Blog

Yes, it’s true.

Denial of the magnitude of general vaccine harm and ineffectiveness is undeniably official state policy. Active harm of the population via rash, prolonged covid measures seems to be policy. The longer it is dragged out, the more undeniable it becomes.

Unsafe & Ineffective

While China and other non-Western nations purported to mete out more traditional inactivated virus vaccines, the nations of the West near-instantaneously magicked only several multi-patented genetic jabs. A mass, forced human experimentation with known inefficacy and inadequately-quantified known and unknown risks. They unleashed these upon their own un-indemnified, Western populations with impunity, whilst the West funded coronavirus gain-of-function research in Wuhan, and led with a charge of, China Virus, China Virus, China Virus. Why? Cui bono?

La pandémie? L’État? C’est WHO!

The whole system of the Western State has become unashamedly abusive and egregiously statist. Our politicians are there to be feared, not to fear us, and certainly not to represent us. We are there for them. They whom we elect and trust to represent us as intermediaries with the State. To play out their shams, to affirm the wrong they say and do to us is right. There to shield their lies, to conceal their abuse of us. In this way our State maintains itself for the sake of itself and its aggrandisement. At the same time it, as most other Nation States, is volunteering to cede its sovereignty to the WHO at the drop of a bureaucratic, self-defined hat. As long as an unelected, undemocratic, unrepresentative WHO self-identifies its pronoun with a pandemic there is seemingly one.

Pandemic Colonialism

There are two fundamental conflicts between international human rights treaties and a international global treaty of governance in a pandemic [the WHO International Health Regulations treaty (IHR)]:

In practice this means anything the captured WHO says. In the wrong hands, such a treaty guarantees the ending of liberty for evermore on a leash of mere subjectivity, technicalities and propaganda.

The proposed fortification of the IHR married with a weakened pandemic trigger threshold, instantly and globally threatens to suspend national sovereignties and individual international human rights.

For nation States to submit themselves and their electing subjects to such pandemic colonialism is an extremely self-injurious and baffling development. Such dire international treaties are usually imposed by the victorious over defeated nations after war, or during an international bail-out of a bankrupt country.

We State subjects and sovereign individuals are thereby compelled by international law to pretend and believe a dire pandemic exists, however delusional and self-injurious that may seem. It is an entirely unacceptable but real state of affairs. It is not the way of libertarian, sovereign democratic nation States. Yet, here we are. State fodder, whose duty as State subjects is to suspend our disbelief in our nation State, in perpetuity. If one struggles to disavow one’s visceral intuition, the State prescribes Kool-Aid. An anodyne potion of propaganda to settle the queasiness, to wash the jab down. Nothing can ease the pain of being taxed into destitution to fund our harm. They have a premeditated, unproductive solution for this: Do nothing, own nothing and BE HAPPY. But, bent words are humanly unsustainable. There is a solution for this, too. Trans-humanism, or in-humanism. Your digital obedience despite State abuse is prized.

Nothing has illustrated the truth of this better than reviewing the last three years. Never has the term ‘trauma-based mind-control’ seemed so actual.

Cough Linctus

An email from the misnomered MHRA, received in March 2023, the third anniversary of the UK lockdown hammered this abuse home. These days the MHRA is a state organ self-identifying as an enabler of pharmaceutical terror rather than a watchdog against it. What was unexpected was the email revealed itself to be abjectly hypocritical, incompetent or insane. Perhaps all three. It cascaded, urgent information to all NHS clinicians, everywhere.

To quote the MHRA safety alert:

A precautionary measure detected by the allegedly world-class MHRA advanced early-warning system. Let the UK population no longer suppress any sign of the next respiratory virus pandemic, not least, its cough. Expect a Pfizer-Moderna-AZ snortable, cough-suppressing gene therapy, deliverable without consent at all crèches and shopping centres, soon. Anticipate all other highly effective, proven, safe, off-patent traditional pharmaceuticals to be disappeared.

Why so defiantly ultra-cautious, now? For two and a half years years one awaited the official MHRA alert on covid jab withdrawals. Literally from our circulations. It never occurred. Not even for AstraZeneca: that was simply suicided, honoured and shipped abroad. The irony of this ought not be lost on anyone, today. Certainly not on the relatives of the hundreds of thousands recorded by regulatory bodies as dead, and the millions ill after (or ‘with’) covid jabs, globally. But it is, and will continue to be.

In addition to Pfizer for babies, the MHRA recently announced their approval of old-variant Moderna in children, just as the WHO announces a belated end to the non-pandemic. There is no end to the serialised normalisation of MHRA madness. There is no longer even lip-service to on-the-fly, bespoke jabs for the latest variant of whatever the old variant was, to a pandemic which fizzled out years ago.

State Abuse

This kind of abuse is reminiscent of the pattern of sexual abuse and the modus operandi of its perpetrators.

The trauma of not only being traumatised, but also of it not being acknowledged. Of it not being officially recorded, or officially countered. The trauma of having to futilely recount one’s abuse so many times one gives up, more traumatised. The only treatment becomes the distraction of self-abuse or suicide. This is why many prefer a life of silence and denial.

This is why some graffiti happens. An expression of visceral pain, and social dis-ease in the face of State denial and oppression. I felt it walking home from work, my NHS sanctum of state abuse and denial. A place where, in answer to the question, ‘Would you have it, doctor?’ the phrase ‘I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole’ is now easily accepted by a patient, when two years ago they would have reported their doctor to the police. Yet, our State persists in its fatal charade.

Secreted in the back of some alley in some unlikely idyllic, small town one finds expressions of the pain in street art. Like prehistoric cave art in blood, waiting epochs to be unearthed, decoded and understood. Cries for help from a gagged populace. A population under attack. It may as well say, ‘MHRA is a nonce’. Yes, may conclude a future archeologist, The population was under existential attack by giant reptiles and left a dying sign.

The MHRA reminds of Sir Jimmy Savile. Both state-approved institutions for abusing public trust. Perhaps the MHRA will also take its secrets to the grave. The parallels seem more real to me. I walked the same corridors, wards and mortuaries as Savile did, at the same time as he bedazzled the public, raised money for Stoke Mandeville whilst fingering its handicapped child patients; and, as officially reported, he practised necrophilia on our dead patients. I met child social workers who all consistently said they reported such high-end abuse but were met with silence or career cul-de-sacs.

Today it is not Savile but the MHRA, and other State organs; not social workers but health-carers; not only unprotected children, but an entire, bewitched population.

Savile’s passport to abuse was lubricated by the State, multiply. The keys to a bedroom in Broadmoor high security prison with access to the Yorkshire Ripper, an unlikely passport to royalty and a BBC fiefdom replete with ample supplies of enchanted children. We remain entrapped in the grim narrative of State fairytales.

WhatsApp Hancock?

Even the military style language of biowarfare and psy-ops by then UK health secretary, Matt Hancock does not raise an eyebrow in a dumbed-down population. ‘Deploy’ is not a usual medical verb. Asking, ‘When do we deploy the new variant,’ and talk of ‘frighten the pants off everyone’ is the counsel of conspiring criminals getting away with murder; not caring, concerned health ministers.

My own medical practice confirms a sense of continuous extraordinary excess death (currently 22.1% above the five-year average) and a sea of anti-coagulant prescriptions. An increased diet of atrial fibrillation, thromboemboli, cancer, inexplicable autoimmune disease, cancer, menstrual disturbance, miscarriage, stillbirths, mental illness and suicides. Neurotic children. Partners coming home to find spouses swinging from nooses. There is an unprecedented health crisis gathered.

It is now not uncommon for multiple family members across two or three generations to have died in close succession or to have suffered clots and all be on anti-coagulants. Let no one convince you this surge in sticky blood is normal or due to weather change.

There is a wilful blindness against attributing any of this to covid jabs, or the government’s destructive non-pharmaceutical measures and accelerated demolition of the NHS. A stark contrast to its active misattribution of ‘Everything by/with/because of COVID’.

NHS Exodus

There is an emerging pattern of senior NHS employees, professional disillusioned, exhausted and (one hopes) morally-injured who are leaving and retiring early, en masse. There is a dangerous rise in the acceptance of remote, clinical non-contact and an inappropriate delegation of complex clinical work to the unqualified, with no time nor resources to do it. If NHS pharmacists are encouraged to practice private medicine under inadequate medical regulatory and ethical safeguards, who will concentrate on safe dispensing? Whitehall is pledging to rebuild the Promised Land, by drafting school-leaving apprentices as doctors. This is how a y vestigial resistance of professional medical ethics and standards may be completely dismantled prior to the next pandemic demolition ball. It would be unsurprising if civil servants propose drag-queens, minor attracted persons and children will be enlisted to deliver clinical care. After all, the unqualified military were drafted into conduct an unethical clinical trial. Imagine all the EDI boxes that would tick.

The NHS is, most of all, marketed these-days as a happy, inclusive shiny rainbow of robotic dancers before it is as a competent deliverer of ethical healthcare. Harm seems to correlate and be consequential to this sustained medical abuse. But no one of any authority is interested to invest in investigating this. There is only active denial and a weak misattribution of population malaise to the mirage of long-covid. Long-covid is the only voice of the covid-oppressed the State has sanctioned. The casual diagnosis hides a multitude of State sins on a sick note. Conversely, I have never professionally witnessed anyone dare offer a diagnosis of vaccine injury.

Judicial Incarceration of Free Professional Expression

Many have argued against conspiracy in covid. Some of those while arguing against the official covid narrative. Some of those say it is incompetence, not conspiracy. Some say all this whilst retaining anonymity. Surely, it is evidence of conspiracy itself when one fears retribution in exercising legal free speech?

The disturbing fact is that since Dr Mohammad Adil’s unsuccessful High Court appeal judgment, even this blog is not legal free speech within the parameters ‘prescribed by law’ through the GMC’s updated social media guidance. This judgment may have imperilled all the country’s professional classes to the mercy of arbitrary, illegal, and unprofessional lawmaking professional regulatory bodies, depending on each’s under-pinning primary legislation. One hopes incognito lawyers, such as The Secret Barrister may be anxiously blogging and advocating for Mr Adil and fellow anonymous professional bloggers’ fundamental legal rights.

The judge has, in my analysis, extraordinarily concluded that anything the GMC recommends is ‘prescribed by law’. If one accepts that the primary legislature is Parliament and the only secondary legislator is the Executive, how can the GMC be held legally tantamount to the Executive as a de facto, unilateral prescriber of law? It cannot even be trusted to uphold medical ethics. The GMC is now endowed with both the magical power of being the mind of the public and the legislator. The judgment seems a fallacious, circular construction of extreme judicial convenience made in obeisance to the State tyranny. It is certainly no way of checks and balances to GMC-MPTS overreach. Dr Adil plans to appeal.

May I appeal for readers to bring urgent attention and prayers to Dr Bhakdi’s case. It is another example of intimidating eminent medical experts from professional expression. Not a more gentle, peaceful, caring and morally-courageous colleague have I ever come across. He is a touchstone for world truth in covid. He is being persecuted, and inappropriately prosecuted without proportionate justification in a German court. This distortion of his intent is symbolic of the evil he is fighting. Germany is creating inter-sectional hate by abusing its laws.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi

Conspiracy

This is the strange equality of our current State constitution. An abrogation of national sovereignty, industrialised denial of abuse and a crude, inclusive, global equality of maximal outcome regardless of competence, unequal speech, unequal opportunity, unequal standards of judgment and disproportionate measures. The sole MP (the heroic Andrew Bridgen) dropping the truth bombs reflecting my and my patient’s last three years within medical practice was expelled from the Conservative party. The Labour government-in-waiting are worse for not offering any fair counter-representation of those many in their constituencies suffering from government covid policy.

