We are grateful to present this thought provoking and personal submission to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into c-19 from Dr René de Monchy, a psychiatrist with nearly five decades of medical experience and a long standing commitment to ethical medical practice.
In Truth, Tyranny, and the Covid Years: A Doctor’s Testimony to the Royal Commission, Dr de Monchy reflects on his experiences during the C-19 response, both as a medical professional and as a citizen deeply concerned about human rights, informed consent, and the erosion of core medical ethics. He reminds us that safeguarding medical ethics and individual rights must never be sacrificed, regardless of political pressure, public fear or perceived necessity.
Truth, Tyranny, and the Covid Years: A Doctor’s Testimony to the Royal Commission
The Royal Commission of Enquiry into ‘Covid-19 Lessons Learned’
in response to the Phase 2 Terms of Reference.
22 April 2025
Dear and esteemed Commissioners
Grant Illingworth, Anthony Hill & Judy Kavanagh
Preamble
I am deeply grateful to you as Commissioners, that you have committed yourselves to the mission of truth-finding, of the aspects of the Covid-19 period in New Zealand. I realise, in talking with many people, including my patients and friends who have either directly or indirectly suffered from the matters taken by the New Zealand authorities during that time, the hardship that this has caused to so many.
My submission therefore is a plea that at last truth and information may see the light of day.
My submission therefore is fueled by the hope that many people will have their voices heard, whatever their opinion of Covid-19 may be.
Personal introduction
My name is Dr René de Monchy, a Medical Practitioner since 1973, Registration MCNZ8986, currently – again, after having been ‘mandated out’ – working as a psychiatrist in the Public Mental Health Services in Rotorua, Tauranga, and in private practice.
Before becoming a specialist I worked as a general practitioner in New Zealand for 20 years, and 4 years as a doctor in an isolated rural area in Southern Africa. My professional background comprises ongoing clinical medical practice, endorsing the ethical and moral standards of clinical medicine and practice in New Zealand, according to the Oath of Hippocrates, which I literally swore at the end of my medical training.
In the ethics of medical practice, the issues of a patient’s individual dignity, ’never to do harm’ and ‘informed consent’, hold a central place as part of age old medical practice and tradition.
I was born in the Netherlands, only months after the Second World War.
The history and examples of coercion and state demands to obey measures, that went against ones conscience, was always related to me by my parents, as my father was active in the Dutch Resistance, and in fact was knighted for his work for the Royal Air Force, hiding air crew who were shot down over Holland.
I write this, as many of the government regulations during Covid-19 time in New Zealand bear a resemblance to what I was told in my youth about the third Reich and the abolishment of human rights. Similarly, the government measures during Covid-19 and the atmosphere of intentionally created fear, was a reminder for me of the stories of two friends of mine, who had grown up in East Germany, as something chillingly similar to what they had personally experienced.
Personal situation
I worked fulltime as a psychiatrist in both public and private mental health services, until October 2021, when I was suddenly “mandated out”. Within a quarter of an hour after receiving a telephone call, I was dismissed and ‘trespassed’ from all hospital grounds. This trespass has actually never officially been revoked, and therefore I could still be trespassed and committing a criminal offense by being on the property where I am employed. The lack of process, of being mandated out in a most brusque and disrespectful manner, after 48 years of unblemished medical practice with not even one complaint ever in this long career, either from patients or regulators, was a very serious life event. [...]
The reason for my being ‘mandated out’ was the fact that I simply could not comply with a mandatory inoculation of an experimental, genetically engineered, biochemical substance, falsely designated as vaccination, for a viral illness. This virus was of the Corona variety, which had been known for decades, and for which perfectly appropriate medications had been used for many years.
In fact these medications, including Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, (which I had used hundreds of times in the endemic malaria area where I worked in Zimbabwe/Mozambique, without any untoward effects), Vitamin D, Quercetin etc, were from then on actively discouraged or forbidden to be prescribed by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.
I later learnt that the Covid-19 vaccine could only be admitted by the Food & Drug Administration and regulatory agents in the US and in New Zealand under “emergency” regulation, if no existing appropriate medications were available. This aroused my suspicion as soon as I learned of this fact.
This being ‘mandated out’ resulted in my losing my position as a Medical Specialist at Tauranga Hospital, for following my personal and professional conscience as I had done for almost half a century.
For me, as a law abiding and responsible New Zealand citizen, a father and grandfather, a medical practitioner, and therefore a patient advocate, I could not believe how my country had so completely changed course into tyranny under the guise of ‘kindness’.
The Covid-19 measures, as executed by the New Zealand Government, have had a disastrous effect on many fronts, macro- and micro bio-psycho-social, including education, economy, as well as the severely detrimental effects on the individual human immune system.
It was clear after the first wave of Covid-19 deaths and injuries, mainly of old people or immune-compromised people similar to the year influenza cases, that the virus itself was not quite as pathogenic as first thought. The after-effects of the vaccination, especially myocarditis and other cardiac and neurological illnesses, and especially in young people following vaccination, were later only partially and reluctantly acknowledged by the Ministry of Health.
