Efforts to control the pandemic narrative began with a systematic suppression of any suggestion that it might have originated in a research lab of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, then moved on to denigrate, silence and smear critics of lockdowns, masks and vaccine efficacy and mandates.
A bill up for debate in the Queensland parliament on October 11th takes censorship to another level. If successful, it will fundamentally reshape the relationship between doctors, patients and health regulators.
The Australian Medical Network says under the new law “health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients”, and health regulators will be given “the power to sanction doctors for expressing their professional opinion based on their assessment of the best available science”.
California’s legislature has just passed a similar law empowering the state’s medical board to revoke the licence of physicians who expresses opinions “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to the standard of care”.
So now it’s official. They have outlawed opinions.
Having overturned 100 years of settled science and policy orthodoxy on pandemic management with Covid, we are on the cusp of revolutionising the everyday practice of medicine by subordinating the professional judgement of doctors on the best treatment options for their patients to the directives of bureaucrats and health regulators.
As per an existing intergovernmental agreement, the Queensland change could be replicated in cascading legislative amendments in other states and territories to ensure a uniform national law (although passage by other legislative bodies is not guaranteed).
If not paused and stopped, this will affect every Australian, to the detriment of public health.
Let’s look at the practical implications of this in relation to the vexed issue of vaccines for young people. Denmark and Norway have banned Covid vaccines for healthy under-50s and under-65s respectively. On September 30th, Sweden announced an end to vaccine recommendations for 12 to 17-year-olds from November 1st. All three have excellent public health infrastructure and aggressively promote best-practice public health measures.
Yet our own Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved vaccines for children aged six months to five years. The four countries cannot all be ‘following the science’. NSW Health data back the Scandinavians’ conclusion that the Covid risk to children is minuscule. In the past four months (May 22nd to September 24th), just 0.1% of the 2,201 Covid deaths were aged 0 to 19. Almost all would have had serious underlying conditions. An article in Vaccine suggests that, for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, added risks of serious adverse events are, respectively, 2.4 and 4.4 times higher than the reduced risk of hospitalisation. In a follow-up note, two of the authors note that the manufacturers’ clinical trials showed 125 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinated people, while preventing between 22 to 63 hospitalisations.
Another study in preprint by U.S., Canadian and British scientists estimates that to prevent one Covid hospitalisation in 18 to 29-year-olds, 22,000 to 30,000 of them must be boosted. But for every one hospitalisation prevented, there are 18 to 98 serious adverse events: a net expected harm.
Another new study of almost 900,000 children aged five to 11 in North Carolina, in the New England Journal of Medicine, adds to concerns that vaccines don’t just rapidly lose effectiveness; they might also be destroying natural immunity against reinfection.
Among children who had been infected by the Delta variant and didn’t get vaccinated, protection against reinfection fell from 95% in September last year to 53% at the end of May this year. In infected children who were also vaccinated, effectiveness had fallen to zero by May. The likely, albeit not definitive, explanation is that the vaccines themselves are damaging natural immunity.
Aseem Malhotra is a British cardiologist who initially promoted the Covid vaccines on TV to help overcome public hesitancy. When his fit and healthy 73-year-old dad died of a sudden heart attack six months after a second Pfizer dose, he spent six months analysing the data around vaccines. He now describes this as “perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime”.
He notes that Pfizer’s own trial showed slightly more deaths in the treatment than in the placebo arm and no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality.
Some experts point to a worrying trend of rising excess mortality among under-14s in Europe. Using British data, Malhotra estimates the risk of a Covid death in 12 to 15-year-olds is one in 76,000, against the risk of myocarditis of one in 27,000: nearly three times more. The number needed to vaccinate to prevent just one Covid death against the Delta variant reflects the steep age-segregated risk profiles, from 230 for over-80s to 93,000 for 18 to 29 year-olds. Against this, the risk of myocarditis ranges in different studies from one in 6,000 to one in 2,700 for 12 to 27-year-old males, once again demonstrating net harm.
