The covid narrative was an unwelcome reminder of corrupt Pharma, medicine, and science. Medical history is littered with examples. Covid is the zenith of a recurring crime against humanity: profit from fear-mongering whilst poisoning the whole of it. Many whistle-blowing doctors’, scientists’ and journalists’ ruined reputations and dead patients line the long road to covid absolutism. One will see blood on state, corporate and professional hands in the miracle of polio vaccines and the genesis of AIDS; and compromise in the quality of scientific proof for HIV, to name a few amongst many egregious but forgotten examples of neglected medical controversies.
My medical practice was but one tiny orbit invaded by a confusing storm of covid neologisms and ideology, so I hesitated to react whilst I regained my bearings. When no amount of reason and data would dissuade government from its murderous cooperation with such corruption I found increasing cause for concern. The state seemed complicit in corporate crimes. It became worse. A gargantuan propaganda and censorship of information conspired to maintain the biggest public lie of our lifetimes.
As it seemed the matter could not get worse, it did. Forcible and coerced therapy by psychological, legal and socioeconomic manipulation crushed the spine of humane values humanity was said to hold sacrosanct.
Men of religion, the media, every human institution under the sun enjoined and celebrated the lie.
As individuals many, perhaps most, held reservations, but as a global group, humans bonded by a Big Tech curated fears, we shuffled together in increments on a well-lain plank.
We were persuaded to immediately sacrifice our lives and our health to stop a condition that could not, would not and did not need to be stopped. It was part state-of-mind, part bureaucratic, part spurious, and part transmissible agent, but mostly an unquantified and unqualified phenomenon brewed by state apparatus, apparatchiks and the hyenas around and within the WHO.
Were that not bad enough, when the dams of censorship broke, and a brave cottage industry of counter-propagandist doctors and scientists congealed to tell the world their truths, it did not change a damn thing. I am discovering late in my professional life that many like me have tried and failed to be sustainedly heard for centuries. The fight is against a paradigm of greed not easily broken.
Our elected abusers simply sweetened the leash and lulled us back to slumber with more contradictory lies. No tyranny this week! There is a new variant of concern. No masks mandate… except in the NHS. You may travel … to some places but not others. The jabs are a success but stop Astra-Zeneca and carry on boosting. It is unsafe to to seek medical help, but ‘Eat out to help out!’. Covid is over. No, it is not. NHS workers must be vaccinated, else the sack. NHS workers no longer need to be vaccinated. The new variants require new jabs.
Two years after the event we are being advised to jab children with old toxic jabs for even more innocuous, new, resistant variants. Why?
There was never any plague out there in every street killing all and sundry. People simply acted as if there were. It was as if children were make-believing with no external reality check of a parent shouting them in for supper. Even when the truth of the crime is out, we act as a group as if it is not. Both perpetrators and victims in denial and connivance.
It is a bitter pill made easier to ingest by the distraction of a well-timed, preventable and concocted conflict of blood-brothers across the Donbas region. Even this comes tainted with accusations of US bio-labs peddling international biowarfare. Nothing is simply what it seems.
The easy availability of diverse online information does seem inversely proportional to the masses’ power for critical thinking. In my surgeries I have watched the flag of mass delusion pass from the black fist of BLM, to NHS rainbows, to mass genetic inoculation, to the golden grain and blue sky of Ukraine in one panoramic swoop representing two years of a cataclysmic decline in the human condition.
One professional organisation exhorted me to donate to an overseas political charity as the ‘pandemic’ ‘began’, and, now as it is reluctantly being ‘allowed’ to ‘end’ by the tyrants in our communities, another ingrained professional organisation issues me misguided ‘Guidance’ on how to fund Ukraine’s nationalism. A violent, bloody nationalism which may be self-undermined by a pending application to join the EU. Insane, melodramatic covid measures have already disrupted the global economy, why now create global food shortages, fuel poverty and stoke a perpetual war, right on Europe’s doorstep?
Puck Free Speech
When the lens through which the microcosms and macrocosms of our lives are focused is Big Tech’s mass propaganda, it is easy to fall into despair. Even the functional distraction of WW3 is not so comforting. As we are briefly allowed to come up for air, the unelected and thoroughly corrupted WHO seeks more sweeping global sovereign powers, and the UK parliament is unnecessarily seeking to secure mastery over internet information through euphemism. The Online ‘Safety’ Bill. Whose safety? Whose mis-/dis-information? This approach is being mirrored internationally.