There is no doubt there are conspiracies. Events and words, things said and done, and not said and done, all glued together by an unbelievable global synchronicity and similarity. Agreement is a matter of degree and a matter of time. The worst case scenarios seem to be playing out incrementally and imperceptibly. On a micro (my own professional concerns and experience) and macro level (official statistics, my censored peers and their larger studies). Only the Pharma’s brief, flawed studies which will never be required to be scientifically verified are either heard or allowed to be redacted and buried. Honest professional experience beats the dishonest RCT in an evidential hierarchy on pharmaceutical safety.

There are conspiracies to make as much money as possible with the least financial risk. Conspiracies to mislead. Conspiracies to deny the facts, deny harms and deny alternative, valid narratives. Conspiracies to compel, force and scare. Conspiracies to engineer and fabricate a noxious gene sequence to go severally into each and every arm. What remains to be confirmed is a conspiracy to kill, to harm, to eugenics, toward a centralised global tyranny (benevolent, of course), an illegitimate world government elected by fear, sustained by perpetual emergency and held together by a WHO constitution enshrined in international law.

18th May 2023

The Covid Physician is no longer legally able to claim to (still) be an unheroic NHS doctor, as prescribed by law.

This article is a personal view, should not be taken on trust, and certainly does not purport to necessarily represent the views of the medical profession more widely or the NHS. Any patient details have been anonymised.

Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr, Blogs here & Substacks here.

To support TCP please share and retweet.

The GMC is unfit for purpose

GMC: Government or General Medical Council?

There is a pogrom of ethical doctors in the West’s formerly democratic, once Free World. The UK is an exemplar.

Wrongly pursuing ethically-minded, safe, caring doctors via unreasonable GMC investigational and prosecution procedure is destroying the UK profession’s ethical foundations. The GMC’s criteria for acceptable, professional medical opinion seem arbitrary, subjective and politically motivated. At times, it behaves manifestly illegally. The legal uncertainty engendered by such GMC misconduct is compounded by ‘overarching criteria’ of the Medical Act 1983. These are being misapplied resulting in suppressed professional medical free speech. This is damaging public confidence, public health and professional medical standards. Urgent reform of the GMC legal test of professional medical free speech is required to reflect fundamental rights and prevent the GMC misapplication of medical ethics to, in fact, destroy professional medical ethics and the public health. Medical workplaces, and indeed fellow colleagues are increasingly moving to arbitrarily suppress and control dissenting doctors’ free speech. Ofcom’s political remit to curate the country’s official covid narrative has institutionalised the illegal restrictions on general and professional medical freedom of expression. GMC guidance to prevent anonymous, legal professional medical free speech made precisely in the interest of the public health is further indicative of a loss GMC regulatory compass and competence.

Time is proving persecuted dissenting doctors right. The state did not protect us, the MHRA Chair has relinquished its function to ‘stop the (government) killing people’. It should not be right in a moral, ethical society for individual, insightful brave doctors who point out the obvious damage of state non-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical measures to be subject to abuse by their regulatory body. Nothing will change in the future unless there is sweeping institutional and political reform. It will only get worse. By trying to remain politically legitimate the GMC has lost any legitimacy to regulate ethical doctors.

The widespread persecution of doctors and medical ethics is sudden, simultaneous and global. It appears to be a systemic, coordinated phenomenon. Finger-pointing to individual doctors is missing the point. Internationally, vocal doctors who speak their inconvenient truths, are ruined with a sophisticated, pre-planned and propagandised intent to maintain an unassailable, fatal covid vaccine narrative. Western medical regulators are mis-regulating with the tools of intimidation and fear. Principally by destroying individual, exemplary medical professional reputations without respect to any moral, legal or ethical principle. In a sense, these medical regulators are not concerned with maintaining high ethical standards in the profession. Contrarily, in the last three years they have been trampling on them in favour of suppressing intelligent, ethical, and life-saving medical counter-propaganda. The regulators must be stopped.

I will discuss the persecution (calling it ‘cancelling’ is inappropriately mild) of some of these fine doctors, and conclude by examining why this occurs and what may be done to end it.

The GMC legal standard to which a UK doctor is governed

Medical Act 1983, section 1. The affliction at the heart of medical ethics

1 The General Medical Council.

(1)(1A)The over-arching objective of the General Council in exercising their functions is the protection of the public.

(1B)The pursuit by the General Council of their over-arching objective involves the pursuit of the following objectives—

(a) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,

(b) to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and

(c) to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

These functions only allude to something else other than the above 3 core values. They relate to a more fundamental professional medical ethics. These ethics are unsurprisingly constant and timeless. Ethics appear to have become less important and operative in the mind of the GMC and MPTS(The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service), and taken an inferior position to their prescriptive ‘proper professional standards and conduct’. So have basic, natural legal rights: in a rudimentary failure of law and legal process the tribunal Legally Qualified Chair and GMC counsel overlooked the right to basic legal free speech of Dr Sam White. Why? Because their focus was incorrectly on the Medical Act 1983, secondary prescriptive rules of GMC formulation, and politics, not medical ethics. This shift away from fundamental professional ethical values seems more evident since the era of Dr Shipman, and the move of the GMC to appease the government, so as to preserve its regulatory position at the expense of medical ethics.

How does the GMC objectively determine the health, safety and well-being of the public? Judging from March 2020 onwards, I would say it does not. It is subjective, based on contemporaneous political expediencies and the prevailing propaganda.

How does the GMC objectively determine the undermining of public confidence in the medical profession? I would submit it may be based subjectively on political correctness and prevailing propaganda rather than a true delve into the collective mind of the public.

How does the GMC objectively determine proper professional standards and conduct? I would suggest this is based not as it should be on debating of the scientific paradigm, real clinical experience and ethics to refine them, but subjectively on politics, and the corporate capture of scientific institutions, individuals, pharmaceutical guidelines and journals.

Caution should be applied in interpreting the meaning of ‘the public’. First, it should not be conflated with ‘the public health.’ This is a very different and political beast. Some might say public health has nothing to do with the public or health, but everything to do with subverting human norms for political tyranny and corporate profit. Second, it cannot be presumed that the GMC, the MPTS nor the Judiciary necessarily interprets ‘the public’ as either meaning the individual ‘patient,’ or ‘patients’ as a whole. Dr White’s and Dr Adil’s cases (discussed later) illustrate, I suggest, a contrary tendency.

GMC v Mr Mohammad Adil, Consultant Surgeon, Chair of the World Doctors Alliance

His recent GMC tribunal transcript may be accessed here, or here. Around April 2020, Dr Adil made a prescient and prophetic calling out of the crime of crimes: a global lockstep lockdown and coercion toward mass human biological assault. He scientifically questioned the existence of SARS-CoV-2. It remains difficult to call state-funded, premeditated genetic engineering and wilful pharmaceutical ignorance of basic science either ‘experimental’ or ‘accidental’. If one still remains unconvinced by these concerns, this presentation by Professor Denis Rancourt of the hard all-cause mortality data of the last three years may assist. It is as shocking as it is compelling: in summary, no viral respiratory infection pandemic, democide by policy, and cumulative pandemic by serial covid jabs.

Dr Adil’s alleged professional misconduct is predicated on the GMC’s subjective view of what the prevailing attitudes of a gaslit UK public and UK medical profession were in April 2020. Those attitudes were engineered by censorship and the sophisticated psychological and political propaganda of 2020. It is not interested in what Dr Aseem Malhotra (see below) is getting away with saying now, in 2023. By this reckoning, even if Gates, Tedros, Whitty and Hancock were hanged at Nuremberg 2027, the GMC would maintain Dr Adil could not possibly have known in 2020, and it would still destroy him.

The GMC believes Dr Adil’s words were more terrible because he promoted them with his professional credentials and seniority. This is perverse reasoning by the GMC tribunal. On the contrary, more credence should have been given to his words because of his professional medical status. Look towards politicians and philanthropists for medical wisdom is recent fashion.

Thank God for the trail-blazing Dr Adil. His was courageous political and scientific dissent, which should not be suppressed nor need to respect majority professional or public opinion and feelings. His ethics are sound, but his views were rendered apparently fringe. Not anymore. Even so, this does not make them professionally, scientifically or politically irrelevant or wrong. The GMC do not care if time vindicated him. It says it was wrong in the context of April 2020. That, is equally perverse. Basic medical ethics ought to be immutable and independent of time, fashions and psychological onslaught.

I quote some of the extraordinary travesty in the tribunal proceedings:

What if Andrew Bridgen, MP were a Doctor?

Dr Adil’s GMC-alleged conspiracy theories and misinformation have now entered Hansard, and one of those responsible MPs, Andrew Bridgen has now suffered a thinly-veiled witch-hunt of his own. He is expelled from his own party, whilst the feckless, equally-expelled ex-Tory, and former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock has so little insight he calls the quoting of properly contextualised covid vaccine scientific statements, anti-semitic. It is the most odious technique of censorship, practised by a miscreant in public office. For Hancock, Bridgen is an existential threat. Bridgen now sues Hancock for defamation. Whilst all is collapsing around Hancock, he remains defiantly sociopathic. As usual, his desperate, divisive and vicious rhetoric clings to the false narrative he created and maintains three years on, only with UK excess deaths at record and rising levels exactly because of Hancock. In the inflated pretence of saving the few, Hancock killed far more.

If Drs Adil and White were also MPs, or Andrew Bridgen, MP also a registered medical practitioner what would the GMC feel was right to do? Would it avoid them because they were also practising politics? Would it leave the persecution to parliament? Why should that make all the difference?

Time and Tavistock

Will the GMC pursue the doctors at the Tavistock clinic now there is some perceived furore against their possible professionally-abusive conduct toward children? Did they or did they not in the recent past do things professionally to offend the overarching objective of the GMC as enshrined by the Medical Act 1983?

Does the apparent GMC standard of ‘the prevailing, publicly fashionable view’ of medicine applied in Dr Adil’s case apply to the Tavistock doctors? Probably, but only because as a matter of political convenience it helps the GMC politically persecute Mr Adil, and avoid scrutinising the, (dare I say ‘woke-ified’?) Tavistock medical teams.

Times change rapidly, but, medical ethics should not. These ethics are not civil laws that may be legislated on political whim in parliament. Murder is a still a crime because it is, at its essence, immoral, not because a judge or politician says so. Not acting in the best interests of patients (one unreliably presumes these patients are ‘the public’ which the GMC has a legal duty to protect) is professional misconduct because it is essentially unethical, not because the GMC says it is misconduct at only certain points in political time and space, for only certain doctors.

It may be that the majority of the UK medical profession and public did not and do not accept a political, corporate-sponsored ideological game of the hormonal or surgical destruction of a child’s biological sex and gender. It may be that, due to an unrelenting diet of well co-ordinated minority activism and sophisticated propaganda, no one dared to protect these poor children at the time. Dr Adil did not commit this error when he sought to do his professional, ethical medical duty of protecting the public when he voiced his serious and time-vindicated concerns.