In the two-part peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Insulin Resistance on September 26th, Malhotra concludes: “There is a strong scientific, ethical and moral case to be made that the current Covid vaccine administration must stop until all the raw data” have been released and “subjected to fully independent scrutiny”. He calls on the medical and public health professions to “recognise these failings and eschew the tainted dollar of the medical-industrial complex”.
Meanwhile, many of the claims advanced in support of the vaccines – that they stop infection and transmission, and entirely prevent severe illness and death – have had to be abandoned one after another, but were never ‘fact-checked’ by social media platforms.
Moreover, people who die inside 14 days of a vaccine dose are classified as ‘unvaccinated’. This distorts the statistics on the net harm-benefit balance to an indeterminate degree.
A poll by the Pew Research Centre in February mapped falling confidence in medical scientists since 2020. Malhotra argues that the rollout of vaccines under emergency-use authorisation without access to the raw data, the growing evidence of harms, and the resort to mandates whose major impact is to boost manufacturers’ profits “have highlighted modern medicine’s worst failings on an epic scale, with additional catastrophic harms to trust in public health”.
To summarise, for children the risk of severe illness or death from Covid is very slight – while the risks of serious reactions to vaccines are higher. Protection against risk of reinfection is at least as robust and may last significantly longer for children who are infected but not vaccinated, compared to those who are vaccinated. The long-term effects of Covid vaccines are unknown. Every one of these statements is contestable and subject to revision as the databank grows and more studies are published. Not one is so implausible as to be summarily dismissed.
In these circumstances, for health bureaucrats and regulators to claim a monopoly on scientific truth is scandalous. The effort to shut down legitimate debates on pain of excommunication from the medical profession represents a clear and present danger to public health. I certainly have more confidence in my consultant’s professional advice based on training, qualifications, experience and knowledge of my medical history, free of pressures to conform to the zeitgeist from bureaucrats and regulators, the latter often with compromising links to industry.
Those of us without medical credentials arouse understandable scepticism towards our critiques. This makes it all the more imperative not to silence medical professionals, but instead to welcome and encourage contestable policy recommendations from them.
Ramesh Thakur is Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy and a former UN Assistant Secretary-General. This article was first published in the Australian.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
He was doing so well until he said “may” in his summary. I hate that. “Protection against risk of reinfection is at least as robust and *may* last significantly longer for children who are infected but not vaccinated, compared to those who are vaccinated”. Which contradicts his earlier paragraph starting; “Among children who had been infected by the Delta variant and didn’t get vaccinated, protection against reinfection fell from 95% in September last year to 53% at the end of May this year. In infected children who were also vaccinated, effectiveness had fallen to zero by May”. So he’s citing a study which demonstrated unvaxxed kids still had 53% immunity in May whereas the vaxxed kids went to zero.
I know a singular study is not definitive proof of something but c’mon. We know by now that natural immunity gained from exposure is superior and more long-lasting than relying on the jab to give people any benefit. I’ve no idea why people are so reticent to just come out and state this. Especially with regards to kids, this could be classed as a moot point given that they are at statistically zero risk of severe harms in any case.
The article is good, but there are 2 things that require greater scrutiny and definitely much greater scepticism.
The first is the idea that x number of shots will prevent 1 death. I don’t believe it’s been established that any shots prevented any deaths. Let us say the pokes give some protection (or did before the variations arrived), it is clear that whatever protection there is, is only temporary. It might perhaps be better to speak of x number of shots being required to postpone any deaths.
The second is talking about the waning of ‘protection’, be such natural immunity or vaxx-induced. Surely the only measurable thing that wanes, that we know of, is antibodies? It has been said quite a few times now that it is not known how much of a role antibodies play and what level is the necessary level to provide protection. It thus needs to be established whether the risk of reinfection is related to waning of protection or, more likely, negative effect of the vaxx on the immune system.