The General Medical Council (GMC) have moved to quash free and honest scientific discourse further in doctors’ public communications, including on social media. It appears to have learned nothing good from a failed, illegal attempt to crush the voice of a doctor who clinically disagreed with the propaganda of Whitehall. Its suggested revisions (see paragraph 74) to its regulations only serve to make doctors more slave to the subjective opinion of politicians and activists:
Domain 4. Maintaining Trust
Patients must be able to trust medical professionals with their lives and health, and medical professionals must be able to trust each other.
Good medical professionals uphold high personal and professional standards of conduct. They are aware of how their actions and decisions may affect other people’s trust in them, and wider public perceptions of, and trust in, their profession
74. When communicating publicly as a medical professional you must:
a) be honest and trustworthy
b) make clear the limits of your knowledge
c) make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is not misleading
d) declare any conflicts of interest
e) maintain patient confidentiality.
This applies to all forms of written, spoken and digital communication
The doctor’s impossible task of “Maintaining trust with ‘the public’ by being honest and not misleading” is rife with subjectivity and unresolved internal tension. The GMC’s provisions risk further undermining public trust by encouraging doctors to conspire in a cartel on faux trust and by stifling free speech.
The ‘public’ deserves and should reasonably expect frank, diverse and honest medical debate, and scientific discourse. It is unfortunate for democracy that a quasi-judicial medical practitioners tribunal panel variably constituted of three people decides how the whole public is minded.
The GMC, its executive doctors, Ofcom and media doctor government mouthpieces have been more or as guilty as anyone else in dishonestly spreading misinformation and disinformation (let us just call it opinion) on social media or elsewhere, but the difference is theirs are establishment opinions the state wants propagated.
It has long been the case that anyone or anything detracting from the profit of Pharma was denied an equal forum in mainstream scientific journals which are either owned by conflicting investment interests and/or reliant on Pharma advertising revenue. So, where does a doctor voice serious concern? Where does it leave the honest, caring doctor’s counter-establishment ideas, opinion or belief? The answer of the last two years is nowhere. You will be ignored, vilified by and snuffed out from the system. Have these bodies not realised the genesis of all unreasonable prejudice and ‘-isms’ is oppressing and censoring those whom one believes are unworthy of expression?
There are further proposals attached to the The Online ‘Safety’ Bill to proscribe anonymous free speech. Where does that leave outlets such as this blog? The legislation is chilling to free speech, discussion and scientific discourse whilst heartwarming for tyrants. Political opinions are said to be protected, but what if they are in regard to covid measures, which masquerade as apolitical, medical measures? It ought be clear to anyone with sentience that human knowledge is no knowledge at all. It does not come fixed and finalised with a government guarantee of force.
If global truths are now the result of a forced, mass acceptance of rotten ideas, how does this happen? One way is to elide the individual. Dr. C. G. Jung regretted the loss of individuation, and saw it as a root cause of the brutalities of both World Wars. Eleanor Roosevelt witnessed the same horrors and realised that recognising and protecting the individual’s freedoms was paramount in the prevention of future genocides and crimes against humanity. Her belief led to the drafting of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Nuremberg Code and the UN Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights are written in the same tradition of the sanctity of the individual. What would she have made of the systematic elision of individual rights by the 21st century versions of the United Nations and the WHO?
There seems an unhealthy relationship between microcosmic and macrocosmic phenomena in our 21st century lives. The covid narrative has been central to the rapid restructuring of this phenomenological matrix. I have seen it first-hand in my medical practice, as I have witnessed the so-called covid positives who overwhelmingly remain well, and asymptomatic, whilst I also witness the illness which closely follows waves of jabbing with unnecessary gene therapy.
As a general background, in my personal clinical practice there has been a general sense of rising blood pressures, clots, heart disease, menstrual disturbances and shingles which tend to mirror the serial ‘vaccination’ waves accompanied by an alarming fall in lymphocyte counts. Such was the prevalence last winter, it became common practice of my colleagues to simply ignore and file low lymphocyte count as ‘normal’. Inexplicable severe hypertension of those who were already long treated and stabilised has been another unusual feature. I shared my observations with a nursing colleague who nodded without hesitation. A rare moment of clinical frankness in this time of covid tyranny ended in black comedy. As I exited her clinic room, our studiously silent eyes met, and I quickly asked, ‘Do you think it’s … ?’ as I feigned a jabbing motion with both hands randomly slinging modified mRNA, accompanied by a squirting sound. She lost her reserve and giggled in approval. Human tragedy has descended into farce.
