NZDSOS - New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science

[David McCarthy]

We welcome Health Professionals to NZDSOS.
If you are a New Zealand registered doctor, dentist, pharmacist or vet who is uncomfortable about what is happening in our country, please join us.
We are an active professional group. The letter below from one of our members sums up the situation we are all facing.


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

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science
https://nzdsos.com/professional-members/

[David McCarthy]

Meanwhile in New Zealand March 13, 2023

The 2022 Death of Divya Simon. Cause of Death – Heart Attack. Circumstances – Irrelevant
Reading Time: 4 minutes
Pathologist = doctor who performs a post-mortem and looks at tissues under a microscope in order to determine cause of death or disease.
Coroner = lawyer who investigates deaths – cause and circumstances.

An article in the NZ Herald recently discussed one of the many sudden deaths that have no doubt contributed to NZ’s record excess mortality. The article focused more on the perceived failings of the St John’s Ambulance service than the elephant in the room.

Divya Simon, a 31-year-old rest home nurse, a wife and a mother of two young children would have been mandated to be vaccinated against covid 19 in order to work. She may have been happy to take it or she may have been coerced.

With a new openness, the article actually mentions the elephant but then goes on to dismiss it. Divya had had her third booster vaccine 4 days prior to her massive heart attack. Being 25 Jan 2022 that was presumably her 3rd dose of vaccine. She had to take the next day off work because she felt unwell and complained of pain in the L side of her neck and shoulder (symptoms consistent with a heart attack). She worked a night shift on 28 Jan then slept before waking later that afternoon and experiencing dizziness and chest pains. Soon after she suffered a cardiac arrest.

Divya’s husband did CPR until an ambulance arrived nearly half an hour later and she was taken to ICU where she died the next day. Note, the ambulance service is understaffed and overworked – too many staff off sick post mandatory vaccination on top of those mandated out, and too many sudden unexpected collapses, medical events and deaths occurring in the community.

Divya’s death was referred to the coroner for investigation as she had no history of cardiac disease and had no reason to have a sudden heart attack.

It is important to note that prior to the deployment of the Pfizer injection it was EXTREMELY RARE for healthy young women to suffer heart attacks, and even those with co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes or smoking would be highly unlikely to have a heart attack at the young age of 31.

An angiogram ‘was unable to determine the cause of the cardiac arrest’ presumably means she did not have any significant coronary artery or vascular disease.

However, the pathologist apparently told the coroner her death was most likely related to an ‘underlying weakness of the coronary arteries’. Without seeing the pathologist’s report, it is difficult to know what this actually means. Were they aneurysmal, had they ruptured, was there actually anything abnormal detected, or was this just a ‘diagnosis’ used to fill in the paperwork?

Her death was referred to the Cardiac Inherited Disease Group – to look for a unicorn? This group must be getting an awful lot of work if every sudden, unexpected death is getting referred to them. We can but hope that they are conscientious enough to consider that some people may have an underlying vulnerability to spike protein, mRNA and lipid nanoparticles and turn their research to those areas.

The coroner, Luella Dunn, (spelling as per Herald article, apologies if incorrect) a lawyer, not a doctor, advised that the pathologist found no evidence to suggest the vaccine contributed in any way to her death. What evidence exactly was the pathologist looking for? Were any tissues stained for spike protein, was there vascular inflammation, blood clots, myocarditis? We have been unable to get a clear, or even any sort of answer, to this question from our authorities. What if they are not actually looking for anything? After all, if you don’t look, you won’t find.

The facts of the matter (as presented in the newspaper article) is that here is a healthy young woman with no underlying medical conditions who had the third dose of an experimental medical procedure 4 days prior. No cause of death is determined apart from a vague ‘likely underlying weakness in the coronary arteries’.

In normal times, or times gone by, when proper pharmacovigilance was operating, the death would be assumed to be due to the experimental medical procedure UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE. Use of the medical procedure would have been halted while every stone was unturned to find out whether others might be at risk. Not so in these strange times where usual, ethical medical practices have gone awry.

The Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) also appear to have abdicated their duty in line with what has happened for other post-vaccine deaths and injuries in NZ and what is happening overseas as well. Any possible cause of death except the obvious cause is latched onto, even if just a vague ‘likely underlying weakness’.

She died from a heart attack, end of story, no need to worry about the circumstances of being part of an experiment, being mandated to take a medical procedure, lack of informed consent or any consideration of WHY the ambulance service is so overwhelmed.

Next please.

https://nzdsos.com/2023/03/13/death-of-divya-simon/