from Centrist.nz
In brief:
- The NZ Medical Council, which does not necessarily have any more medical knowledge than the doctors it licences, directed them to promote the government’s COVID response.
- At the same time, the government was running ads implying you would receive unbiased advice from your doctor.
- Doctors who questioned faced harsh sanctions for dissenting even though there were questions about the legal effect of the Council’s edict.
- A former Council member’s court testimony revealed what he perceived to be a punitive and closed minded culture.
- Stifling the doctors made it difficult for the public to inform themselves.
Medical Council’s “guidance” during the pandemic
The New Zealand Medical Council issued a “Guidance Statement” (see below) to doctors, in April 2021, stating “there is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice”, then enforced it vigorously, at a time when the Government was urging people to get unbiased advice from their doctors. For instance here is an excerpt from one of those ads: “In Aotearoa the below sources provide accurate and reliable information: Your GP, pharmacist, iwi health provider or other health professional.”
This guidance was interpreted to cover many suggestions of alternative or even complimentary action, creating a pall of censorship.
The Medical Council’s purpose is to ensure the doctors maintain standards, but the doctors determine the treatment for their patients.
It is important to emphasise this article is not about the efficacy of the COVID response or vaccine. It is about the public’s right to inform themselves and make their own choices about their health. Many are willing to follow the government’s instructions, but others like to consider the alternatives.
There is no evidence the Medical Council had or has any special insight into COVID but it nonetheless took the position it knew best and it wanted the conversation to be very narrow.
Note many would argue the Covid ‘vaccine’ was not like a traditional vaccine for many reasons. Among other things, it was the first of its kind and there was very little time for development or testing.
Council Member testifies to internal discord
“In September 2021,” Richard Aston testified, “the first wave of complaints about doctors, COVID, vaccines, and the prescribing of Ivermectin came to MCNZ. I was shocked at the different approach Council members had toward these complaints, compared with their normal thorough and fair approach.”
The explosive evidence, which goes to the heart of public faith in the medical profession and government, comes from a former member of the Medical Council in a High Court judicial review case recently.
The Medical Council does not want this affidavit to be available to the public and, indeed, most of it is not at this time. This section is, however, as it has been read out in open court.
Aston, who served a five year stint as Chairman of the Board of Consumer NZ up until 2019, was then appointed to the Medical Council of New Zealand in October that year and remained a member until June 2022. His LinkedIn profile states he remains a lay member on Healthcare Professional Conduct Tribunals.
Handling of complaints against doctors was extreme
“The complaints,” Aston testified, “ranged from a doctor emailing a colleague with doubts about the vaccine, through to doctors advising some patients (e.g. pregnant women and children) not to take the vaccine, to doctors speaking at public meetings against wholesale vaccination of everyone. Aston testified that there was general agreement among most MCNZ members that the COVID vaccine was a zero risk medication, and that doctors who thought the side effect risks were significant were woefully misinformed.
“The approach from MCNZ staff and most MCNZ members was to rely on the guidance statement, which indicated doctors should promote vaccine benefits not highlight risks. That meant that a doctor talking about the risks associated with vaccination was a reason to take disciplinary action.