Same ‘Pandemic’: Different Perspective

pandemic perspective
Photo Credit - © Canva Pro Content License

General Practitioner, Dr Lucy O’Hagan writes interesting, humorous and pertinent articles for NZ Doctor.  She has recently written a piece entitled “Lest we forget: There has been a pandemic”.  It’s about the creation of a collection of stories that were written in the earlier days of the ‘pandemic’ called “Waiting for Covid”.

It is interesting how views of people in the same profession can be so diametrically opposed.  We’d like to share our professional medical views of the same ‘pandemic’ that she refers to.

In Feb and Mar 2020 we wondered ‘why all the hype about this new cold/flu that seems to be speeding the demise of elderly rest home residents in the middle of a Northern hemisphere winter’.  ‘Old man’s friend’ doing its thing we thought.  It’ll all blow over soon.  We’ve been here before. Most winters in fact.

We recalled the hoopla around the swine flu pandemic in 2009, the recalled dangerous jab,  and the unnecessary and wasteful stockpiling of Tamiflu.  We recalled the over-hyped SARS and MERS episodes. 

So, we were somewhat perturbed by the sudden instructions from on high to switch to telehealth overnight without any consultation with those of us on the front line.  We had been fully prepared to roll up our sleeves and see and reassure all the sick people who would arrive on our doorsteps and knew that we could treat with them with drugs and supplements already proving successful.   

After all, we knew how to manage viral illnesses and we knew what to recommend to optimise immune function.  We could see early on that those at risk were the frail, the elderly and co-morbid and the average age of death ‘with covid’ was 82 years (older than average life expectancy).  There was nothing to panic about.  Business as usual in medicine and General Practice…

Pandemic questions

As ‘cases’ started appearing in NZ, we were curious about how they were being defined.  Were they sick people with symptoms or, unusually,  did positive PCR tests suffice for diagnosis?  That wouldn’t align with our medical training (treat the patient not the test result) we thought, but trying to get an answer as to what symptoms ‘cases’ had and how sick they were proved impossible.

We also had questions about the PCR test.  What was it looking for exactly and how many cycles did the laboratory run to determine a positive result?  Was it actually fit for purpose, particularly when we knew that the scientist who developed it (Kary Mullis) had specifically stated it should not be used for diagnostic purposes?  And why were we being paid to test people who were well?

Then there were the questions about what was happening with long-standing approved medications, namely hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.  Why were we suddenly being told that we could not prescribe certain medicines to treat people?  That had never happened before.  Why were medical journals publishing fabricated ‘studies’?  Why were we advised there was no treatment and the only thing we could do was lockdown and wait for a vaccine?

Protective measures and their costs

Dr O’Hagan recalls putting teddies in the windows, socially distanced queues outside the supermarket, washing the groceries, being locked in bubbles, baking.

While most people were obeying the government’s social distancing rules, we knew that connection was important in times of crisis, and tried to make our voices heard – about the important things that make us human: connection for our elderly, connection at times of birth and death particularly, but also human contact as a balm for a frightened populace. We were silenced then punished; only a few heard our words.

We were aware that obsessive hand sanitising and cleaning surfaces and goods was not going to change the impact of a respiratory virus.  It might strip the natural flora from the hands and potentially alter the protective microbiome of the skin, not to mention the effect of anti-microbials on life in rivers and streams, where they would end up. We also knew that many sanitisers contained toxic compounds, increasing the load on the body’s detoxification pathways.  These pathological rituals were being used to train us, and to ascertain how obedient we would be.

As lockdowns and restrictive measures were imposed, we had questions about the costs of those measures and who was counting them.  Elderly people locked away from loved ones, loss of jobs, being shut out of education, being unable to grieve the dead, having playgrounds and beaches closed – all have immense health costs and it seemed that these were irrelevant.  No-one appeared to be counting them, nor checking that they were even helpful.

The propaganda and the passports

Those 1pm media briefings emanating from the screen are seared in memory as was ‘that terrible noise [that] went off on all our phones’.  Has Dr O’Hagan considered whether they might have been propaganda, as per George Orwell’s 1984 and now being exposed as such with the release of Matt Hancock’s What’s App messages.

When do we deploy the new variant?”,  “We frighten the pants of [sic] everyone with the new strain”.

Has she read Laura Dodsworth’s book ‘A State of Fear’ which describes how the UK government used behavioural psychologists to maximise fear and compliance?

Dr O’Hagan has been increasingly frustrated by the flack the government has been getting about its covid response: “how terrible MIQ was”, “how slow our vaccination programme was”, “how the tourism industry was ruined, the border restrictions too tight, no staff, rising inflation, a divided nation”.

She describes the release of this pent-up anger directed by a significant portion of NZ society (whose questions and concerns were censored, ignored and belittled) at the government as a ‘collective amnesia’.  We do not think New Zealanders have forgotten.  We think they are demanding the answers they deserve as to why their lives have been thrust into turmoil for the past three years and why the legislation that enabled this complete dismantling/ rearranging of society remains in place, ready for use again at a moment’s notice.

Increasing numbers of New Zealanders are appreciating that we have been lied to for three years, and that many of the lies have been endorsed by the medical profession.

Dr O’Hagan says: “We’ve been in a pandemic.”

We say:  We are still in the grips of the biggest psychological operation ever foist upon the population of the world. There has been a pandemic of fear and of positive PCR tests and a carefully planned and crafted narrative relayed to us 24/7 with the ulterior motive of getting us all into a digital identification system and thence to control by central bank digital curency.  Since the shots don’t stop infection or transmission the vaccine passports had no medical validity at all. The intent to control is still there. 

