Early Treatment Advice Leads to Disciplinary Action Against Doctor

Recently the Commissioner for the Health and Disability Commission (HDC), Morag McDowell pronounced on a case of a doctor working for MIQ. The crime committed by this doctor was sharing an early treatment protocol with a woman (Ms A) and her two children who were isolating at home with Covid. 

The HDC Commissioner found that the doctor breached Right 4(2) of the HDC Code of Rights (Every consumer has the right to have services provided that comply with legal, professional, ethical, and other relevant standards.) as well as failed to comply with MCNZ standards (in particular the COVID-19 guidance statement, the CAM standard, and the Unprofessional Behaviour standard).

Morag McDowell was specifically concerned that the doctor:

• Did not explain to Ms A that early treatments such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamins C and D were not recommended for treating COVID-19 in New Zealand;
• Irresponsibly shared ‘anti-vaccination’ misinformation with Ms A; and
• Initially responded to Ms A’s complaint in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner.

The doctor has been sentenced to:

• Provide an apology to Ms A.
• Complete HDC online training.
• Attend training on communication and professional standards.

The media release and the full decision provide more complete information.

It is interesting that this decision was released a month after the MCNZ revoked its infamous Guidance Statement of April 2021 which effectively threatened and gagged New Zealand doctors and which appears to have been used as a tool to censure this doctor.

The Case

On 1 November 2021 following a phone call to speak with Ms A’s partner, the doctor learnt that Ms A and her children all had covid.  After discussion she sent Ms A a document titled ‘Guide to COVID early treatment’ and recommended she look at early treatment suggestions on page 15. 

The early treatment discussed in this document was based on the information in an article published in the ‘International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Invention’ written by Dr Peter McCullough who is a world leading, highly published cardiologist and epidemiologist.  He was treating real patients in the midst of covid outbreaks in the USA and had hands-on clinical experience.  This was in contrast to health officials in NZ who were not working clinically and had not seen or treated any patients with covid infection.

The treatment protocol recommended for healthy people under age 50 (Ms A), that they consider supplementing with specific nutrients – zinc, vit D, vit C, quercetin – and anticipate a good recovery.  It was highly unlikely that anything further would be needed.  However, the flow chart suggested if symptoms worsened instead of improving, that medical advice be sought to discuss prescription for early treatments that were being used effectively overseas (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, azithromycin, doxycycline, favipiravir).

Ms A was advised to discuss these early treatment suggestions with her own GP.

It is important to note that for many months doctors in NZ were not given any advice about how to treat covid 19.  There was a tsunami of advice issuing forth from MoH, RNZCGP, PHOs etc. about how to test, how to define a case, how to isolate and contact trace, but nothing about what doctors were supposed to do to treat unwell people.  This is confirmed by both Health NZ and the doctor.

“Te Whatu Ora told HDC that information for managing COVID-19 positive cases isolating at home was not made available to Dr B at the time of events.”

“She [doctor] stated that at the time, no other guidelines were provided to help GPs to assist patients in the community who were positive for COVID-19 and symptomatic.”

The only advice doctors received about treatment in 2020 was very early (March) and that was: DO NOT use hydroxychloroquine.  Otherwise, stay home and wait for a vaccine and new patented anti-viral medications.

“Special Authority restrictions on hydroxychloroquine

There have been media reports that the anti-malarial medicine hydroxychloroquine may be effective in preventing or reducing COVID-19. Currently, there is no evidence to support this and it is not a recommended treatment. To preserve the use of this medicine, PHARMAC has restricted funded access to only approved indications, i.e. malaria prophylaxis and treatment, rheumatoid arthritis and SLE.”

Early Treatment and Vaccination ‘Misinformation’

When speaking with Ms A, it appears that the doctor was only referring to treatment information on page 15.  However, other pages in the 20-page document provide information about covid vaccination.  This is correct information that was missing from public discourse, and information that should have been provided (as part of informed consent) to every New Zealander before they agreed to accept a covid injection.  However, it is also information which the MCNZ has deemed ‘misinformation’ without providing the reasoning behind this label.

So, presumably being caught up in the ‘single source of truth’ propaganda, and despite being given useful advice, Ms A made a complaint to multiple people and organisations – media, New Zealand Medical Council, Covid-19 response team, Dr Ashley Bloomfield and the doctor’s managers – that is likely to have had a significant impact on the life of the doctor involved.

“The woman [Ms A] expressed concerns about the impact of this information being shared with vulnerable communities by a medical professional.”

We’d suggest the ‘vulnerable communities’ actually needed some information about how to reduce their vulnerability i.e. how to improve nutrition and hence immune function.

A lengthy HDC investigation has ensued.

[As an aside, it is interesting how the HDC has resources to chase up a doctor providing useful information for people but cannot summon resources to investigate the cases of people harmed by covid vaccinations.]

Our Comments

We’d like to discuss a number of the comments that Morag has taken exception to on other pages of the document.

1) ‘…neither ivermectin nor hydroxychloroquine nor vitamins D and C were supported by current evidence … as treatments for COVID-19. None of these were recommended as treatments for COVID-19 in New Zealand.’

