New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science

 

Reminding the authorities of the Nuremberg code. Standing up for our rights, those of our families, our patients and the general public.

 

Who We Are and a Call To Action

 

We are a group of doctors, dentists and scientists who are concerned about the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine to the general population, along with the implication from the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Dental Council of New Zealand of incompetence if we do not support the COVID-19 vaccination program, or indeed get vaccinated ourselves.

 

Background

Our group published an open letter to the New Zealand government expressing our concerns here. Copies of this letter were sent to the MCNZ, RNZCGP and the NZMA.  Our summarised concerns are:

  1. The rollout of the vaccine to the general public despite the fact that clinical trials are still being undertaken. As such the following are unknown:
    • Effectiveness at preventing the individual from contracting COVID-19
    • Effectiveness at preventing the spread of COVID-19
    • Effectiveness of mitigating the clinical illness in those who do contract COVID-19
    • The adverse events profile
  1. The legality of prescribing and administering a medication which is only provisionally approved. Once the New Zealand government was found to be in breach of the Medicines Act, it hastily changed the law.
  2. The unknowns of this intervention in assessing and discussing the risks and benefits when counselling patients.
  3. The use of lay vaccinators who would not be competent to undertake informed consent procedures with individuals.

In response to our open letter the MCNZ and DCNZ has stated that it expects all doctors and dentists to be vaccinated unless medically contraindicated.  Further it stated that there was no place for anti-vaccination messaging.

The RNZCGP has not replied. The NZMA has replied stating that it agreed with the MCNZ guidance statement, going on to state that “in this instance the science, and our responsibilities are clear”.

 

COVID-19 and Vaccine Risk

This has been an interesting time in medicine with over one hundred thousand (often confusing and contradictory) papers published; we are all humans, so bias can never be excluded.  We have however linked to a number of papers which point to a narrative that is different to the mainstream:

  1. The efficacy and risks of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are still being tested.
  2. The relative risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine in reducing COVID-19 symptoms may only be 19%.
  3. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent one more case (not clearly defined) of COVID-19 with the Pfizer vaccine has been estimated at 117 and could be as high as 217.
  4. Adverse events to vaccines are notoriously under-reported. However, databases in the US and Europe indicate a troubling level of adverse events, well above any other vaccines. Severe systemic events may be as high as 5-10%.
  5. The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 has recently been estimated to be 0.15% which is similar to that of a severe Influenza season.
  6. Many treatments are now known to be effective against COVID-19, including:
  7. Several protocols have been suggested for use as prevention and treatment, including early treatment and treatment in the critical care setting:
  8. This does not take into account preventative measures (our bread and butter) such as:

For an in-depth exploration of risk vs benefit, see this post from Doctors for Covid Ethics.

 

Consequences, Risk and What We Can Do

It would appear that the MCNZ and DCNZ are stating that we need to be vaccinated.  It is also implying that providing a different view to the “safe and effective” narrative may be considered “anti-vaccination”. It is not known how deciding to not personally take up the COVID-19 vaccination and providing balanced information to patients will be regarded. We have sought clarification regarding these issues from the MCNZ. 

As such, at least 50 of us have joined together to protect the right to decline a medical intervention.  This right is paramount in the Nuremburg code.  Furthermore, not only do we have an ethical duty to ensure the same right applies to our patients, but we are also sworn to “First Do No Harm”.

A large number of similar groups of doctors, professionals and citizens have been formed overseas to lobby and indict governments and authorities.  Many individuals also have stood up and risked censure. These include:

We are not alone.  The narrative is starting to shift.  The public is becoming aware of the attempted censuring of scientific debate and silencing of those who do not “toe the line”.  While we each have our role to play, as individuals we cannot remain silent as we would not be able to hold our heads high when asked by patients and public where we stood during the COVID-19 period.

The greater the number of those standing up for the rights of ourselves, our families, our patients and the general public, the harder we will be to ignore.

The Week in Review

Reviewing the week, this site has gone from html cobbled together with No 8 gauge wire, to a site that can handle the high volume of declarations.

The propaganda campaign by authorities to bypass established informed consent practice is so overwhelming, it’s easy to feel isolated, and we had no idea that the week would be so busy with New Zealanders standing up for their rights.

We were also interested to find false declarations being orchestrated within hours of the site being published.  For example, we imagine the person behind declaring himself to be a registered NZ doctor called “Dr Zaius Pongo” felt quite clever – a Hollywood Planet of the Apes analogy.  Unfortunately the metadata points directly to an Australian company “developing strategy and communications for social finance”.  There are other metadata irregularities, which suggest funded activity.  We had to look up what “social finance” meant and it is apparently notable for its “public benefit focus”.  Ignoring the sinister overtones and taking that as read, perhaps they can stretch budgets to include a VPN for anonymity? (the same Australian “public benefit” consulting company still adding bogus doctors without understanding they need a VPN to remain anonymous, or that that there’s an online register)

One of the state funded media channels which talks lots about truth and misinformation also seemed to take an interest, which we found remarkable in the context of a group of qualified and experienced New Zealand professionals calling for discussion.

The article started with a video clip about how to spot misinformation.  Without wanting to suggest that there isn’t misinformation, a rather uncomfortable looking academic’s only insight appeared to be to trust anything that authorities say and she’ll be right.  We do not believe that is a well-researched academic argument.

The article then expressed concern about increasing levels of vaccine hesitancy (presumably appealing to fear) while within the same article quoting figures that said the total opposite (presumably appealing to tribalism).  We understand that the reporters writing this stuff need to earn a crust, but there’s got to be a better way.

The article minimizes the scale of dissent, but 1,452 New Zealanders in a few days prepared to stand behind their ethics put a spanner in that argument.

After a week, we acknowledge the New Zealand-ness of those prepared to put their names behind what they believe in.

Research suggests it takes a small percentage of dissent to create change.

To be assigning resources to this tiny word-of-mouth site, authorities are obviously aware of this.

Fingers crossed we get more signatories to help tilt New Zealand back towards New Zealanders, and remind authorities who serves who.