Forcing state compliance with an unacceptable minority and/or extreme medical ideology upon professionals, adults and their children is something the Government, Tavistock and the GMC may have in common (future GMC counsel please note: this is my current reasoned hypothesis and opinion – not past or future conspiracy theory or misinformation).

Dr Adil v GMC, High Court, February 2023

Dr Adil made a reasonable statement updating and briefing his position on 15.10.22 His case is listed in the High Court for February 2023. It is a watershed moment for my profession. The profession has a duty to support his right to a freedom to express a professional opinion. It is not a matter of whether one likes him or how, what, nor even primarily about why he speaks. It is that he should not be made to feel he can’t speak. It is a pivotal matter for doctor, patient and the public health.

The High Court judgment may not be personally favourable to Dr Adil. If it is not, it must be hoped it will favour the medical freedom of expression for the profession. Being outspoken should not be medical misconduct. His conduct represents the best of strong, ethical and intuitive medical ethics. His overriding and unbearable concern for patient safety and ethics is not good enough for the GMC. Neither is his being ahead of his time, nor his being a proponent of legal, medical free speech.

His primary risk to the state is his senior status and his opinion, neither of which are risky or illegal. This letter from a fellow surgeon seemed fair and reasonable on 13th July 2020, but time has shown Mr Adil to have not in any sense been fantastic at all. He has being excluded from medical practice for three years because of his political and scientific beliefs and opinions at a point in time, not for medical incompetency. He may not be the slickest social media operator, nor the most skilful public advocate. These are not of his professional skillset. He is a good doctor who did his ethical and moral professional duty in a timely and effective manner. He is guilty only of placing his professional concerns about patients’ welfare, society and public health above his own and his family’s welfare.

One of the unspoken issues about Mr Adil is he is a victim of his time. He is an old-school surgeon and doctor. He is a child of his generation. He is an anachronism of high professional morals and ethics. Independent, and fiercely protective of his patients, not himself. No one seems to value seniority and professional competence anymore. What matters is political compliance. Give my patients an ethical, independent, competent senior doctor any day. It is precisely what society, public and each individual patient is desperate for.

GMC-MPTS Institutional Bias

Dr Adil’s powers of linguistic finesse on complex sociopolitical matters in the public domain may have done him an injustice which the GMC fails to recognise. It seems an obvious point. Mr Adil seemed largely self-represented until latterly, and under severe professional, financial and public stress. It is no coincidence the Mr Adil has recently highlighted the high death and suicide rates of doctors undergoing GMC scrutiny.

He draws attention to genuine and judicially proven concerns of institutional racial and cultural bias in the GMC-MPTS process. It is not merely proven racial inequality. It is proven GMC race discrimination. Take the case of a mixed race, African and muslim NHS Surgeon. Dr Omer Karim’s solicitors say he ‘was a whistle-blower about patient care and raised concerns that ethnic minority doctors were being subjected to bullying’. He somehow ended up with GMC professional misconduct charges, and the GMC was somehow found guilty of race discrimination on appeal at the Employment Tribunal.

The GMC planned in 2021 to appeal that decision. The BMA pledged to support Dr Karim in any further appeal. His case is a landmark not only for the proven racial discrimination against the GMC, but for also being procedurally decided at Employment Tribunal with the GMC regulator positioned as his de facto racist employer. The ET made three key conclusions:

Part of Dr Adil’s personal concerns of racism in his case may also represent an equally unacceptable cultural bias by the GMC against Mr Adil. He is not only the product of being originally from a different country but also a different generational, religious, moral and ethical milieu. These are not impairments, and may even be assets. In a time of faux wokeness it seems more unjust for these real cultural, language and stress factors not to be taken into account in the impending High Court decision.

The reality is we have a skilled, senior, caring surgeon being excluded from giving to our society and being denied a vocation and living. He is deskilling. Even though he has accepted to the tribunal that he was wrong in much of what he said, much of it was not and is not wrong. What this noble doctor lacks in culturally acceptable style he overcompensates for with immense professional substance. This individual professional competence is his real offence to the politicised medical regulatory system.

Mr Adil cannot diminish the public confidence, public health of the profession by a minority and diverse opinion. He can only enrich or correct it. It is not a case of a rotten apple corrupting the barrel. He is not rotten. Nor is it the case, as the GMC counsel suggested, “whilst it was not akin to falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, it was not far short of that”. Shouting ‘fire’ and causing public pandemonium by fomenting population fear, anxiety and panic is precisely what the WHO and most governments so callously did for an infection fatality rate which at its known worst was in the order of flu, or much less, with an average age of mortality curiously similar to average life expectancy. In April 2020, Mr Adil was a lone voice of reason in a global storm trying to temper the madness. For that, it is the WHO and our government that should be brought down, not Mr Adil.

The only way for Mr Adil to survive is if he has money (please donate to his crowd-funding page) for effective legal representation, the court find in favour of his legal free speech, or if he submits himself to a humiliating GMC brainwashing programme to correct his inapparent, poor professional insight. He has been more professionally insightful than any of us. His primary failure in insight was to believe the state and the GMC would allow and respect him to speak his professional concerns commensurate to his seniority and long medical experience.

There are many examples of favoured media doctors being way off the mark in regard to the science, vaccine effectiveness and safety who were left alone, or have slid away quietly, their bank balances fortified and their burgeoning professional reputations intact. They were left alone by the GMC and permitted to be unprofessional, unethical, wrong, dangerous to the public because it suited the propaganda of Ofcom and its government.

Our society is very confused. Mr Adil deserves to be honoured as a pioneer and medical hero. He is not, because he lives in a time of communist and corporate fascist tyranny. It is a world of lucre with no place for liberty, morality nor ethics.

Dr Sam White, General Practitioner

Dr Sam White was also an early medical martyr. His individual courage and belief gives doctors some hope. He voiced reasonable concerns about vaccines on social media. The GMC moved, illegally, to stop him. The High Court simply pointed out the obvious, asking: Why were the GMC illegally restricting his freedom of expression? GMC counsel, the Legally Qualified Chair and his own representation had overlooked this. Perhaps because the propaganda machine was so intensely febrile with covid psychosis. More extraordinary was a rapid communication he received from an NHS England representatives who illegally and summarily informed he could no longer work anywhere in the NHS. It was for him to prove both these decisions were grossly arbitrary and illegal rather than those political minions to know it. These are abuses of power.

It is accepted that Mr Adil’s comments were in some degree speculative, and hypotheses based on circumstantial evidence. Equally, there was primary evidence present which he would have had access to so as to bolster his opinion. However, Dr White’s case proves that even evidence-based comments are not enough.

Mr Ahmad Malik, Consultant Surgeon

This is what got Mr Malik into hot water.That two workplaces should simultaneously move to quash his free speech for his echoing of a parliamentary debate on vaccine safety by asking him to remove his social media post is of public and professional concern to us all. Even if the GMC dare not tread on him due to the ‘current context’, his two workplaces do. Mr Ahmad, I believe is working in the private sector. I speculate that the two companies will say that he does not share their commercial values. However, legal free speech medical ethics, and acting on well-founded, serious concerns should be shared and celebrated by his host companies. They should gave him an award, and say his conduct is exemplary. They should line the corridors, dance and clap for him and all ethical doctors. They should positively discriminate and employ more doctors like him. Mr Malik also stood up for us all in January 2022 when he defended bodily autonomy and spoke publicly against mandated biological, experimental gene therapy to remain working in the NHS. Why did his workplaces not choose to persecute him, then? His responsible, ethical and refreshing response to tyranny proves the adage the only remedy for suppression of freedom of conscience and expression is more free expression.

Mr Ahmad needs surgical theatres and a complex team to operate, he is more dependent on business forces. It is harder for him to set up alone. It is not extraordinary to say that his workplaces may have financial conflicts of interests in regard to their personal, political and business connections with individuals and companies which induce them to harm him.

Dr Aseem Malhotra

Double-jabbed Dr Aseem Malhotra is equally courageous. However, perhaps, at least in his non-interventional cardiologist private practice, he is less susceptible to commercial prejudice and bullying. That being said, what if his publisher, or a leaser of private rooms wrote to him announcing that his strong sense of medical free speech and medical ethics were not values they shared. If that did happen, it would be a medical cancelling reminiscent of JK Rowling’s (TERF) persecution for legal free speech in defence of women.

Dr Malhotra published to Twitter these remarks purported to be made by the GMC following his being predictably politically whistle-blown to the GMC:

What is clear from the GMC comments on Dr Malhotra’s case, is the GMC was a keystone in the political, state plot to bamboozle and menace the public into obviously rushed, risky, ineffective, experimental and misrepresented gene therapies.

It is disturbing when the GMC deals with well-founded and serious professional concerns with nebulous disinformation terminology such as ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘misinformation’ while it conspires to misinform the public in league with the government and Ofcom.

Although Dr Malhotra may have viewed his sparing as a huge victory, it seems not to me. The GMC’s selective sparing of him creates no legal precedent for the rest of us. It is a tactical withdrawal decision by the GMC. The GMC seems to be saying they may, depending on political expediencynot persecute a Dr White, Ahmad or Malhotra once the job of delivering the bulk of experimental, multiple jabs is done, but they will continue to persecute Mr Adil, and not Dr Kayat, nor her ilk. This is very concerning. It gives no legal certainty to doctors, leaves the door open to more arbitrary GMC behaviour and self-endorses the charge against the GMC that it holds a constant, unpredictable and prejudiced threat over doctors’ professional heads. This is no way to regulate but every way to intimidate. It destroys and controls doctors for political imperatives, and not in any way for individual or public health.

Candour, Consent, Whistleblowing, Free Speech & Privacy – The Unsquareable GMC Circle

GMC social media guidance

Not only is the GMC illegally regulating doctors ECHR article 10 rights, it is recommending doctors forgo their article 8 rights to privacy. At the same time it stipulates professional duties of candour and informed consent. How does the GMC square such circular legal contradictions? By illegality and selective, prejudicial, political persecution of scapegoats.

The GMC has produced social mediaguidance for doctors. This reveals the GMC not only antagonises reasonable, self-declared whistleblowers, it also has no approval for anonymous medical whistleblowers and writers on social media. Its social media guidance to doctors recommends that it is done without the privilege of anonymity.

I have written on covid, the plight of dissident doctors and the uneven hand of the GMC, before. Does political or professional criticism of the state and GMC reduce or increase public confidence in the medical profession? Should I be writing this? I have no doubt it is legal, but is it professional? I believe it is for the reasons, herein. Particularly, as it is supported by true professional experience, reason, examples and evidence. It is also journalistic, opinionated and sometimes utilises the literary device of humour. Is that wrong for a doctor? No, there are many doctors who do this all the time. They are never pursued by the GMC. It is not necessarily because they are any more or less. It is simply because the GMC politically determines what it believes should be in the public confidence and of a professional standard, based primarily on the grounds of what it subjectively believes is within the acceptable window of current political discourse and public opinion.