This is irrelevant.  They do not have to be ‘recommended’ for a doctor to prescribe them.  Doctors used to be autonomous and could prescribe whatever they wanted for any condition as long as the medicines were approved medicines, and the patient was fully informed. Vitamins D and C are nutrients fundamental to good health and optimal immune functioning – not ‘complementary’ or ‘alternative’.  They are safe.  Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been fully approved medicines in NZ for many years and both have a good safety profile.  They were available for NZ doctors to prescribe as they saw fit.

In addition, NZ doctors were in fact given guidance and recommendations about use of Vit D for covid infection in Feb 2021.

“Nevertheless, it would seem prudent to ensure going into winter this year that people who are likely to have low vitamin D levels receive supplementation. This includes older people who are frail, housebound or living in residential care, people with dark skin pigmentation or people with obesity, chronic kidney disease, liver failure or another medical condition that affects vitamin D metabolism.”

“The authors recommend widespread population vitamin D supplementation, based on benefit outweighing risks, at a level of 800 IU/day (with daily dosing); a standard vitamin D supplementation regimen in New Zealand is colecalciferol 1.25 mg (50, 000 IU), once monthly.”

2) ‘that women who are pregnant or of childbearing age, children under the age of 12, and nursing home patients, should not receive any type of COVID vaccine’.

Although Morag doesn’t agree with this comment, we do.  The covid vaccine had not been approved for under 12 year olds in NZ at that time and both the Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Medsafe Comirnaty datasheet documented caution in these and other groups.  Fertility had been assessed in rats and pregnancy outcomes assessed in animals.  The lack of data should be sufficient to caution against its use.

Missing Information RMP

• Use in pregnancy and while breast feeding
• Use in immunocompromised patients
• Use in frail patients with co-morbidities (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disorders)
• Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders Interaction with other vaccines
• Long term safety data

Medsafe Datasheet

“Fertility In a combined fertility and developmental toxicity study, female rats were intramuscularly administered COMIRNATY prior to mating and during gestation (4 full human doses of 30 μg each, spanning between pre-mating day 21 and gestation day 20). SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies were present in maternal animals from prior to mating to the end of the study on postnatal day 21 as well as in fetuses and offspring. There were no vaccine related effects on female fertility and pregnancy rate.”

“Pregnancy There is limited experience with use of COMIRNATY in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo/fetal development, parturition or post-natal development (see Section 4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation, Fertility). Administration of COMIRNATY in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus.”

“The data for use in the frail elderly (>85 years) is limited. The potential benefits of vaccination versus the potential risk and clinical impact of even relatively mild systemic adverse events in the frail elderly should be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis.”

3) ‘that the trials showed no evidence of reduced spread of COVID to others, and no evidence of reduced hospitalisations or deaths.’

This is true, the Pfizer clinical trial was not designed to assess reduction of transmission.  Medsafe knew this and the published trial did not demonstrate a reduction in hospitalisation and death.  In the 6 month follow up publication, more people were dead in the vaccinated group than placebo group, with heart attacks being a particular standout red flag.

4) ‘the risks, side effects and complications listed include ‘abnormal bleeding, menstrual problems in girls, testicular pain/inflammation in boys, infertility’ and ‘[m]iscarriages; deaths of mothers, deaths of nursing babies after mother vaccinated’

These may not be listed on the Medsafe data sheet but that is not the single source of truth. Some of these problems are listed in Pfizer’s post marketing document from April 2021 and others on the VAERS database.

5)  the document ‘claimed incorrectly that none of the vaccines had been approved by the FDA’.

This was likely correct at the time the document was written.  The Pfizer vaccine had Emergency Use Authorisation and was approved in the US in August 2021.  It had, and still has, only Provisional Approval in NZ.

6 ) ‘Evidence shows genetic material and spike proteins generated by the vaccine penetrate the ovaries, testes, brain, spinal cord, nervous system, heart, lungs, intestines, kidneys, and cross the placenta in pregnant women. Actual degree of distribution around our body has not been studied and is urgently needed.

There may have been some exaggeration of this point at the time, but evidence is accumulating of the widespread, harmful and long-lasting nature of the vaccine-induced spike protein.  Pharmacokinetic studies of the actual vaccine were never carried out.  However, the Japanese did a biodistribution study of carrier molecules (the lipid nanoparticles) in rats and found they distributed far and wide. These issues are well covered in a just-published comprehensive review article by Australian researchers, which can act as a standalone reference for those wanting a “single source of the science” showing harm. 

7) NO ONE KNOWS ALL the risks and side effects, or how long the adverse effects may last.

This is obviously true as there was no long-term data in 2021 and there still isn’t. That there are risks and long-lasting adverse effects is now abundantly clear. 

8) The good news is there are safe and effective early treatments already available making vaccination unnecessary.

This was true and sadly kept from the public.  There was no need for all the measures and harm that has been done to every aspect of our lives.  Effective early treatments were available obviating the need for lockdowns, anti-social distancing, masks and the vaccine.

So, this doctor, who went above and beyond the call of duty to try and help a mother and children with covid infection gets dragged into a nearly two-year HDC process.

There is something badly wrong with the NZ health system.  All New Zealanders should be asking themselves why early treatments have been so aggressively blockaded by the authorities?

What is it about covid vaccinations​​​​​​​ that makes our officials want so desperately to get them into our bodies? 

Why would injection of a (now obviously toxic, contaminated and deadly) product be of such importance that, still, officials can tolerate no dissention?

What, then, is the true purpose of these injections?