Helen Egmont: Keeping Count

How many people are on your list?

 

I have four on mine. 

 

Four vibrant older New Zealanders with valuable years to live now gone in a flurry of falling bodies and catastrophic cancers.

  

Gone too, for now, the hearts and minds of their distraught families left behind.

Four gone, and one telling me today that she is about to have her fourth covid shot because she doesn’t feel that well anymore - her health is failing, and she doesn’t want to get sicker. 

 

In deference to her own suppressed knowledge she gave one tiny, revealing, caveat; 

Don’t worry about me, she said, I’m not too worried that it might kill me. I’m old and I’ve had a good life… 

 

…And I want to do the right thing.

 

Four gone, one in the firing line, and one travelling to consult a specialist on a rare growth.  Funnily enough, a rare growth now less rare in the mRNA multi-vaccinated.

 

That’s my list. I call it my Co-vax Query List.

 

The key word here, is query.

 

Every New Zealander should, by now, know there are serious questions hanging over the safety of the covid mRNA vaccines.  There is ample data, and good quality research, available to anyone who cares to look.

 

There is now a dwindling 30% or so who continue to have 100% confidence in the government’s “safe and effective” vaccine narrative.

 

These people are beginning to look silly in their certainty. 

 

That silliness was writ large recently in a lead article in the Daily Telegraph UK.  It was written by Sarah Knapton, the Telegraph’s science editor.

 

I don’t expect the press to immediately blame the vaccine for bad things but I do expect them to at least query its potential role when bad things happen.

 

“Silent crisis of soaring excess deaths gripping Britain is only the tip of the iceberg” read the headline in the Daily Telegraph on August 18.”

 

Ms Knapton then helpfully expanded that “none of [the excess deaths] are due to covid.”

 

Over the course of the lengthy article she then proceeded to spotlight everything EXCEPT the covid vaccines as a possible cause of this soaring death rate, including devoting three paragraphs to how covid itself may stillbe the culprit despite having earlier reassured us that it’s not.

 

Her spotlighting illuminated some important potential causes that need to be explored to help explain why “for 14 of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged around 1000 extra deaths each week”.

 

But, in a stunning display of peak ostrich, not once did she raise the possibility that the covid mRNA vaccines need to be considered as potentially causative. 

 

Not once.

 

This is despite the government having “admitted that the majority of the excess deaths appear to be from circulatory issues and diabetes”

 

It is now known that abnormal circulatory clotting is a side effect of the mRNA covid vaccine. Even “heart attacks” are a result of clots forming within the coronary arteries.  It is also known that diabetes can be precipitated or worsened by covid vaccination.

 

We must all now be asking – were these deaths contributed to, or indeed caused by the covid vaccine?

 

For a journalist to fail to ask this is not sloppy journalism but strangulated journalism.

 

I wonder if Professor Carl Heneghan, the director of the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University, had more to say than he let on when he was quoted in the above article as saying “The signals in the data suggest something is not quite right” and that “Sustained rises in deaths should trigger an investigation that may involve accessing the raw data on death certificates, a random sample of medical notes or analysing autopsies.  I feel there is a lack of clear thinking at the moment and, when it comes to people’s health and wellbeing, you can’t wait – it’s unacceptable.”

 

Hmmm – some interesting questions an intrepid journalist could ask with that entree…

 

But what prompted me to put pen to paper about this was not an article about “people” but one about a person, about someone loved and adored, about someone who shouldn’t have died.  

 

Scottish cyclist Rab Wardell was 37 and in the prime of his life when he went into cardiac arrest in bed, next to his partner, on a recent Tuesday night.  Two days previously he had won a national mountain biking championship.  His devastated girlfriend, Olympian Katie Archibald, “tried and tried” to save him, as did the paramedics who arrived quickly.  The day after his death she lamented “I still don’t understand what’s happened; if this is real; why he’d be taken now – so healthy and so happy.”

 

This is the point.  No one yet knows why Rab Wardell died, but we owe it to him, to all of us, to find out; to at least ask – could this have been caused by the covid vaccine?  

 

“Cardiac Arrest” is not an answer. “SADS”, Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, is not an answer.  These are just the circulatory full-stops at the end of a tragic process, the origins of which remain obscured.