I make clear my views are not those of my employers. By my anonymity I protect my patients’ identities, my employers’ feelings and my right to professional, personal, journalistic and artistic freedom of expression and conscience. One has to accept as an anonymous whistleblower what is lost in professional credibility is gained in an exercise of the GMC professional duty of candour without incurring the unethical threat of persecution by the GMC. It is therefore confused and perverse of the GMC to (correctly) conclude:

‘They (doctors) must support and encourage each other to be open and honest, and not stop someone from raising concerns.’

Why, then, does the GMC obstruct and not lead the way?

It is relevant to state I am a doctor and necessary to remain anonymous if I am to contribute to the professional and societal debate with an equal right to anyone else in our society. It is in the interest of public health, public confidence, democracy, patient safety and our profession. Most particularly, because the government, and the state system of regulation and safety (parliament, MHRA, GMC, PHE, UKHSA, ONS etc) and our media have failed to protect and inform the public. Where was the GMC on vaccine informed consent, unethical experimentation, and vaccine risk-benefits?

Where was it to regulate Drs Chris Whitty and June Raine and so forth? Unfortunately for justice, the High Court has ruled there are doctors with a “sufficiently close link with the profession of medicine” and other doctors’ functions which are “too remote from the practice of medicine” to be subjected to the GMC’s standards. This alone gives the GMC sufficient cognitive wriggle room to turn away its attention when politically expedient.

There is a mismatch between theoretical whistleblowing policy, hollow public body statements on paramount patient safety as compared with the reality of GMC scapegoating of individual, ethical whistle-blowing doctors. The GMC’s social media guidance compounds the mismatch. If there are public interest grounds to allow anonymous whistle-blowing of doctors to the GMC, shouldn’t the same argument apply to whistleblowing medical free speech?

In September 2022 it was reported Professor Karol Sikora was being investigated by the GMC, but it would not tell him why. Up until that point, Professor Sikora has been a constant, reasoned and strong public voice critical of the government’s covid measures.

The Governance of the GMC

Unfit for Purpose

After the bizarre and selective persecutory pursuit of Dr Manjula Aurora, fellow doctors have labelled the GMC unfit for purpose and self-serving. The GMC is not just extraordinary for simple doctor-bashing. Once, the GMC-MPTS process did not sanction a doctor at all for one of the greatest medical sins: sexual relationship with patient. In this 2016 case of Dr John Brookes, the disgraceful message and excuse was given that a surgeon with magic fingers is too uniquely-skilled to take out of the NHS. What about the ethical doctors taken out of the NHS by the unethical GMC covid pogrom? Politics matter to the GMC-MPTS process. Morals do not matter, ethics increasingly do not, and the Medical Act 1983 is subjectively and politically interpreted by the GMC and the Tribunal for their own conveniences. The process has become a corrupt inversion of itself through self-interested preservationism and political sycophancy.

The Tyranny of Dogma

The trouble with GMC medical regulation is rather like the trouble with medical science. Politics, regulation of doctors, medical scientific research and profit have fused into a dysfunctional mutant causing pandemics of technocratic kleptocracy and iatrogenic illnesses. Dr David Rasnick’s essay on the tyranny of dogma explains this.

GMC Institutional Dysfunction

Why does the GMC conduct itself in an inconsistent, illegal and unethical manner? One reason is the institutionalised legal laziness and legal over-reach informed by a sense of untouchability as in the case of GMC Counsel and the Legally Qualified Chair missing the overriding and simple matter of Dr Sam White’s article 10 freedom of expression rights.

A second is the GMC-MPTS quasi-judicial process of tribunal decision-making does not set internal precedent. What goes for one doctor, does not for another. The precedent is made in the High Court and requires endless money, and resilience. Many doctors who feel aggrieved therefore capitulate to, and accept the injustice, blame, and humiliation. They pay lip-service to the probational behavioural modification and re-programming just so they can avoid bankruptcy and the suicide-inducing stress of a prolonged suspension, loss of vocation, home and livelihood.

A third is the GMC’s dysfunctional guiding legislation. This can only be corrected by a careful, responsible revision of the Medical Act 1983. Unfortunately, any redrafting by woke 21st century legislators may only make matters worse.

A fourth is politics.

The Privy Council

A fifth issue is the GMCs legal personality is granted through Royal Charter by the Privy Council. The GMC Council is composed of 5 medical professionals and 5 lay members. The appointments process is described as ‘following an independent appointments process.’ All members are appointed by the Privy Council, including the new, current Chair. This is a body arguably even less democratic, more opaque, powerful and less accountable than parliament. The GMC’s power to make regulations, under the enabling Medical Act 1983, with respect to the medical register can only come into force when approved by order of the Privy Council. These factors represents another political conflict of interest grating against patient health and the preservation of the core professional ethical values of the doctor-patient relationship.

The GMC was politically compelled to reform after the Shipman Inquiry, 2004, and under some threat of losing its regulatory relevance and status. The essential concerns were of a GMC over-focused on professional interests, rather than patient interests. It is debatable this reform has only created a politically-captured medical regulator more interested in being politically correct than being ethically correct. Thus, through its recent weaponisation by government covid policy, the GMC is in more danger of becoming increasingly and irrevocably illegitimate in the eyes of doctors, patients and ‘the public’. It was Sir Graeme Catto, then GMC president (not Chair), who said in 2006: “Modern medical regulation must put patient safety first.” Indeed it should.

GMC: Reformation or Destruction?

The GMC has become a political sword against ethical doctors and is not an effective shield for patients, ethics, the public confidence nor public health. Why should we doctors pay the GMC to misconduct itself and in doing so, drive the standing of our profession into the ground?

The GMC is desperately in need of meaningful and constructive change. It cannot continue to be allowed to flagellate or muzzle ethical doctors with impunity and disregard for their fundamental legal rights or the medical ethics which it may purport to guard. Dr White’s case and Mr Adil’s upcoming case, even if wholly favourable to medical free speech, are only sticking plasters.

The cancellation of good doctors (or any other good health carer) for no good or legal reason is now a real phenomenon and pernicious to our society. Any system supporting or encouraging such an act is cutting off the nose of society in spite of society.

The GMC has a duty to demonstrate insight. The GMC must recognise that non-propagandised, non-censored professional medical free speech is healthy and commensurate to the number of professionals sharing the message of that speech. It is not a case that one experienced doctor speaking within a minority or at one pole of a spectrum is necessarily wrong, a danger, unprofessional or unworthy of being heard. Not even in the time of global social media, but particularly in the time of global social media.

Meanwhile, as the GMC continues to serve politicians while it bullies medics into practicing defensive and obedient, corporate-captured medicine, and drives doctors to their deaths; our patients continue to increasingly die in across age groups, globally and in the UK (as I reported and predicted).

What majority of doctors is going to suggest it is due to modified mRNA population experiment when the GMC is rabid guard-dog to the government’s impossible ‘safe and effective’ mantra? Without the GMC’s misguided stewardship and cronyism, there is every chance the profession would have swiftly realised the public truth of the unethical, unsafe and ineffective experimental biological interventions two years ago, and actually prevented deaths.

A Western spiritual and intellectual crisis

Other professions and professional regulators are behaving politically

Lois Bayliss, solicitor, helped countless individuals in a David versus Goliath battle against the covid narrative. She is now being pursued by her regulatory body. A UK Magistrate was sacked for using her suffix “JP” in a request for ICC to investigate crimes against humanity. Popular political commentator, Dr Jordan Peterson, who incidentally happens to be a gifted psychologist, is politically attacked by his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario. It should have more psychological insight into how it politically abuses it position, and into how psychologically abusive it is to suggest one of its foremost psychologists should be politically reprogrammed. There is a full spectrum attack on professionally laudable, moral, ethical and legal free speech.

Religion

It is not just Western morals, ethics and human rights under persecution by Western institutions. It is the deliberate self-harm of their historical basis, Judaeo-Christian thought. In November 2022, a peaceful woman, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested by British police in violation a local council ‘censorship zone’ for a crime against natural human existence and potential thought. She was standing silently in public, and possibly praying in her head outside a closed abortion clinic. Compare this with the complicity of the police in the mass violation of bodily autonomy perpetrated by the government and GMC in the name of Pharma and covid vaccines. Her case goes on trial February 2nd 2023. All religious people should support her. Particularly muslims, whose religious freedoms and similarly conservative beliefs are selectively tolerated in the West, while the West does a demolition job on its own. For, Western censorship of religious free thought, conscience and speech will, one by one, come for all religions. This, as Scottish police are permissive to paedophilia by euphemistically discussing them as MAPS, ‘minor-attracted people’.

The fundamental tenet of medicine, primum non nocere – first do no harm has been inverted. It is not merely the case that it has been ignored. Government and GMC policy is obviously and actively democidal. They did not exercise any precautionary principle – this required evidence of no harm, and significant benefit. There wasn’t any for their non-pharmaceutical or pharmaceutical interventions. Coercing, forcing and inducing every person in the world to playing unnecessary pharmaceutical Russian roulette is not the precautionary principle. The GMC would do well to heed both Hippocrates, and Laozi, since, the fundamental Taoist principle of wu wei – action through non-action is very Hippocratic, and apposite for our headless, heedless times. Had the government and the GMC simply done nothing they would not have harmed and killed so very many, and saved so very few, if any.

P.D. James is said to have stated to the Paris Review in 1995,

“I believe that political correctness can be a form of linguistic fascism, and it sends shivers down the spine of my generation who went to war against fascism.”

Amidst today’s centralised reprogramming of the meaning of fundamental words such as ‘woman,’ ‘pandemic,’ ‘menstruation’ and ‘vaccine;’ and the career-ending, international prohibition on the truthful juxtaposition of the words unsafe, ineffective and ‘vaccine’ we must also add global linguistic-communism to the lexicon. What would she have made of that? With regard to past and present medical regulators approved communo-fascist medical tyranny, I will leave the last word to Vera Sharav, Holocaust survivor.

With regard to past and present medical regulator approved communo-fascist medical tyranny, The GMC has responsibility for encouraging this type of extreme political climate of fear around freedom of expression and conscience. This fear was heightened in covid. To the extent where a publisher broke off relations in 2021 when I refused its request to self-censor these parallels of our covid state with fascism and Nazism. I had been writing of the parallels since 2020, here, here, here, and here. I had never imagined the UK had sunk so low. To Vera Sharav, and other Holocaust survivors who have witnessed it all before, I will leave the last wise words.

31st January 2023

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, Blogs here & Substacks here.

To support TCP please share and retweet.

10th August 2022, Seattle Mariners’ stadium. There was something rather emblematic about the most powerful and worst doctor on the planet getting it so publicly wrong. It was as if he were in real danger of throwing the baseball in a diametrically opposite way to his purported intent.

Fauci was bathed in baseball fan cheers at the start of his pandemic roadshow. Feelings have since changed. The sheer audacity of him prancing on to the pitch like an elfin Peter Pan into a coliseum of rednecks at the end of a trail of medicalised slaughter is a definition of pathological denial. If only he could soak up the propagandised adulation of the masses once more before announcing his retirement, it may in his mind prove he is always right. That he and Gallo did deliver a vaccine against AIDS within two years rather than actually fail to for nearly forty.

It should have been his natural safe-space. A Washington home team playing the New York Yankees. But it was nothing of the sort. They booed him as he risked propelling the baseball into his face. No matter, he is infallible. He raised in hands like a gladiator, perhaps, more surprised his shoulder did not dislocate.