I think that quite a lot is understood about the role of antibodies, albeit not well explained. Having looked into it a bit over the last year or so, it appears that it is normal for them to “wane” over time, as they are basically junk. Rather, there are T-cells which provide a long-term memory of certain things. Search for <t-cells function> if you like – lots of information there. Such cells appear to be an important part of our immune system, and are probably more efficient physically as a form of ‘memory cell’ (compared with binary electronic memory) to assist the identity of various invaders.
Yes, I know that T and B cells are supposed to play a bigger role.
My point has more to with the fact that the only real thing the vaxxes are claimed to do is bring about the production of antibodies, continued pokes only claim to ‘top up’ the number of antibodies. There has been very little open queries about the fact that the entire vaxxathon is based purely and alone on a product that, at best, produces antibodies ad infinitum, without knowing exactly how much use (if any) that is. There is a paragraph in the UKHSA vaxx surveillance report that points out that it is not known precisely what role antibodies play overall and what level is required – or at least had been saying it in report after report.
The first thing that crossed my mind was the fact that things like this are clearly being orchestrated – California went first, followed by Australia, no doubt more will follow. The Dutch medical authorities have brought disciplinary proceedings against a GP for prescribing HCQ and ivermectin – one of the charges is also that he would vaxx someone after they had signed an informed consent form…
This follows the line of the gender hysteria, with various countries seeking to pass ridiculous legislation pretty much at the same time. All these outrageous and dangerous actions are being orchestrated at central level, it is about time we figured out who they key players are. Is it the WEF? Bill Gates? Blackrock and Vanguard?
It’s very simple if you understand what has actually happened.
In early 2020 the medical profession panicked over a new respiratory virus. This panic quickly escalated to hysteria (In Psychology its known as Mass Psychosis) which in turn spread to politicians, scientists and the media.
As with all hysteria outbreaks they abate and it quickly became clear that this was actually not a deadly respiratory virus but, at worst, a virus cured by a Lemsip.
That was bad enough, and the realisation excruciatingly embarrassing for these ‘experts’, what made it worse was that the medics, scientists, politicians and media may well have inadvertently killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in their hysterical attempts to find a ‘cure’.
It gets even worse though as there is plausible evidence that this virus never actually existed!
If correct, then admitting they went insane over an imaginary virus is NOT an option as it would lead to their credibility and reputations being destroyed and, for some, jail.
That’s why they have no option left but to double down and plow on regardless in an attempt to convince US that THEY, in reality, saved us from a deadly virus.
Think about it like this and it ALL makes sense.
Cock-up theory and wholly ridiculous. Unfortunately.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I get the need to double down and hope people never wake up – although continuing unexplained excess/elevated deaths is putting a bit of a dent in that strategy.
It’s not just the vaxx nonsense, the refusal to admit lockdowns were wrong – it’s trying to make these things permanent fixtures for any and all sniffles. Trying to normalise the wearing of masks. Here in NL some people are whining they want a mandate again, even though no one is actually wearing them – no one is prohibited from depriving themselves of oxygen, so why are they waiting for it to be mandated so they strap one on? It’s a push to keep people under the thumb of big bro.
The bizarre gender identity fixation is clearly part of some agenda, as is the climate nonsense – at least that one’s pretty easy to understand the agenda, lots of lovely jubbly dosh to be made ‘going green’. There’s also the illegal immigration rush that’s been going on across the Western world for years now, ever since Angie came out with her ‘wir schaffen dass’. There’s also the defund the police movement, tied in with BLM and giving a major platform to outright fascists like antifa, which is apparently okay because they call themselves ‘anti-fascist’, which is all that counts. Then the censorship on social media in particular, not just censorship of health advice relating to corona, but across the board. Something most nefarious going on.
What’s going on is Agenda 2030.
I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories. Incompetence, stupidity and arrogance are the more plausible explanations. Joe Biden is stupid and incompetent, Boris Johnson is stupid and incompetent, Trudeau is stupid and incompetent etc etc.
