Interesting, isn’t it, that once the vast majority of the population has been coerced into getting an injection without informed consent, our ‘experts’ are now mentioning risk-benefit assessments?
Until recently, a fundamental part of medical practice has been informed consent where a doctor would undertake a personalised risk-benefit analysis alongside a patient to determine whether a medical procedure or medication should proceed.
Officials Speaking of Risk-Benefit
Dr Helen Petousis-Harris speaking with Corin Dann of RNZ on 24 Feb said “Well that’s where you do get into the risk [of covid] in the younger age groups. It just tumbles down the younger you get.”
The low risk of poor outcome from infection is part of the reason why under 30 yr olds would not be eligible for the new bivalent booster (yet). We say the same applies to the under 50s or under 60s who are otherwise healthy and without co-morbidities. They have a very low risk from infection too.
However, maybe Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor’s comments were more pertinent. At a recent press conference he said “What we’re looking at is a balance between risk and benefit. The risk of severe outcomes in those under 30 is very low, rate of hospital admission is very low and most people make a good recovery if they are otherwise well and have no underlying health conditions” and “There is of course the occasional occurrence of myocarditis which we have spoken about before, that’s in that age group – late teens and early 20s. That was one of the factors that we took into consideration when providing advice.”
A small truth escaped there. There is a risk of myocarditis (with a potentially fatal outcome) for some people, particularly males under the age of 40.
And Dr Ayesha Verrall Minister of Health, when asked why only over 30s were being offered the bivalent booster said: “So that’s the groups that are at higher risk. We do know that the risk of covid increases, having severe covid increases with age and that was the advice we got from the TAG (Technical Advisory Group).”
Our Comments on Risk-Benefit
This is what we at NZDSOS have been saying all along. There is no place for a one-size-fits-all solution in medicine. There are individual risks and benefits to consider. Not to mention a patient’s personal preferences. A doctor’s duty is to discuss these things.
What were Dr Curtis Walker and the New Zealand Medical Council thinking when they told doctors in April 2021 that they could discuss the benefits of vaccination only and not say anything about risks, as that might be construed by the Council as anti-vaccination? Why was informed consent abandoned? Were they just following orders? It seems Walker and just about every other government official suspended their critical faculties – and responsibilities – whilst in thrall to the hypnotic edicts coming out of the PMs office. They followed the PR, not the science and the ethical norms.
Do the above doctors need to be referred to the Medical Council themselves for now mentioning such an outdated and dangerous concept – risk – as well as benefit, one that might induce vaccine hesitancy?
And what about the rumours of a literal whole hospital of doctors that refused the jabs and were given exemptions, (in return for gag orders, no doubt)? We will get to the bottom of this one shortly.
It is significant that some government doctors are finally acknowledging risk and benefit, but it is far too late for the many damaged and deceased New Zealanders whose rights under the HDC and BORA were abandoned and who never got the opportunity for a personalised risk-benefit discussion.
We must insist that this lack of informed consent and abandonment of risk-benefit assessments NEVER happens again, and those proved responsible be held to account.