So Fauci is retiring, but not, he says, in the classical sense. As if expiring young people wasn’t enough, in retirement he wishes to inspire them. He cannot take their parents’ hint. They, the world over, have already let him know what they think of his final medical act by finally saying, no jab for little Johnny. What would he teach those children? Gain of function, how to be a sociopath, how to harm everyone and nearly get away with it?

The same goes for Whitty. This doctor signed the medical prescription for the Lockdown and the jabs. The, then, new Chancellor, Rishi Sunak says he and others dissented, but the executive was editing the SAGE minutes. Rather than blow the whistle, he became the most profligate accessory to the multiplicity of crimes misconducted in public office. He bank-rolled the whole sham, inducing the country to self-immolate in an orgy of fear, nasal-swabbing and experimental gene therapy.

In 2021, they appointed the AZ jab women Dame, and more importantly, Barbie Shero. They gave her a standing ovation at Wimbledon 2021 just as the clots commenced congealing countrywide, and just before they were locking up Novak ‘Novax’ Djokovic in an Australian clink.

1.5 million MHRA-reported adverse reactions and 2200+ UK deaths later, Rishi Sunak continues to prioritise himself. To steal himself an advantage for the top job, he is doing the noble thing 30 months too late. He says he didn’t agree entirely with lockdown, and the SAGE minutes were doctored. Having shanked one Caesar, he is posturing for the next potential one. He cheerfully broke his own lockdown rules while the minions were being terrorised and tackled to the ground by the police. He can hardly style himself as arch-dissident, now.

Of course, he is not the only coward, but unlike the rest of us, he is a multimillionaire. He could have afforded to be a Barbie Hero. I blame myself, too. What did I do? I wrote. Anonymously. However, I was an early voice. Even one of the PM’s family wanted to speak to me in 2020, but I declined the opportunity of being cancelled. The GMC was already crucifying dissenting doctors, as OFCOM was censoring us. It was guerrilla warfare in the NHS – learning on the job as a proto-dissident how not to be discovered by the thought police, whilst retaining one’s ethical standards of medical practice.

I signed every group medic letter I could to counter the propaganda. There was a certain safety in numbers. Most of my cosignatories were retired, senior medics. I wrote to my MP, the PM, his ministers, journalists, the MHRA, PHE and the RCGP. What the hell are you all doing? I asked, Stand up for, safety, the data, and ethics. Either they did not reply, or they hid behind Whitty and his SAGE advice.

On one cold February evening, in 2022 the boiler blew. Boilerman came to the rescue. Not before relieving me of £600 pounds for two hours work plus parts. I ruefully inquired about the prospect of retraining to join him. He was on better money than me. He wholeheartedly encouraged me. He asked what I did:

Doctor.

What’s wrong with that, Bro? he piped.

Going to get sacked. I refused the covid jabs. Getting ready to relocate to Wales or Scotland.

Don’t do that, Bro! I’ve been everywhere, I’m not jabbed. You can buy negative covid tests and vaccine passports! He began to punch out a phone number, answered by some computer geek who sounded like a teenager.

Bro! screamed the plumber, How much for the jabs?

£400 for numbers one and two.

What about the booster, Bro?

£350, Bro.

The plumber protested, why £350?! (For, surely it had to be £400 divided by two?)

Going rate, Bro.

I explained that I could not possibly be dishonest on point of principle. The GMC does not relentlessly hound plumbers out of house and home. He didn’t get it. But wasn’t that what the government wanted? For us to play the game? As long as we were lulled in to an acceptance of biopharmaceutical state terror, digital ID and a centralised digital currency, in principle, what did the government care?

I suspect that significant swathes of the population are jabbed in digital kind only. I know of medical and nursing colleagues who have compacted with each other to achieve the same.

I, like much of the sentient population, am traumatised. Being bombarded constantly by the state for three years into a belief that one’s medical training of 30 years no longer works and no longer matters is psychologically very disorientating. Particularly, like me, if one fought it. I lived in a terror. Terror from the State, from colleagues, from my appraiser and some patients. Terrified of my community and their vaccine interest groups. Terrified of becoming ill and being interned in some covid-deranged, algorithmic NHS hospital. Terrified my family and my children would succumb to coercion to poison. None of them did. They are lucky. I am grateful. Perhaps they might have, but for some facets of the phoney pandemic narrative being rapidly countered by a brave few. Some aspects are unraveling more. Notably, now from the very top, if Sunak’s, Fauci’s and Shapp’s derrière-covering manoeuvres are indicative.

No-one in any position of leadership is yet talking about the worst aspects of this most coordinated and sustained criminal act in history: fabricating the statistics, preventing independent medical practice, and locking us up until their poison was ready. Turning a blind eye to vaccine death and injury, censoring professional concerns, and coercing the population to experimental injection.

Dr Whitty could have and should have just said, no, not on my watch. It was easy. There was no justification for any of it. It was wrong, it was dangerous, it was unnecessary. However, he said yes, and with aplomb. His power in government is illustrated by Bob Moran.

By rubber-stamping and promulgating the government’s covid policies, hasn’t Whitty brought the standards and conduct of our medical profession into disrepute, and damaged its public confidence? Has he protected, promoted and maintained the health, safety and well-being of the public? Where is the GMC to regulate and discipline him? Does it merely enable his professional misconduct? His entire government is so bad it should be charged with corporate manslaughter.

First do no harm. He ought to know the medical fundamental. After all, if not Hippocrates, he is the Chief Medical Officer of England and the Chief Medical Advisor to the UK government. He is supposed to be the highest doctor in the land. Yet, he failed in the basics. He did not need to be a doctor to know as much. A child knows as much.

The lack of safety data and the presence of early danger signals in the initial jab studies, the low mortality from SARS-CoV-2 and the absence of a basis for lockdown and other non-pharmaceutical measures were present from the inception of, quite probably, the worst iatrogenic health disaster in history. Only, Whitty seems uncommonly blind to it all. Whitty did not act in the best interests of anyone or everyone, but perhaps only in his own immediate interests. Whitty should resign.

What is even worse, now the pandemic panic has abated, and the wraps are coming off Pfizer’s self-censored, closely-guarded contrary research, the data (including the ONS’s own) is revealing the very damning scale and pattern of excess mortality following lockdown and each roll out of jabs. The JCVI, MHRA, NHSE and government continue to come for us and our children, with dual-strain concoctions of what already is demonstrably unnecessary, dangerous and ineffective. The new, alleged omicron-targeting versions are not tested in humans and compound the rushed, unsafe MHRA, CDC and FDA practices of previous covid jab approvals.

What is Whitty and his government thinking? If Whitty realises he may about to be fingered, how does he live with himself? He has limited exit strategies. He is 56. It is unrealistic for him to take the wrong knee at the Chelsea-Fulham derby and then announce a glorious, postponed Fauci-esque retirement.

Another culpable, leading doctor is Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA. She doesn’t think so, at all. Furthermore, she says she no longer believes she is a regulator. It certainly appears she is not able to be regulated. In March 2022, she was filmed, with no sign on contrition, giving a talk at her alma mater. I found it chilling and unreal. She came across as a converted pharmaceutical spokesperson not working primarily for public safety. She acted as if she were a master in command of all facts covid. She used the terms, ‘build back better’, ‘tearing up the rule book’ and ‘layers of parallel working’ (rushing) ‘that can never be turned back’.

The name of her talk? From Watchdog to Enabler. This is concerning. The R is for Regulation. If it is changed from that to E, one gets MHEA, Medicines and Healthcare products Enabling Agency. Even more concerning because she has been enabling a MHRA principal funder, Bill Gates, to make billions more from his wonderful vaccines by blindsiding her own damning MHRA injury and death statistics. What is she thinking? Why isn’t she doing something to regulate the madness? Dr Raine was appointed Dame ‘for services to Healthcare and the Covid-19 Response’.

Incidentally, the NHS is on fxxxxxg fire. I said so to my practice manager. She readily agreed. Never has it been so bad. It is razing itself to the ground in the heat of its own lies, aggression and failures. A staff united around basic medical ethics could have easily extinguished the flames, but no one seemed to care.

One work colleague particular intrigues me. Like others, he continues to choose to prowl around the practice like a startled meerkat with a perma-mask. I haven’t seen his face for months. It was already baffling, but became even more so. His face-to-face patient was diverted to me by the receptionist. The reason given on the computerised appointment was ‘not vaccinated’. It was confusing. Who was not vaccinated? My colleague, me, or the patient? And, so what? In the fog of NHS time pressures, I did not have time to conduct an investigation. It would also have invited an uncomfortable conversation about my own, unknown un-injected status. The diversion begged a question. Had my meerkat colleague declined to see a patient because he was not, or his patient was not injected?

The patients know the crack. Most are done with masks and serial jabs. They are too polite to say so, unless invited to. When invited, they do not hold back. The baby boomers know the taxes they paid for healthcare from cradle to grave have been squandered. Everything NHS is rendered telephonic and spastic by covid. Designed to pretend to be delivering healthcare. The public are no longer fooled. Just as they resigned themselves to being lab rats, they have resigned themselves to undiagnosed and untreated cancers. There has been a palpable increased prevalence or incidence of cancers in my practice. It is reasonable to suspect this is due to misguided covid policy, and as research suggests, the covid jabs. Skin and bladder cancers seem very prominent where I am. The dermatology service have given up even pretending photographs can diagnose cancer within the gold standard two weeks. The reply now is, we’re sorry we simply cannot see your patient for at least 6 months.

From reading a patient’s notes it can all look so meticulously documented and competent, with regular appointments, contacts and consultations. But the in vivo, rotting patient tells the real story, once he or she manages to get an appointment face-to-face. They have actually not been seen for over two years. Everything, from physiotherapy, cardiology, general practice and reviews of longterm conditions has been over the phone, or ‘telephonic’ as some of my colleagues formalise this most negligent of practices. Home visits are the most time-consuming consultations. The current capacity, resources and will for this are nearly zero. Visits to the most vulnerable at home are severely rationed beyond the point of danger. It is always shocking to me. It is the wrong way round. Only the fittest, least vulnerable, and most assertive in our transformed Hunger Games NHS possess the prowess to physically cross the threshold to meet a doctor. It is such a lowly standard of medical practice. Certifying the dead by video call is a new inhuman low for NHS Digital.

Where does that leave patients? To fester or to private practice. This is exactly how it is going.

It is most distressing to deal with ever-poorer patients who have been led to believe the NHS has healthcare that it no longer can afford or deliver. It is even worse when someone who is malnourished and cannot afford adequate clothing asks for a letter of private referral for basic radiological investigations. Wouldn’t it be best to admit failure so patients can either make other arrangements or otherwise organise a rebellion?

When thinking of Fauci and Whitty I cannot help but think of Dr Harold Shipman. Aside from history’s tyrants, Shipman is one of the modern world’s most prolific serial killers. The other two doctors are, arguably, measurably worse in the harm each has caused to their country’s health and mortality rates. The data is becoming more damning. On the evidence it can be construed that there was no exceptionally fatal respiratory viral infection pandemic, and further, not only a test-demic but also widely injurious and fatal lockdown and vaccine-induced pandemics. This recent German paper encompasses most of it, and is summarised by eugyppius.