 

For all I know, Rab Waddell was completely vaccine free, but that is not the point.

 

The point is that we now have a terrifying mystery of huge numbers of unexplained deaths in recent times. Numbers not due to covid but of such magnitude that they are no longer conspiracy theory; they have made headlines in respectable papers around the world.  

 

Until shown otherwise, we have every right to believe that Rab Waddell’s death is but one more horrifying example of what we are all losing in this unsolved tragedy.

 

And all the above is to say nothing of the debates currently raging about the dramatic plunge in fertility happening in heavily covid mRNA vaccinated countries.  If this is a permanent change, and no one yet knows the answer to this, we are talking about large numbers of us, our children or our grandchildren being unable to have children or grandchildren of our own.  (Assisted reproductive technology is expensive, and increasingly unaffordable under the public purse in our collapsing health system. Those with young adult children who are currently well, and who have the means possible, should seriously consider taking out full private health cover for them before this information becomes common knowledge.)

 

We are swimming in murky waters indeed when the covid vaccine questions we are now obliged to ask have answers so potentially frightening that some believe we should refrain from asking them.

 

This all leads me to a question I can no longer suppress – at what stage do the professionals who remain silent about the “safe and effective” narrative accept the possibility that they have breached their own ethical requirement to provide informed consent to patients? 

 

This idea of consent has been repeatedly explained, in detail, by those concerned with medical ethics, but so that there is no doubt: 

 

Consent means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.

 

Cam Slater pointed out in his recent article reproduced in Breaking Views that the latest data shows that older multi vaccinated New Zealanders are now dying at far greater rates than the unvaccinated.  

 

Knowing this, what responsibility now lies with the person who pushes the fourth dose into the arm of my elderly relative who believes she is “doing the right thing”?

 

Whether we like it or not, the covid vaccines remain experimental.  Every doctor engaged in medical experimentation knows that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

 

In recent weeks Mr Julian Gillespie, retired Australian lawyer and former barrister, released a legal opinion entitled “Legal Ramifications for Registered Health Practitioners and AHPRA Public Officers Re the AHPRA and the National Boards joint statement of 9 March 2021.”

 

Mr Gillespie casts doubt over the legal basis of the Australian Health Practitioners’ Regulatory Agency’s (“AHPRA’s”) gag order, released by AHPRA on 9 March 2021, which threatens Australian doctors with loss of their registration to practice medicine if they speak honestly about their assessments of the risks of the covid vaccines.

 

Most doctors have obeyed this gag order and continue to support the “safe and effective” covid vaccine narrative.

 

Mr Gillespie’s opinion strives to untangle the hierarchy of legal responsibility that doctors, medical regulatory agencies and the people who work within them, owe to patients. He points out that the legal issues with which he wrestles, will, in various forms, apply across the Commonwealth.

 

He identifies how “the problem for AHPRA and the National Boards is that the March [2021] statement directly conflicts with the Codes of Conduct for Health Professionals”

 

Doctors have a legal code of Conduct they must follow.  This code sits above the “position statement” advisory type decree issued to them in March 2021 by AHPRA.  

 

“This code of “Good Medical Practice” describes what is expected of all doctors registered to practise medicine in Australia. It sets out the principles that characterise good medical practice and makes explicit the standards of ethical and professional conduct expected of doctors by their professional peers and the community.” 

 

Mr Gillespie concludes that the Code of Conduct for doctors sits in primacy to the orders from put out by AHPRA.  He states that “…the March [AHPRA] statement [did not] change any of the Codes of Conduct for registered practitioners.”

 

So the bottom line?  

 

No matter what AHPRA decrees, the fundamental guiding principle for all doctors remains that the health and safety of the public, are paramount.  

 

Mr Gillespie, in his 136 page report, emphasises many important requirements that doctors must be mindful of in order to practice responsibly under the Code.

 

For instance:

 

“Every registered practitioner responsible for the provision of a Covid-19 vaccination is required to: 

 

a) Keep their knowledge up to date (Code 9.2.1), which is especially relevant in respect of any provisionally approved Covid-19 vaccine still the subject of Clinical Trials. 