No, Covid is a spontaneous outbreak of Mass Psychosis (similar to the Medieval Witch trials), climate change is a hysteria and gender identity is a hysteria.
It is the bizarre actions of those ‘infected’ that lead us to the conclusion that there MUST be some intelligence behind it all, when in fact it’s just group madness.
The reason, I believe, that these outbreaks are occurring is simply the result of mass communications otherwise known as the internet or social media. Just as it allows the instant communication of facts and data so it also allows the rapid communication of irrational fear and superstition.
Good grief!
Looks like 77 Brigade are back.
You see conspiracies everywhere, don’t you?
It was only a matter of time. I wonder how they work? Independently or one or two people doing all the replies to posts here, and other places, that need “correcting” with larger group of spotters flagging where replies are required?
I really wish there was more of an edit option. The GP I’m talking about was insisting that people had to sign an informed consent form before he was willing to vaxx them, so that they knew exactly what they were doing. I believe the EUA regulations in fact require that. He’s facing disciplinary charges because he’s doing exactly what he’s supposed to be doing.
Why Your Doctor Can’t Tell You the Truth About COVID
https://takecontrol.substack.com/p/why-doctors-are-lying-to-you
If the COVID shots are as bad as they appear, why isn’t your doctor warning you about all their potential side effects instead of encouraging you to get more shots? Isn’t your doctor supposed to have your best interests in mind? Here’s the brutal truth about why you’re not being warned.
Dr. Joseph Mercola
Come & join us when you can. Keep your freedom alive.
Yellow Boards By The Road
Monday 10th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Sandhurst Rd &
B3016 Finchampstead Rd
Wokingham RG40 3JS
Wednesday 12th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A327 Observer Way &
Reading Rd Arborfield
Wokingham RG2 9HT
Thursday 13th October 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A3095 Warfield Road &
Harvest Ride Warfield
Bracknell RG42 2QH
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
The reason behind The Science being settled is that without that absolutist stipulation Smart diagnosis is impossible to program into an app.
Sadly preceded by The Scandalous Silence of Dissenting Doctors.
YouTube has just demonetised Denys Davydov’s site which gives news about the Ukraine – Russian war. Toyally unacceptable.
I am inclined to believe that Covid-19 was a test run. So that the authorities could find out how far they could push it in each jurisdiction, and then subsequently what laws or legislation was required to properly lock us up next time. Hence why we had things now moving in the UK towards the Police and Crime Bill (suppression of protests), Online Harms Bill (suppression of dissenting voices online) and the British Bill of Rights (Let’s not forget that it was the ECHR that ruled that vaccine mandates would be illegal under their human rights laws, so they will be replaced with laws allowing Parliament to legislate for it).
Most doctors are just glorified pharma sales reps at this point anyway.
These new laws just make it more official.
If this spreads worldwide, and I fear that is the aim, it will be more deadly than the Scamdemic.
On the subject of (some) GPs being well-paid pharma reps, has anyone read this and looked up their own Vax status, as Joel Smalley did, and found he was officially double-jabbed?
https://metatron.substack.com/p/evidence-of-incorrect-vaccination
Needless to say it came as a great surprise to him. I must say I’m tempted to do a similar check but hesitate to have any kind of NHS app on my phone. Having said that, if JS did it – maybe it’s ok.
Is someone making a nice little side hustle of claiming the twelve quid, falsifying records and pouring the gunk down the drain to ‘protect’ the fish?
If this law is passed it will mean that Public Health Bureaucrats are effectively to be declared infallible. Rather like the Pope was declared to be infallible, in order to silence theocratic dissent.
It’s the end of science, which never has a genuine consensus, and is never settled.
Given that by March 2023 we are likely to have all to wall Labor governments in Australia (Tasmania may as well have one), I see this legislation having a good chance of becoming national.
Regardless of the minutiae of the medical statistics in the article, the rights of both patients and their doctors to have open and frank discussions is sacrosanct.
It is a hill that I, and I hope others, am prepared to die on.