The staff attrition rate in general practice is astonishing. Illness, sabbaticals, resignation, nervous breakdown, retraining, lay-off, it is all happening. GP medical partners are jumping ship and selling out to private enterprise. They cannot bear it. Is some element of the exodus professional guilt? A nagging consciousness of the degradation within their professional souls? I hope so. One cannot hold a rictus smile, forever. Covid has been the final nail. Very soon, general practice will fall the same way as NHS dentists in the 1990s. There will be none. The cancerous will join the edentulous on the streets. In one, already-failing practice pretending to offer care via handset and batteries of remote, platitudinal investigations (instigated by covid policy), 4 out of 10 doctors were laid off, including me. How, I asked, would they deliver proper healthcare? The manager’s reply was ironic. The (company-owned) practice could not afford to offset the recent 1.25% National Insurance levy without cutting staff. This is Sunak’s extra tax to revive the NHS after he first exsanguinated it under guise of covid. He has zombified it.

The boomers know they cannot expect timely nor safe healthcare, anymore. But they are gracious and grateful, We’ve been lucky until now. They are right, they were the golden billion. They rode the crest of the post-imperial wave. What about you younger ones? It is not just the want of health and jobs for them, it is soon to be the want of the basic means to survive.

I will never implicitly trust a pharmaceutical product, drug company, royal college, medical journal or the State again. Not least vaccines or the NHS. This is how it has to be. It is not ideal when one is a NHS doctor. This is the damage wanton greed and a total disregard of people creates.

The profession’s complicit silence is killing its own young doctors: their death rate is 23 times more post-second jab in Canada, a country rabid for toxin mandates. The profession cannot even protect its own, having transformed into lame ducks and lemmings (as well as masked meerkats) at the click of a tyrant’s fingers.

Do not believe the tyranny is over. It has only just begun. There is no room for complacency.

1st September 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 & Substacks at https://thecovidphysician.substack.com

To support TCP please share and retweet

Orthodoxy, heresy or sceptic?

Fauci Art courtesy of Dianny at Patriot Retort

Something is wrong

Ever felt there is something wrong with virology? Particularly virus vaccinology? The whole shebang is riddled rife with failure, contradiction, inconsistency, conjecture and anti-science. Moreover, the exceptions to this imprecise orthodoxy seem only to bow to corporate and political convenience, never to proper science.

Covid has brought the suspicion closer to an arraignment. None of the official anti-covid virus products seem to work. They seem to cause more harm. No one in leadership positions appears concerned.

Would one believe the matter has been fought out many, many times by similar characters with similar results and a steady state-corporate capture of medical and veterinary microbiology orthodoxy across 226 years since Jenner’s vaccination attempts? It seems so.

Idiopathic or iatrogenic?

It has taken 25 years of postgraduate practice and three covid jabs into an unfortunate patient for me to witness a presentation of aortitis. She is a previously well woman in her mid-fifties with no known family history of autoimmune disease. It is rare, life-threatening condition of unexplained inflammation to the aorta, the major artery connecting directly to the heart. Except, it is explainable.

It is another diagnosis as rare as hen’s teeth. Only, during the current iatrogenic maelstrom brought to us by the globalist Pharma racket, hen’s teeth have become more common.

There is something more remarkable. Given the general current weirdness in clinical medicine, of abnormally high frequencies of multiple clots, menstrual dysfunction, miscarriage, cancers, extraordinary rates of non-covid excess deaths, premature strokes and heart disease, and especially myocarditis, did any of the many GPs and hospital doctors in my patient’s path to diagnosis and a lifetime of prednisolone and other noxious immunosuppressants enquire whether she was covid jabbed or even implicated the covid jabs?

No. Would they have blamed it on covid, if they could … or even if they couldn’t? Yes, of course, everyone blames everything on covid. Did the patient wonder? Yes. Did she dare ask any of the automatons masquerading as ethical physicians the question? No, that could be dangerous for all and insulting to them. Is that surprising? No. Is it a mark of the general failure of humankind? Yes, in my opinion.

Time for change?

The last three years of my original outrage at covid has yielded to the sobering truth this has all happened many times before. It seems always around germs. Many medical and scientific colleagues of the past have preceded the current Les Enfants terribles of covid dissent. Many of these good colleagues have had their reputations, lives and livelihoods ruined by the orthodoxy.

Covid does, however, feel like a watershed. Orthodoxy seems to have over-played its hand. It has neglected to even properly sheen its assertions with pseudoscience. For the first time, the dissent has been amplified by the internet, and there exists a primordial internet archive of the first internet pandemic heretics in the digital age such as Wolfgang Wodarg from which to start the information fight back. Correspondingly, the orthodoxy has added overwhelming digital propaganda, suppression and censorship to the ritual witch-burning. States are de-educating in schools, demoralising in society, and subverting innate critical faculties with fear and toxins. The only mercy is that orthodoxy’s recent desperation has led to a crass execution of a previously sophisticated constriction of Overton’s window.

Mainstream political stooges have called for the less censored methods of communication, such as Telegram to be banned. Much of TCP’s unbridled evidence-based scientific and medical discussion occurs over Telegram in these days of shutdown and lies. Such unmitigated tyranny goes relatively unnoticed in the obedient society of reserved, non-agitators our society has proven to be during the covid delusion. People can see it for what it is, if they care to scratch the internet’s surface. Consciousness seems to be rising. Heresy and scepticism are making comebacks.

The Heretic & The Sceptic

The human quality of feeling absolutely sure of oneself intrigues TCP. Three years of failed covid dogma might be corrective or instructive to such concreteness, but old instincts die hard. As a believer in questioning everything always, TCP is fascinated, even slightly envious of characters built upon granite bedrocks of personal and intellectual certainty. One’s morals may be absolute, but should one’s science be?

On 11.3.22 there was an article in The Sceptic, by Dr Roger Watson which sought to curry favour with the sceptic while avoiding heresy. It even gave the totemic Pasteur some gentle stick. As someone with an open approach to ideas, proven, unproven or disproven, it piqued TCP’s interest. Particularly as it was reassuringly and absolutely entitled ‘The Real Truth About Viruses’ . How could he be so confidant as a sceptic? Is not the real truth, in our post-covid world, that The Truth is extremely elastic? His target was a verifiable heretic and sceptic. Dr Sam Bailey. In short, the author seemed unconvinced with terrain theory, and allied himself within the safe space of germ theory.

It seems unfortunate Watson felt it necessary to allude in any way to Dr Bailey’s physical appearance in his arguments. Dr Bailey is an easy target in the germ-soiled world of microbiology, but her spirit is bullet-proofed by a belief that what is right is not necessarily real, nor true. This looks, to my covid-addled brain, a reasonable stance. For the record, Dr Bailey responded reasonably and comprehensively. Bailey stated, ‘We offered him the chance to come on my channel but he declined saying, “I am not sure how fruitful a debate with me would be,”.

The in-betweener

Dr Bailey is far more radical to orthodoxy than cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra, who if anything was hitherto a doyen in orthodox British evidence-based medicine. He encouraged ethnic minorities to take the covid vaccine. His eminent medical father died of a cardiac arrest on 26.7.21 during a covid-throttled wait for an emergency NHS ambulance in a health service weighed down by the non-evidenced ballast of government covid policy. Dr Malhotra appraised the emerging evidence of heart inflammation being caused by covid ‘vaccines’. He became concerned. He expressed the concern. He may have discovered that orthodoxy does not like its own to wander or wonder afar, even when it is rigorously evidence-based.

Now, he is sailing too close to the wind for the Establishment. The British Medical Association is disassociating from him because he is expressing a relatively minimal concern about its orthodoxy in its own terms. The BMA has taken unreasonable offence and acted disproportionately. This is the same institution which carpet-bombed GPs with emails to support and donate to a divisive, militant American Marxist political organisation at the height of the so-called covid pandemic, in June 2020. I know because I was one of those incredulous GPs.

Malhotra should take cold shoulder as good evidence he is on the right tack. His small indiscretion is a red rag to a raging bull. A small terror from an insider is more pernicious. Their brainstems are closing ranks. His careful ripple of dissent could become a tsunami. Dr Malcolm Kendrick details the Establishment’s incontinence in the Malhotra matter. In fact, Drs Bailey and Malhotra are not so far apart, if intellectual candour is the scientific yardstick.

Paradigm Shifting – Einstein & Kuhn

Heresy has a special place in science. Without it science is nothing. Einstein is said to have been taken aback, having arrived in America. He was informed his new scientific paper would have to be peer-reviewed. Einstein’s reported attitude was understandable. He was an outsider, a German patent clerk. His revolutionary theories of special and general relativity, and a mainstream Nobel for the photo-electric effect were not enough to retain credibility in themselves.

This peer-review in establishment journals cuts both ways. It screens for errors, but, brilliant ideas moderated into mediocrity by more conservative, less brilliant, and jealous colleagues abetted by journals with one editorial, wide-open eye anxious not to offend their corporate owners and advertisers are banes to good and revolutionary science.

Thomas Kuhn encapsulated the issue as the ‘Paradigm Shift’ in a seminal text, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Science isn’t smooth, it clunks up and down gears against the inclines and declines of human folly, sadly. People unnecessarily suffer and die because of it.

Lessons from Medical History

Where current science was not reassuring enough, TCP has turned to history for answers. Why not? Germ or terrain, something is terribly wrong with how modern infectious disease science and medicine is being conducted and controlled. History confirms the new wrong is a repetition of old wrongs. Hardly anyone properly challenges the established paradigm, even when it is patently not working nor standing up to mere amateur scrutiny.

Given the emerged jab data, isn’t it easier to conclude the covid gene therapy is a dangerous but perfect cure for global influenza than a safe, preventative vaccine for covid? That cannot be right, so surely the question must be wholeheartedly asked: what is wrong with virology and vaccinology?

Many will be aware of the post-WW1 graphs showing major infectious disease (Diphtheria , Tetanus, and Measles) was in decline well before the introduction of mass vaccination against those diseases. Also, that sanitation and improving living standards may have been the real cure. Some will know of the DDT-Polio controversy, and modern witch-hunts against anyone of repute who suggests vaccination could even be harmful.

This strange opacity and interpretation of the data has been ongoing since Jenner decided treating like (variola) with unlike (vaccinia) was a good idea, and since the rebellious City of Leicester decided it was not.

The pre-viral world of Béchamp and Pasteur

The book, Béchamp or Pasteur (1923) was written by Ethel Douglas Hume. If one resorts to Wikipedia, and searches Ms Hume, one would not wish to read the book, such is the opprobrium. This told me I really should. I am glad I did. She comes across as thorough, intelligent and balanced. Given the era in which she wrote was closer to the bone of the two scientists’ claims than the present. Pasteur left the world in 1895, Béchamp in 1908. Viruses are said to have been ‘discovered’ between 1892 and q1898.

What one ultimately derives from the escapades attributed to Pasteur is an easy explanation of how anything goes in the Wild West of chemicals and corporate greed. Even cocaine in Coca-Cola, fluoride in drinking water, and even parenteral aluminium and mercury via paediatric vaccines into developing brains. Never mind the human-meat tasting vegan burgers.