To rub salt into the wound, this was all done for nought. The excess deaths in New Zealand did not start until 2021 (correlating with the injection roll-out). In 2020 during the so-called “pandemic” deaths in New Zealand went down.  We also now know that the infection fatality rate is even less than a severe flu season.  So much for a pandemic.

Causes of concern

Dr O’Hagan describes worrying about whether there was enough PPE and the coming home from work routines. 

We recall looking on incredulously as our colleagues seemed happy to don layers of disposable PPE, visors and surgical masks (that seemed likely to be ineffectual – due not least to the gaps and size of their pores – as well as harmful) and to treat patients as if they were all vectors of contagion rather than frightened human beings in need of comfort and reassurance.

Car park and shed consults, or even better, virtual consults, were quickly adopted.  We were hesitant to distance ourselves from our patients in this way.

We wonder now when the vaccines will start working.  How many doses will be needed before the medical profession feels sufficiently ‘protected’ to be comfortable taking off their masks?

As for bizarre decontamination rituals on arrival home, we thought a quick hand wash would be sufficient.

On the other hand, we were worrying more about the development (and rapid acceptance) of a two-tier society, a type of apartheid where some were more equal than others.  And then there were the ‘fake patients’, previously ordinary New Zealanders who had been given permission, encouraged even, to nark on others.

These fake patients booked appointments to test us out, to see if we would write them exemptions – from wearing a mask or from vaccination, or write a prescription for that forbidden medicine ivermectin.  Once they had their piece of paper, they ran off to the local paper or the medical council to tell on us and point out what bad doctors we were for providing our professional medical opinions and trying to help them.


MIQ was amazing in Dr O’Hagan’s eyes, and she wonders how they set up that system so fast.  Does she not wonder if it had been pre-planned and ready to go, instructions coming from off-shore well in advance?  Since when did medical professionals condone isolating and quarantining healthy people and why did so many countries do some version of this in lock-step, contrary to pre-existing WHO guidelines?

She refers to ‘our success’.  We would ask, success at what?  We now have a country in turmoil: mental ‘health’ replaced with anxiety, stress, depression, suicide; small businesses closed with many gone forever; distrust of the medical profession, media and politicians; a health system on the brink of collapse with wards full of jab injuries and immune collapse, and repeated covid infections amongst staff; and an economy under severe strain with many billions wasted on the ‘covid response’ that could have been put to much better use. More importantly we have excess mortality at levels previously unheard of and we have large numbers of New Zealanders maimed by experimental ‘vaccines’.

But they are vaccines in name only, to ease their public acceptance, for they are more correctly called gene therapy, or possibly bio-weapons.  Even if Dr O’Hagan has not yet joined the dots, she is likely seeing an increase in all sorts of unusual disease presentations as a result of the gene therapy. Maybe some of her patients have died prematurely, if not suddenly.

How many deaths are okay?

She asks how many deaths are OK?  We have the same question but ours refers to deaths due to an experimental medical procedure whereas she is referring to deaths from a supposed virus (now being shown to be a gain-of-function laboratory construct). 

“The benefit of the policy is in all the deaths that didn’t happen.”  The people who have died from or with covid are mostly those who were in their last year or two of life.  The vast majority of healthy, or even unwell New Zealanders were never at significant risk from covid infection and that was evident from early on.

She suggests many New Zealanders are still alive due to the vaccination program.  Really?  We say many New Zealanders are dead due to the vaccination program. We have written on this many times now, with references.

Figures from the UK (where these are publicly available), indicate a net health loss with the vaccines when compared with covid for all but the elderly. Even in the elderly the vaccine and covid are head-to-head.

We say 4 ‘official’ deaths due to the injection are too many.  One death in a healthy young person should have been enough to call a halt to the program but there seems to be no stopping point.  ‘Continue to monitor’ is the mantra. 

We agree the mandates enraged people – that is because people knew they were being expected to play Russian roulette with their lives.  They had seen friends and family lose at that game and didn’t want to play.

Ethics and the medical profession

We watched in horror and consternation as many colleagues threw aside their ethics, disregarded informed consent and the right to decline medical treatment and ignored their oaths – particularly to first do no harm.  We tried to communicate our concerns but there was no place for discussion, only derision, dismissal and censorship.  We were labelled anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists – derogatory insults that mean that someone powerful, or scared, doesn’t like the truth.

We were perturbed by the way colleagues dismissed scientific and ethical concerns and how they seemed to be quite comfortable that mandated HCWs were terminated, with some even calling for our suspensions as spreaders of misinformation when all that was needed was a conversation and some questions answered.

In hindsight, maybe our colleagues were frightened. Frightened enough to cower in corners doing telehealth or wrapped in  plastic. However, being scared is not enough of an excuse. Doctors of the past have tended to the sick and injured under heavy fire or in the midsts of really deadly diseases (in those days) such as plagues, and TB and leprosy, helping where they could and comforting the dying.   We fear what medicine has become.

Dr O’Hagan says ‘We totally dodged a bullet’.  We say we did not.  On the contrary our country has been destroyed and we are on the verge of becoming a totalitarian medical dictatorship run by Big Pharma. 

We ask that Dr O’Hagan ponders our comments as she collates her collection of stories and perhaps investigates some of our claims.

Same ‘pandemic’, different points of view.

It wasn’t a pandemic, and we won’t forget.  Such an assault on the population of this country must never be allowed to happen again.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 55 Average: 4.9]
Share this post

Similar Posts