If this were not dystopian enough, the government and its authorities who are charged with caring for their citizens have turned a blind eye to the death and illness invoked by their pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical policies, as they continue to use their fatal and failed measures to entrench their medical tyranny into our personal lives. Even worse, the government has had to resort to censoring itself. Its health propagandists, the UKHSA can no longer hide that its own data suggests to varying degrees the more one is jabbed the more ill and dead one may become. Therefore, no more such statistics will be released. How about this headline for a parting shot by the UKHSA: “Vaccinated Hospitalised for Non-Covid Reasons at FIVE Times the Rate of the Unvaccinated, U.K. Government Data Show”
It is equally or more arguable than the converse to say the jabs and non-pharmaceutical policies have inevitably failed, are life-threatening, make the covid situation far worse and were unnecessary. Cheap, safe alternative treatments were, and are still available. This opinion becomes more sustainable and factual by the day, as the authorities and their formidable propaganda machine fall more and more into denial.
Every patient has been directly touched by the over-arching narrative and most responded with either happy, fearful or unwilling compliance. A significant minority who have good data, wealth or pure, moral grit remain stoically unvaccinated.
I will illustrate this human spectrum encountered in my professional practice.
As I drive in to work in a sleepy town, I am met by fresh Ukrainian flags perforating the skyline. There are still the gates, and pallets lying on country roads painted in the fading colours of the rainbow thanking the NHS for scaring the hell out of us. There are no flags for Yemen nor Russia. I daresay no one would recognise these latter flags, but if someone did, it might lead to a bloody nose for Russia or nothing at all for Yemen. I pass one gentleman, and hold open a door for him. He thanks me, and I nod to him. He is animated, and happy. Who can blame him? The state apparatus is behind his thought patterns. He wears a sky blue hoody with a Ukrainian flag printed on it bearing the words ‘Puck Futin’.
Nothing about this fazes me except the brazenness of a grown man being so openly committal to symbology and semiotics. He is entitled to his opinions. I am not entitled to openly share serious professional, clinical concerns. I am not sure of his geopolitical knowledge but I imagine his consent was not fully informed when he was serially Pucked by Fharma.
I am very conscious that only Ukrainian and pro-pharma symbology seem allowed. Russia is as institutionally condemned as is playing Tchaikovsky, saying ‘White Lives Matter’, ‘Brexit’ or ‘I do not want unnecessary, forced, coerced, experimental gene therapy’. We are led to believe by the bots that all people who behave thus are a wrong, silly and dangerous minority. These minority groups’ diversities and equalities are certainly not to be celebrated by Netflix or our school teachers.
At work, I have a patient consulted with for the umpteenth time. He is liberal, polite, careful and obsessed with his health. The government have labelled him clinically extremely vulnerable. He has dutifully responded with four toxic jabs, thus, in my opinion risking serially suppressing his immune system more. But that is the diktat his specialist is aping. Neither the patient, me nor his specialist are trained to know much about vaccines.
Until now, I have been dealing with him on the phone about his previously well-controlled hypertension. Now it is not, and won’t fall even with additional medication. He has been meticulous in recording BP measurements on a spreadsheet, and unusual in asking why he is hypertensive. Many doctors and patients just accept it as mainly an age and lifestyle issue. He once did, but now seems interested to ask the question. I respect his inquisitiveness, and am open to a frank discussion. There would have to be limits, I may not question his wisdom of repeatedly and unnecessarily poisoning and immuno-suppressing himself with an experimental compound, nor may I hypothesise the jab was behind the unstable BP. This would conflict with his government program, and cause offence. How carefully had he questioned the jabs before he had them? Did he question them as rigorously as his hypertension? He was a charming fellow, but I realised his concrete boundaries upon the corner of his right lapel, resplendent as it was with the new sign of our times, a discrete and shiny Ukrainian flag pin.
I have patients who, after third and fourth jabs, have experienced thromboembolic side-effects and continue to contract covid-positive tests. Their response is to consider they would have been worse without the jabs. This is accompanied by a sincerely held wish for their fourth and fifth jabs.
The opposite end on the spectrum is less common, but first l will deal with hope in the form of the prevailing attitude of the average patient. Generally, after two years they are quietly sussing out the jab and the government. Less have third and fourth jabs, and by the grace of God even less unnecessarily push their young toward them, given the grave scientific concerns. The government has resiled and lost its nerve as the public has rediscovered a small part of its backbone. What the government and its bodies refuse to do is basic and revealing. It cannot even acknowledge, let alone investigate, jab concerns. More unforgivably it continues to move to needlessly risk children’s lives.