Starting with Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, Hume writes:

“Professor Wallace in Chapter 18 of The Wonderful Century … he shows how free vaccination was offered in 1840, made compulsory in 1853, and in 1867 the order was given to prosecute evaders; and so stringent was the application of the regulations that few children escaped vaccination. Thus the following table provides a striking illustration of the inefficacy of vaccination in regard to smallpox mortality:

There were allegedly a number of botch jobs by Pasteur (Fauci-Tedros), sponsored by the patronage of Napoleon III (the Pharmaceutical-WHO complex). Take his attempt at a veterinary anthrax vaccine. The Sanitary Commission of the Hungarian Government banned it, and in 1881 included in a report this comment on the anti-anthrax inoculation:

Regarding Pasteur’s attempt at a commercial rabies vaccine, Hume writes of Pasteur’s statistical manipulation and extraordinary definitions of personal convenience which even hid a possible vaccine cause of death for The King of Greece:

“In regard to the statistical returns of these institutes, we will quote Dr. George Wilson’s summary in his Reservation Memorandum of the Royal Commission on Vivisection:

“Pasteur carefully screened his statistics, after some untoward deaths had occurred during treatment or immediately after, by ruling that all deaths should be excluded from the statistical returns which occurred either during treatment or within fifteen days of the last injection.

“It is in accordance with this most extraordinary rule that the percentage of deaths in all Pasteur Institutes works out at such a low figure. Thus, in the Report on the Kasauli Institute for 1910, Major Harvey commences his comments on the statistics of the year as follows:

‘In this year, 2,073 persons, bitten or licked by rabid or suspected rabid animals, were treated,’

…yielding a percentage of failures of 0.19. This percentage Major Harvey explains in these words:

‘There were 26 deaths from hydrophobia. Of these, 14 died during the treatment, eight within 15 days of completion of treatment, and four later than 15 days after completion of treatment. Only the last four are counted as failures of the treatment according to Pasteur’s definition of a failure, and it is on this number that the percentage failure rate is calculated.’”

This screening of statistics prevents the inclusion of the death of the late King Alexander of Greece among the list of Pasteurian failures.”

R B Pearson in the 1942 preface to Hume’s book writes:

“In England there were several Pasteur Institutes doing a thriving business prior to 1902, when a commission was appointed to investigate rabies and the serum treatment, and the Institutes were abolished. They have had no hydrophobia since.”

And of Pasteur’s rival, Dr Robert Koch patronised by the Emperor Wilhelm I, and his disastrous TB vaccine attempt, Pearson writes,

“Dr J. W. Browne, … Medical Superintendent of the Kalyra Sanatorium, South Australia … says:

“To date, upwards of two hundred different forms of tuberculin have been prepared and described. The simple fact of the matter is that no one has yet been able to repeat Koch’s experiment successfully. There is no evidence but Koch’s in favour of tuberculin as a therapeutic cure for tuberculosis in guinea pigs, in calves, or in man. No one but Koch has been able to cure an infected guinea pig by the use of tuberculin of any sort.

“Koch, as Shera says, was an optimist. There is no question that tuberculin can do infinite harm. Scores of people have died prematurely at its hands. Never was there such a commercial vaccine as this one, and never has there been such a gigantic hoax. Tuberculin, Shera says, should not come within the range of vaccine therapy. Whatever good results are imputed to tuberculin must have occurred in spite of it, for its virtues are founded on experiments which cannot be repeated.

It all sounds so dreadfully proximate and familiar 130 years later, in 2022.

Pasteur is accused by Hume of simultaneously plagiarising and deriding Béchamp’s scientific ideas to the man’s face, during the 7th International Medical Conference held at St James’s Hall, London 1881. Béchamp pioneered the idea of the germ as not only a consequence of illness, but as an originator from within, via the microzymes (‘microsomes’) of the diseased host. This is not at all shocking if one considers the genetic similarity and overlap between human and germ genomes, and the fact that vaccines can stimulate attack upon the host as we are, unfortunately, rediscovering with the covid gene analogues. In other words, to me it seems he proposed germs are possible recombinants of the stressed host’s component parts. Remarkably, Béchamp proposed this well before subsequent sophisticated molecular biology and molecular genetic theories. It begs the question, is the distinction between infectious and inflammatory disease real, manufactured, or more nuanced than currently is being allowed to be conceived by the orthodoxy? If these unfashionable ideas from the past grate, please exercise caution. It may be they are more heretical than wrong.

Ms Hume’s take is Pasteur was originally a Sponteparist, in regard to yeasts and fermentation but reluctantly converted only when it was convenient to his career ambition. Béchamp was the opposite, a Panspermist, and he proved it applied to fermentation before Pasteur. But don’t take my word or Hume’s contemporaneous voice from the past, do the due diligence or live and die on received wisdom. Who really knows, anyway? Pretending one does know for sure is the real uncertain domain. In our scepticism, we must not forget to celebrate the collective hypothetico-deductive feats of these 19th century chemists and physicians wielding only crude light microscopes. Their achievements are brilliant, humbling and instructive to the modern medic.

Post-pasteurisation of Béchamp

Béchamp is just another doctor and scientist whose legacy may have been neutralised and rewritten by Pharma interests. The more one delves into the history, the more mangled professors one sees littered on the roadside heading toward corporate public health dominion. It makes discomforting and cautionary reading for the honest scientific inquirer. Scientists and medics continue to take mortal chunks out of each other.

Throwing down the covid virus gauntlet

In one passage of his article about Dr Sam Bailey, Dr Roger Watson did not know the future would come to haunt him in the present. He gave Dr. Mike Yeadon a very backhanded compliment to further his own criticism of Dr Bailey:

“After all, anti (Covid) ‘vaxxer’ supreme, Dr. Mike Yeadon made it clear in his excellent interview with Neil Oliver on GB News that he believes a unique virus exists. The HART Group led by Dr. John Lee, who have mounted the most credible and well-informed responses to the UK lockdown, is not stocked with virus deniers.”

One cannot fault Dr Watson for attempting the path of least resistance in opposing Lockdown whilst not otherwise wishing to be labelled a covidiot, but why indulge in the labelling game oneself? Let us truly celebrate inclusivity, equality and diversity by embracing intellectual pluralism. Dr Watson’s rhetorical feat of compressing name-dropping, vicarious conviction, hyperbole and umbrella smear terminology into two small sentences sounds convincing. However, his doing so may not necessarily be in the true spirit of skeptic swordsmanship.

To be clear, TCP believes Dr Yeadon, formerly of Pfizer, is from his own numerous public statements manifestly not an anti-vaxxer. He is anti-unsafe pharmaceuticals, and anti-fraud. He was ignored and derided, but the future has proven him prescient about many ‘incredible’ covid concerns. He has demonstrated bravery and an excellent scientific mind. He has now, after much deliberation and assessment of an anti-scientific covid response driven by unelected global institutions, become reasonably open to a genuine scientific question:

Even if the Bailey group generally challenges the existence of a pathogenic human virus, the actual blinded and controlled experiment proposed does seem restricted to SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza A.

At this stage, the Bailey group is not even requiring all Koch’s postulates are proven. It is not even requiring what some feel is the hardest step, that of purification. Kirsch seems to have made a reasonable point against the group’s term: “each lab should report IDENTICAL sequences of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome”. He explains a certain method of the genomic sequencing of purportedly mutating viruses means that it is impossible to report identical sequences. If so, whose claim does his point support, Kirsch’s or the Bailey group’s? The Bailey group has stated their proposal is open to discussion. Perhaps, a percentage on the sequence homology could be agreed? If not, a good reason needs to be provided.

What does Dr Watson make of the fact Dr Yeadon has now joined Dr Bailey with other medics and scientists in pursuit of the answer to these fine questions? Dr Yeadon explains for himself here and here. There is no shame in reasonably changing one’s entrenched position within science, according to the evidence. Science is an intellectual activity not a partisan bloodsport where being deemed wrong by the masses should mean annihilation.

The group pursue the idea with genuine intellectual interest and with perspicacity. There is a clear distinction being made by such a question between the specific troubles of covid virology compared with, say, the discipline of bacteriology. They seem not terrified by a hypothesis being proven scientifically wrong. They seem more terrified of the damage of it not being proven at all. It speaks volumes of their commitment to science, not corporatism. TCP welcomes the development, in the name of good science, but doubts the experiment will be accepted. For, to even accept it may acknowledge there is something decidedly uncertain about virology and virus vaccinology.

Exciting, heretical scientific times

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi seems to have been a high-achieving, conventional, respected German Professor of Microbiology, until he dared question consensus microbiology. His recent courageous conduct during covid suggest to TCP he is the epitome of a caring, ethical and intelligent physician. TCP would have been honoured to have been instructed by this man. He even holds a Robert Koch Foundation prize. One cannot get more orthodox than this. The Robert Koch Institute is a Cathedral to the modern microbiological establishment, as is the Pasteur Institute. Dr. Bhakdi is speaking frankly after over 50 years of realising the rot from the inside. It is an exciting time of intellectual frankness. He is credible, experienced and retired. He can say what others dare not voice. Including saying HIV is a fraud. He is not the first. He will not be the last.

Even one of the credited discoverers of HIV died in something of an atonement, fighting covid tyranny until his last and questioning why putative HIV gene sequences appeared in the putative SARS-CoV-2 genome. It is a stimulating period for medical science. The paradigm could shift away from the profit. Even if not, what should now be clear is that a world of political, legal and institutional absolutism is not a world of science. Watch Bhakdi at the Scandinavian Freedom Events and then ask, if he is right, is the current disaster narrative creating pandemics of more covid, childhood hepatitis, monkeypox, polio, HIV, ill-health and death merely a self-fulfilling prophecy of WHO global health tyranny and covid policy?

The world is experiencing a rise in environmental toxins (ionising and non-ionising electromagnetic radiation, poor water, poor food and pharmaceuticals included), and a rising, ageing population with correspondingly more emboldened calls for eugenics. We also have a rise in iatrogenic death, lengthening and more intensive immunisation programs and a rise in chronic disease. Much of that disease is inadequately explained, even though Pharma-nominated molecular targets and germ scapegoats may exist. A rising component of that chronic disease now commences in early childhood. Paediatric epidemics of liver disease, autism, cancer, mental illness, and malnutrition. Is it fair to say somethings in mainstream, healthcare (or ill-health) industry are failing the people it claims to serve? And further, that we are now being coerced into this system, whilst alternative health systems are being suppressed?

All of this, the toxin, the fear, the cure and the unsustainability seems promoted by the same economic system of waste, expansion and profit. That system even profits when selling unsustainable, flawed models of sustainability. For it wishes to sustain only itself.

The unsettling urgency to genetically experiment on any child says far more about the urgency of Pharma’s business model than any concern for the health of our children. The NHS cannot resist an equal urge to over-supplicate to Pharma, it has added the covid-jabbing of children over 5 years age to the NHS vaccine schedule. It would be plain silly if it weren’t so serious a matter. The NHS and the government is making a good impression of the right not knowing what the left hand is doing: the government ‘Routine childhood immunisations’ webpage updated on 17.2.22 does not mention paediatric covid jabs. Perhaps this is potential incremental nudging, again. The state is aware the UK population smells a lab rat. Uptake is very low. Parents do not like their children to be experimented upon. Direct association of routine of covid jabs with the whole childhood immunisation program has the capacity destroy general trust in the program.

