Dear Colleagues, Doctors, Fellow Medical Practitioners

It is really difficult for all of us medical practitioners, who want to work in this time to the best of our ability, within our conscience and with the stress of political, bureaucratic and commercial pressures upon our art and craft of providing optimal care. There is nothing new in that, but something radically different is happening now and demands our reflection on our practice as well as our own self-reflection.

As doctors we are currently in the most unenviable position regarding the Covid-19 shot. It is really difficult for us as medical practitioners to decide what is right for our patients and for ourselves, including our own families, our children and relatives who are pregnant. In our day-to-day practice we are used to making clinical decisions based on well- documented information and careful weighing up the risks and benefits of therapeutic interventions.

History and New Zealand’s own clinical experimental disaster with “the unfortunate experiment” in 1987 (Cartwright report), make clear the absolute necessity of a patient to give informed consent, as enshrined in many medico-ethical and legal codes. For achieving that ‘informed consent’ the average patient or citizen is encouraged, and the health-care provider is in fact obliged to give or facilitate, to base their decision on all available information, in order to make a decision in freedom, weighing up the pro’s and con’s of the intervention. In this case that is ‘the Covid jab’.

However, the only information about the current roll-out of the ‘vaccine’ for patients, in fact for the whole population of Aotearoa New Zealand, including all age-groups, and all health conditions, is the official government-sanctioned and heavily promoted narrative: “This vaccine is safe and effective”, with the proviso that “the only reliable information to be sourced is from our website”.

In fact, hardly anything is known at all about the effectivity, the duration of immunity after vaccination and the longer-term effects.   Unfortunately, all information, other than in favour of vaccination is suppressed; websites of doctors treating vaccine injured patients are removed from internet, and the media displays an abrogation of their own professed vocation of informing the public in an unbiased manner.

Official European (Eurovigilance) and US reporting agencies (VAERS) have published many thousands of deaths and innumerable serious neurological and haematological sequelae, directly attributed to the vaccine. And both VAERS and Eurovigilance estimate that they received at most 10% of the cases. Why can’t I access that information on official New Zealand media channels, as it is vitally important to know to inform my patients about the Covid jab?

The goal of the policy behind the whole NZ population getting the jab is clear: to achieve a very high, preferably 90+ percentage vaccination uptake. In order to achieve that, everybody must be behind the endeavour, as one voice. Anybody with an average intelligence can work out that dissidence and negative information can’t be tolerated in such a policy, and that eventually vaccination will need to be mandated, if that degree of vaccination is to be achieved!

The slogan “This vaccine is safe and effective”, reminds me of the wonderfully simple and attractive election slogan from one the political parties in the Netherlands, when I was young: “lower prices, higher wages”, Vote CPN!”

Although arguably ok for a political slogan, this is clearly ‘hood-winking’ the population. In this case however it is not about a political election, but about people’s health, individually and as a nation for now, and for the un-foreseeable future. The government is expecting us to inject experimental substances that didn’t exist 10 months ago, and which have only been tested for months, rather than for years or decades as is customary in medical research protocols. Testing that has been done, excluded exactly the age groups (children and elderly) and pregnant women, for which it is now being rolled out.

For me as a doctor this is a real dilemma, and especially since with one government decision it was declared that children and pregnant women were to be vaccinated.  In fact in all stages of the pregnancy, contrary to any ‘normal’ medical obligation, a thorough risk-benefit assessment is required in view of the potential effect on the (yet unborn) child.

What are they doing and where is my autonomy, as a free-thinking human being and responsible medical professional, to provide my patients with unbiased and clear information of all factors involved, so that they arrive at a free and voluntary decision?  Or am I just executor of a narrative, in which I may or may not believe and in which the patient is ultimately secondary to my own fear of not wanting to be seen as different, with potential loss of job, even if I have to compromise my own conscience?  “No jab, no job”?

I thought that the practice of medicine is a vocation of the highest order, in the service of my patients. It was so clear when we all, each one of us worldwide, pledged allegiance to the Hippocratic oath of “Primum non nocere” – “First of all do no harm”.

My name is René de Monchy, and I have been working in full-time medical practice for a long time, first 28 years as a GP, then 4 years as a tropical doctor in rural Africa and as a psychiatrist in mixed public mental health and private practice.  My practice of almost 50 years has always been to the highest ethical standards and fortunately I have never had a complaint against me.   That is, until earlier this year.

A complaint, not from any patient, or otherwise having practiced against the code of practice, or having transgressed the ethical guidelines of appropriate professional conduct to the highest standards. No, this complaint came from the MCNZ itself for having a questioning and possibly different view towards one aspect of medical practice, the Covid 19 jab, and having associated with colleagues who voice the same concerns, out of deeply held ethical principles and our own conscience as medical doctors.

This is extra-ordinary, as the Medical Council says to promote best practice in the provision of health-care, which implies informed consent as one of the pillars.  I am one of a now large group of New Zealand doctors, named New Zealand Doctors Speaking out With Science. We are conscientious medical practitioners, not anti-vaxxers, who are standing up for open discussion, freedom of information-channels, enabling informed consent for our patients and freedom of choice in regard of Covid ‘vaccination’. We do question the one-sided information about this Covid-19 ‘so called vaccine’, that actually isn’t a vaccine at all, but a genetically modulated spike protein with completely unknown effects.

I fully understand the fellow colleagues who are unsure, fearful of their future and losing their jobs if speaking out. We share those anxieties and worries, as we have struggled through those ourselves. Yet, we have made the decision to speak up and take a stand and we invite you to reflect on your own situation.

With warmest greetings,

René, on behalf of NZDSOS