 

b) Be honest and ethical in their appraisal of the information for the protection and promotion of the health of individuals and the community (Code 2.1), in the knowledge all doctors have a right to have and express their personal views and values (Code 2.2). Knowing the care of your patient is your primary concern (Code 3.1) and based upon this best available information (Code 3.2.6), consideration must be given towards the balance of benefit and harm (Code 3.2.4) in respect of Covid-19 vaccination, against whether there is an identified therapeutic need, and a reasonable expectation of clinical efficacy and benefit for the patient (Code 3.2.7).”

 

And perhaps most importantly, “the information now available in respect of the Covid-19 vaccines which must be critically evaluated by all registered practitioners, must be considered along with the acknowledged fact that Covid19 vaccines are only provisionally approved, meaning they are still globally the subject of Clinical Trials which now incorporate entire national populations, which necessarily requires practitioners to deem the use of these vaccines as ‘research involving humans’ (Code 13.1), requiring the observance of research ethics and responsibilities drawn from National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines (Code 13.2).”

 

And, further, that, due to the above, “a practitioner must ensure their patient is aware they are, by extension, taking part in research on humans with respect to the Covid-19 vaccine being considered for administration, where the practitioner must establish the patient is taking part in the research on a voluntary basis, based upon an adequate understanding of sufficient information about the purpose, methods, demands, risks and potential benefits of the research into the Covid19 vaccine (Code 13.2.6).”

 

Mr Gillespie also notes that the gagging of doctors and scientists around the world has resulted in “a virtual absence of open scientific and medical discussion, debate, or dialogue concerning the medical and scientific literature that has been emerging throughout 2021 and 2022,[despite]  a now enormous body of peer-reviewed literature and data 19 specifically focused on SARS-CoV-2 and the Covid-19 vaccines, as seen collected in the reports of Dr Altman and data expert Lisa Mitchell (Annexures 1 & 2)”

 

He identifies as the consequences of this that:

 

“a) this has led to a negligent and gross absence of directly relevant information being provided to millions of Australians, for the purpose of their being able to provide fully-informed Informed Consent, prior to the receipt of these acknowledged experimental treatments. 

 

b) this has led to an abundance of misinformation and misunderstanding about SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19 vaccines. 

 

c) this has led to a denial of directly relevant information being shared and spread throughout the medical and scientific community, which for medical and health professionals, is information needed by them in order to discharge their legal obligations under the National Law, pursuant to their Codes of Conduct.

 

d) this has led to and caused gross breaches of the National Law by virtually all registered practitioners who have administered, and who continue to administer, Covid-19 vaccines.”

 

Mr Gillespie’s opinion is appended with an annexure (1) by Phillip M. Altman (BPharm (Hons), MSc, PhD Clinical Trial & Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs Consultant) in which he details the current state of the scientific knowledge about the covid vaccines, their efficacy and their safety.

 

This annexure has a foreword by Dr Wendy Hoy (AO FAA FRACP Professor of Medicine Director, Centre for Chronic Disease University of Queensland) who observes that 

 

“many studies now indicate that the Covid19 vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines, are less than 'safe and effective', and the ramifications are truly confronting.”

 

In a chilling fore-taste of medico-legal problems ahead for doctors and other health practitioners, Mr Gillespie notes, with regard to the information in the annexure that 

“When giving due and professional consideration to the information annexed to this opinion, registered practitioners must be mindful of what constitutes unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct is intimately associated with a failure to observe Codes of Conduct…

[including conduct that involves] providing a person with health services of a kind that are excessive, unnecessary or otherwise not reasonably required for the person’s well-being’ (emphasis added)

 

Every health professional knows the covid 19 vaccines remain experimental; Pfizer’s study ends on May 2, 2023.  Moderna’s ends on October 27, 2022, Janssen’s on January 2, 2023, and Astrazeneca’s on February 14, 2023.

 

Anyone who says otherwise is playing childish word games.

 

Therefore, any health professional involved in the covid 19 vaccine experiment is duty bound to follow their Medical Code of Conduct over and above any other decree, and should expect, at the end of all this, to be held to account.

 

And that growing list of the lost on my co-vax query list?  

 

It’s not going anywhere. 

 

Maybe they died from the vaccine, maybe not, but what I do know with absolute certainty; they took it, each and every one, because they either thought they were “doing the right thing” or they were coerced.

Helen Egmont is a New Zealander who is interested in the bigger picture.