawful axiom: “first in time is best in law or first in right”.

In property law, this means that “you cannot sell what you do not own”. It is beyond presumptuous, upon the land and bodies of a sovereign people, for a government literally to sell our rights to bodily sovereignty and use our medical regulatory apparatus of HPCA Act 2003 to enforce the sales contract (of us as intellectual property) to a third party. When we connect the dots, there is no other reasonable conclusion as to what the Covid-19 plandemic response was really about; and why our corporate controlled state continues to obfuscate this issue and persecute people of conscience who have stood in their way.

What Is It Called When You Attack Your Own People?

The next plandemic and harvest of souls is waiting in the wings and there is money to be made, by our NZ corporate state, at the expense of its people. As ‘elected public servants’, our government owes allegiance to the sovereign people of New Zealand. So complete has been the betrayal of our citizenry, now by successive governments, as to invoke the notion of treason. God help us all.