If you were to enter my NHS surgery where mask mandates are still in place, you will be asked by a receptionist to wear a mask and wait. You will be met by one doctor, who will not wear a mask and greets you with a smile, offers you a seat and says you are welcome to remove your mask. For added encouragement that doctor will reasonably say this would help in examining you. Increasingly, you will remove it. In the last 6 months only two have declined. Some will surreptitiously and magically slide off the mask after initial internal resistance, mid-consultation, usual when I turn my head away. Many will rip it off saying, ‘Thank God, I can’t breath properly with it on’. I will reassure them by agreeing that I feel the same way. If they say they were told to put the mask on by the receptionist, I tell them in my consultation room I practice evidence-based medicine, not politics. It keeps me sane.
The extremest, opposite end is less common but far more touching and sad. A young labourer man in his early thirties strides in without his mask. I am heartened. Our smiles and firm handshakes meet. He is unvaccinated, a rarity in this obedient semi-rural community. He has a minor chest issue and searchingly tells me he is unvaccinated. I congratulate him and, I kid you not, he clasps his hands half in relief, half in prayer, and nearly gets on his knees as he collapses with elbows on to my desk. ‘Oh, thank God I have a doctor like you! Why can’t they all be like you? What’s wrong with everybody? They have lost their minds.’ His tone becomes more desperate, ‘Doctor, I am not having it. Three of my colleagues had it, one was young. They all had heart attacks soon after’.
This is what a de facto universal injunction on free expression, and coerced gene therapy in a bio-tyranny feels like, should the scales ever fall from one’s eyes. It is patients like this who have watched in disbelief and horror for two years as captured TV medics captured the public with an incessant infusion of fear. No wonder they cannot trust us.
His are not uncommon observations, but not ones my medical colleagues appear to be making or acknowledging. He is one of the more astute. I am more impressed by his medical insight than that of my colleagues. We have the advantage of front row medical seats.
He is a key-worker. He is not a member of the laptop class who may sit at home working or was subsidised by the state to do nothing but comply with its own demise. Nor is he of the business class who snatched state covid grants, incentives and loans. All were to some degree covid narrative extras on a global filmset. This poor working man is a protagonist, with the socioeconomic odds stacked against him he stands up like a Braveheart to the tyrants and the herd.
It is easy for the government to audit the various health concerns raised herein. It happened to presciently make several legislative moves to widen access to our computerised NHS patient records during covid and the mass experimentation upon the UK. General Practice Data for Planning and Research Directions 2021 were revoked following protests. If the government wished, a few taps on a computer might reveal exactly what happened to our collective lymphocyte counts, anti-coagulation prescribing, miscarriages, stroke and heart disease rates and so forth in relation to covid waves and covid jabs. It is doubtful it would openly conduct such straightforward studies, given its pathological denial, censorship and lack of acknowledgement of well-founded, serious concerns. It seems the jabs will always be unimpeachable in the eyes of the state, even when they are not. There is some comfort in a recent decision of the Indian Supreme court which appears to have upheld bodily integrity, personal autonomy and transparency in reporting jab adverse effects.
I have previously characterised the problems of covid ideology as a phenomenon of international political bipolarity, but this view assumes an interchange and a genuine difference between two points. Such is the asymmetry of information and hegemony over ideas, I see the issue better as an overwhelming global mono-polarisation toward a single undemocratic, illiberal and opaque idea. Obey or perish. There is no alternative. No question, no debate. Will a multipolarity re-emerge from this delusion?
As the ideology of covid has superficially remitted, the management of the sizeable practice in which I am fugitive has declared next Thursday a fancy-dress fund-raiser for Ukraine. These are the priorities of a battered, end-stage NHS. I would not mind so much, but there does not even seem to be a safe space for political neutrality in a health service, let alone for safe medical practice.
Where now? TCP wants out, but is curious to see how the story ends. That point when access to free movement, food and currency becomes absolutely and inextricably digitally linked to vaccination and bio-obedience is upon us. Worse is to come, and someone must despatch from the trenches. An income is necessary, but not at the expense of fundamental medical ethics, nor to satiate the corporate-captured state. Puck Farliament.
8th May 2022
The Covid Physician is (still) an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Patient details have been anonymised. Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr and blogs at at tcp.art.blog
To support TCP please share and retweet