What message is the government sending us when they push people blindly towards taking a fallible vaccine, with a woefully inadequate trial phase, yet say that there’s ‘insufficient evidence to support the safe and effective use’ of likely COVID treatments such as Ivermectin.
The official Australian health guidelines regarding HCQ+Zinc state that the use of hydroxychloroquine (with or without zinc) is not recommended because, if used “inappropriately, it may cause toxicity, and lead to adverse patient outcomes.”
Stop and question the double standard.
The government saying that potentially life-saving counter-COVID treatments can hurt us while shoving an untested vaccine down our throats doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
The same bureaucrats who say they care about ‘adverse patient outcomes’ and ‘not properly tested treatments,’ are okay with injecting the population with a Mac-Petrie dish concoction that has yet to be discovered long-term side-effects.
They might bribe us with the promise of ending soul-sucking lockdowns. Offer us free fries, the return of our freedom, and free donuts, but only the gullible would buy it.
The sole reason health bureaucrats would have for dismissing treatment in favour of a vaccine is that it’s a quick fix.
Whereas their only justification for rejecting medical opinion on medications is that the medicine is dangerous if mishandled.
The Queensland Labor government in April last year, brought in a law against Doctors in Queensland. They face a $13,000 fine, and/or time in gaol if they prescribe HCQ to their patients.
In Victoria, the COVID Medical Network, a group bringing together Victorian Doctors concerned about Government overreach, were ordered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to “cease and desist” offering their medical opinion on Ivermectin, HCQ+Zinc because it differed from the medical opinion prescribed by the State.
TGA told CMN “to take down the ‘Early Treatments’ section from their website” because it could be construed as the “advertising” medicines for C-19.
CMN consider ‘the Victorian government’s response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus to be doing more harm than good’; stating:
“Victorian government’s measures are ‘anti-health’ and deny the principles of good medical practice. They constitute a disproportionate approach which relies on a fear-based media narrative as well as inadequate and misleading information.”
For CMN the Victorian government’s excessive lockdowns, are in ‘contravention to the 1984, International Siracusa Principles,’ which assert civil, and political rights, as well as the concept of informed consent.
Of which Article 58 states,
“No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent…the right to recognition as a person before the law; and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.”
According to the Victorian HRC, as non-derogable rights, “these rights cannot be suspended even in a declared state of emergency.”
The Siracusa Principles are backed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, primarily articles 6-8 (1966).
Is the Victorian Labor government’s obsession with lockdowns – and any government who forces an experimental vaccine on its people – in contradiction to international law?
The short answer is a tentative, hell yes.
Bureaucratic health “experts” are demanding that medical practitioners read from the approved script handed down by the – discredited on COVID – World Health Organisation, even if doctors know it to be wrong, and even if this means conflating the role of doctor with that of politician.
This explains the censorship, chasm of conflicting information, and why there’s a burgeoning tension between those with muddied boots on the ground, and health bureaucrats, who are tethered, on the tax-payer dime, to comfortable chairs in insulated offices.
It’s political, not medicinal.
The wider message being sent is that bureaucrats should be trusted, regardless of what those doctors are saying because the bureaucrats know what’s best for us, better than the doctors who often know us best.
Unelected desk jockeys keep telling us there’s insufficient data. When frontline medical practitioners, such as American Doctors, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch and Dr. George Fareed, as well as the COVID Medical Network, are suggesting that the initial responses they’re seeing strongly suggest that both HCQ+Zinc and Ivermectin are potential Covid-19 killers.
This is government pushing GPs to the sidelines.
As one ‘pro-herd immunity via mass vaccination’ doctor from Sydney claimed, they’re ‘disenfranchising GPs in one single swoop.’
In other words, the government is compromising the doctor-patient relationship by taking over the role of medical practitioner.
C-19 healthcare is being prescribed by advisors and legislators, not by practicing doctors.
It’s another strain of government overreach.
This is described by Michael Capuzzo, a journalist with experience around C-19, in his under-published article ‘The Drug that Cracked Covid’, as government telling ‘well-trained, well-equipped doctors to stand down and wait on big pharma’s lab scientists [for a vaccine], while the worst pandemic in a century devastated the world.’
Australian Independent, Craig Kelly was right when he told parliament this week that we should be “greatly concerned” at the downgrade of the patient-doctor relationship.
“We have state government chief medical officers violating the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship” by telling doctors when to care, how to care, what to think, what to prescribe and who they can prescribe it to.
Instead of government playing a subsidiary role, it takes on a substitutionary role, and by default, through deliberate intention, becomes the ultimate physician – bludgeoning lives and livelihoods with a big rusty knife, then justifying that as “healthcare.”