In my own practice I have seen the after effects and the mental health deterioration of many patients due to the fear, the uncertainty, and the ongoing concerns about their life and health, and many people with increased psychiatric morbidity, especially mood disorders, suicidal ideation, and anxiety.
I feel that this had been very poorly acknowledged by the Health Authorities, aided by the one-sidedness of the media, in which no contrary or even doubting voices or opinions were allowed!
It is also clear that I am not alone in this mistrust in the media, as the New Zealand Bureau of Statistics showed “a reduction in trust in thew media” from a rating of 53% in 2020 to only 32% in 2025!
Issue of Rights and the dignity of the individual person in New Zealand
After the Nazi atrocities in Germany, the German Constitution & Basic Law (1949) stated in Article (1):
“Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community of peace and justice in the world.”
The New Zealand Bill of Rights states the same in Article 11 – “everyone has the right to refuse and undergo any medical treatment”, Article 13 – “Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, and Article 14 – “freedom of expression”.
In my medical practice, this dignity and the inviolable right to bodily autonomy has always been my guiding professional principle, as at the time was also expressed in guidelines of the Medical Council.
Therefore, for me the central issue was and remains “is the Covid-19 inoculation a legitimate accepted medical treatment or is it actually a medical experimentation?”
This is important as the New Zealand Bill of Rights stipulates “everyone’s right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment”.
The New Zealand Bill of Rights was, in respect of the Covid-19 regulations, declared as not valid, or “not absolute”, as stated by the Court of Appeal in NZTSOS vs The Minister of Covid in July 2024.
Issue of Generally Approved Medical Procedure or Experimentation
I personally and professionally have a fundamental difficulty with accepting Covid-19 inoculation as a medical treatment rather than an experimental treatment, and similarly with the Court’s ruling setting aside the patient’s right under Article 11 of The New Zealand Bill of Rights, as this ‘treatment’:
Penetrates the human bodily integrity, mostly without informed consent.
Never been used on humans before.
Only had very brief and limited research in the first phases, and with no long-term research and/or research into effects on pregnancy and lactation, and the placebo/control ‘arm’ of the research had been obliterated after an unacceptable brief period of time.
Did not have full authorisation, as it was still in the phase of “Phase 3” research until 2025.
Therefore, in my view, it was still an experimental procedure, for which the “Nuremberg Code” (1947) applies, of which each of the 10 Articles was transgressed in the case of the Covid-19 measures.
The Nuremberg Code, after the trial of German physicians in 1945 and 1946, is considered a foundational document in medical ethics, and continues to form the basis of research guidelines.
It states 10 basic articles, later renewed and confirmed at the Helsinki Declaration (1964):
Voluntary Consent:– the most fundamental principle is that participation in an experiment must be voluntary with no coercion or deception. The subject must be fully informed about the nature, risks and benefits of the experiment.
Ethical Justifications: – experiments shall only be conducted if they are likely to yield results that are beneficial to society, and cannot be obtained through less harmful methods.
Scientific foundation: – experiments must be based on prior knowledge and animal studies, and should be designed to avoid unnecessary suffering.
Risk Minimisation: – The risks to participants must be carefully considered and weighed against the potential benefits of the research. – The significant pre-marketing risks were known and published by the manufacturer and known by the NZ government, but kept confidential.
Qualified Personnel: – experiments must be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons, ensuring appropriate expertise and care. – This was transgressed during the vaccinations.
Participant’s Rights to Withdraw. – This would lead to loss of job or and/or significant civil rights curtailments.
Protection from Harm – The harm (see 4) could be foreseen, but was not divulged to the NZ public.
Avoiding Unnecessary Suffering.
Precedent of Animal Studies: – the experiment should be based on a knowledge of the natural history of the disease, and the results of prior animal experimentation. No research had been done on ongoing late effects, including research on pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Proper Facilities: – adequate facilities should be provided. The inoculations were often given in a carpark through an open window.
In Medicine, tragically, we have been at this stage before in history, with the thalidomide scandal in 1950–1960s, when a medication that was insufficiently researched was given full authority, which led to death, huge life-long and devastating physical disabilities in an estimated 10–20,000 cases.
Submission
It is clear, therefore, that I am strongly critical of the measures by the New Zealand Government, the medical regulatory authorities and the New Zealand media during this Covid-19 period.
I have personally and professionally suffered severely from the government measures and the Covid-19 regulations, as have a great number of my patients and friends.
I am disappointed and sad that many, if not most, of my medical colleagues show(ed) a lack of critical medical thinking, and still often do not listen to or acknowledge their patients’ suffering as the after-effects of the Covid-19 ‘vaccination’, despite the overwhelming evidence now that this intervention was never safe nor effective.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
René de Monchy
MD(Neth) Dip Obs FRANZCP
Consultant Psychiatrist
This article was originally published by the New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.