Watching the exemplary Dr Clare Craig speak here, or visiting the Children’s Covid Vaccine Advisory Council (CCVAC) webpage should explain to anyone unaware that covid jabs will needlessly risk serious and fatal harm, and not help a child’s health. Nor will doing so protect granny or petrified school teachers.

Assumption begat assumption

It’s important to be thorough, not just because some people may or may not be denying all viruses. A major issue is there have been multiple, additive problems with how the covid narrative was initially and so precipitously constructed. That flawed narrative was then disproportionately over-reacted to so as to wreak medically unnecessary and unjustified destruction upon the whole world whilst efficiently lining a few persons’ pockets.

The initial Drosten test was based on a handful of cases assumed to be of the same cause-effect relationship. My feeling is the cause-effect relationship was rushed and established without firm basis. There were 5 people who were unwell, in China, upon which an assumption was made that they all had the same syndrome: SARS-CoV-2. Aside from the point a syndrome is not as definite an entity as a disease, this presumed case series of 5 persons’ in silico, sequenced humours was handed to the WHO by the Chinese authorities by the end of the first week of 2020. The WHO looked to Dr Drosten. He took those computer-modelled codes and filled in the gaps with SARS-CoV-1 as a template. He very rapidly pushed out the first PCR protocol on 23.1.20. There were no SARS-CoV-2 virus isolates or samples provided to Drosten. His methods were promptly and severely criticised.

Then, there were shoddy mass PCR and testing regimes, and a mass misattribution of cases by poor science, poor diagnostic medicine, and rigged statistical analyses with wholly prejudicial definitions of what a covid case, a covid death and a vaccine death are. Add to this the novel notion that an asymptomatic, well person with a ‘positive’ test is a certifiable and quarantinable superspreader of a respiratory infection.

This was never the way of clinical medicine until December 2019. Has this glut of assumption created a huge artifice?

The same pseudoscientific imprecision mars victims of covid tyranny, long-covid, covid jab damage and of the neologism, SADS (sudden adult death syndrome): what’s their difference? They are all depressed, brain-fogged and damaged, or dead.

Therefore, proving SARS-CoV-2 physically exists and causes specific disease must be a reasonable imperative.

The Kirsch Challenge

There is a great deal of fundamental human disagreement these days. While we can still agree some objective truths remain, such as we require oxygen and water to sustain us, it continues to be worth discussing rather than annihilating scientific disagreements. The alternative is subscription to a pseudoscientific covid paradigm that patently does not work and requires a cast of lies to hold it in union.

The heretics who question whether good science exists to support the proper proof of a causal relationship between a SARS-CoV-2 infectious viral entity and covid-19 are considered by more orthodox covid sceptics to be a liability to credible criticism of the whole covid narrative.

Hence, Steve Kirsch is frustrated, that is understandable. He is admired for trying to do good by herding talented biomedical cats and swatting pseudoscientific flies. He wants to bet the Bailey group a million dollars in search of the truth. Money should not determine truth. What it can determine is an unjust victory in court and propaganda. Kirsch has been excellent at bringing minds together to commandeer those who do not agree with the WHO. But, he does not buy Terrain Theory. Béchamp did. Kirsch’s urge to use his resources and business sense to simplify the struggle against unreasonable and dangerous global covid strategies by ridding the stage of what he deems bad actors with his own criteria of money, debate and judges are also understandable. However, is this scientific or reasonable? Science is not a gunfight at the O.K. Corral where those challenging the establishment’s impossible-to-prove hypotheses must perish on someone else’s unilateral terms.

If Kirsch is frustrated with the ‘very disingenuous’ Bailey group, he would be advised to take a stiff drink and a beta-blocker before deciding whom to back in the very asymmetric climate change ‘debate’.

Perhaps, he should welcome any debate on any aspect of such a controversial event as covid, whether it be in the form of a hypothetical challenge with no chance of success or otherwise. Labelling (Dr Tom Cowan) an intelligent human with unusual ideas ‘a complete nut job’ is never wise in the sphere of science, or otherwise. It suggests that he who does so label others is inappropriately confident he, himself, certainly is not. Is this not dissimilar to the spoil tactics of covid orthodoxy which are to all our detriment? His further besmirching of the insightful Dr Cowan by reporting Cowan was recently induced to surrender his medical license does not mention, amongst many others, our formidable medical ally, Dr McCullough is also fighting a potential removal by orthodoxy of his medical license.

The future has proven nut-job scientific heretics correct, time and time again. Surely the impossibilities are the point of the Bailey group scientific challenge to the cosy 100 year germ theory consensus. The last thing science should be reduced to is consensus. Consensus is for politicians. Better and revolutionary science begins with an implausible and persecuted minority’s idea. Often that minority is impecunious and vulnerable to monied entities. There are brilliant scientists who say there is no original scientific research to prove HIV causes AIDS. If this is correct, then that cause-effect relationship has been bought by business, political consensus and activism.

Should immutable absolutes exist in science? Science is hypotheses which are intended to be continually challenged and reformulated. Why should the consensus remain entrenched if it is full of holes? Perhaps we must accept that the truth is somewhere between or around the 100 year Pharma-curated status quo in virology and the Bailey group’s ‘impossible’ experiment.

Does Kirsch prefer the orthodox sceptic over the out-cast heretic? The trouble here is orthodoxy chases both Kirsch’s preferred sceptics and non-preferred heretics out of jobs, reputations and medical registration. Take the noble Drs. Peter McCullough and Pierre Kory. They, sadly will be tomorrow’s broken, un-promotable, unemployable heretics should Fauci’s ivory tower remain standing. If either doctor were in the UK, he would already be a persona non grata. At least in the USA, with its constitution’s First Amendment, a doctor is able to speak more diversely and continue to earn a crust. Cardiologist, Dr McCullough is now rightly challenging other elements of vaccine orthodoxy such as the 13-valent pneumococcal and influenza vaccines. He would not have 3 years ago, fate has simply forced to turn his excellent medical mind to vaccination efficacy when it became apparent to him covid jabs were irreversibly and fatally injuring his patients’ hearts. Dr Robert Malone is a pioneer of mRNA vaccine technology, he took the covid vaccine, now he regrets it. He is foremost in fighting establishment covid vaccines and policy. For the record, Dr Mark Bailey, has made some initial comments on Kirsch’s criticism, here.

Kirsch may also need to ask himself why he has omitted Dr. Mike Yeadon on his list of 20 disreputable, nitwit co-signatories, whilst singling out Dr Stefan Lanka for not signing it. Lanka is not at all mainstream in his views on virology. He is credited in the discovery of a kelp phaeovirus (EsV-1 in Ectocarpus) as described by Müller et al. (1990), but bet 100,000 Euros that no-one could prove the existence of a human measles virus. He was, ultimately, vindicated in the German Federal Supreme Court.

Kirsch’s critique may seem more uneven and selective for such relativistic personality bashing. Dr Yeadon questioned the orthodoxy leading from the front at the very start of the covid narrative, while other current anti-covid luminaries were still anxiously waiting to have the covid vaccine. Retaining an open mind is not partisanship, it is a marker of good science. Treating science like a mercantile prize-fight is not optimal. Such attitudes risk an intentional and unintentional creation of a lacuna of taboo scientific topics, such as questioning vaccine safety. I would suggest Dr Andrew Wakefield knows this phenomenon better than most.

The problem with attempting to settle a scientific matter is it never settles. It is not a dispute resolution process, it is crueller. It is the stark method of science. It is not even democratic. Only one person’s hypothesis need be proven best for the science to be universally true. Adjudging scientific ideas wrong and right in perpetuity is the first slip into an endless technocratic tyranny. Trusting the approved science of the crooked steeples of the WHO, FDA, CDC and MHRA without scrutiny and rigorous confirmatory scientific replication is not science.

Kirsch’s Final Word

Kirsch feels the Bailey group case has reached a denouement. He has more-recently declared a slam-dunk victory:

However, I am unsure we are done. This paper he has found (Bao et al) declares all Koch’s postulates have been satisfied. Except, Kirsch states it is a different Koch’s postulates to the Bailey group. He doesn’t specify which. Is it Koch’s, River’s (not actually Koch’s) or another modified version, also not actually Koch’s postulates? How conclusive is that?

It seems the Kirsch-approved paper has confected a full deck of Koch’s (or does it really mean River’s?) postulates by looking to another’s study-paper (Zhu et al) for the initial purported isolation from three initial, purported covid-diseased subjects. Kirsch’s approved paper’s starting point is an ‘isolate’ of SARS-CoV-2 which seems to be pre-prepared and provided by Tan, one of the authors from Zhu et al. Shouldn’t the isolate, ideally, appear from the study’s own humans with definitive Covid-19? The pure nature of the ‘isolate’ itself is moot, according to how stringent one’s definition.

Hence, the Kirsch-approved paper admits it is heavily reliant on the vicarious, partial proof of Koch’s postulates from Zhu et al. Except, Zhu et al states about its own paper:

Could Kirsch’s approved paper be criticised for being incomplete, disjointed, borrowing a part from another source taken on misplaced trust, and therefore sloppy? Can its findings actually be reproduced repeatedly, and in entirety in one complete experiment with a pure isolate? Where is the re-isolation, and purification of the paper’s single T.E.M. photograph of one solitary particle submitted as conclusive proof of SARS-CoV-2? The Koch purists will reasonably say that particle should have been used to prove onward human, respiratory re-infection, and ask, why wasn’t it? Where is the proper re-identification with the original virus surrogate substituted from the Zhu et al paper?

The paper’s authors state:

These sellotaped conclusions across two teams with separate and very different experimental methods (including different tissues and species) have the potential to carry the accusation of not being true. The statement ‘completely satisfies Koch’s postulates’ could reasonably be characterised as completely a lie.

It is not just inexpert me speculating on a quick skim-read. See the Peer Review File in the paper’s Supplementary Information section. It seems reasonable to argue Kirsch’s slam-dunk proof is a significantly flawed paper.

Lombardy, Italy emulated Chinese lockdown on 21.2.20, all Italy was locked by 9.3.20. This paper was submitted by 2.2.20 and published 7.5.20. One has to question why the ‘conclusive’ Chinese peer-reviewed, published proof was to post-date the WHO’s pandemic declaration and attendant scorched earth policy of 11.3.20. The WHO appeared disturbingly eager to pursue an unconscionable, unevidenced, false internment of, and genetic experimentation upon 8 billion humans. It is devilish.

The Vatican tussle with Cosmology

Kirsch has only to look at the history of cosmological theory, and the Vatican to see that science is continual tussle of coexisting, parallel ideas, often politically hijacked by unscientific, inconsistent institutions and their fans. Galileo discovered this to his detriment when he was persecuted and interned by the Vatican. An apology 350 years later does not soothe him. His crime? The heresy of doing good science in the name of heliocentrism. For the corporate-supplicating fact-checkers I quote its own Holy Wikipedia:

“Galileo’s championing of Copernican heliocentrism (Earth rotating daily and revolving around the sun) was met with opposition from within the Catholic Church and from some astronomers. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was foolish, absurd, and heretical since it contradicted Holy Scripture.”

And, from the epistles of the equally Holy New York Times, October 31st, 1992:

“With a formal statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Saturday, Vatican officials said the Pope will formally close a 13-year investigation into the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. The condemnation, which forced the astronomer and physicist to recant his discoveries, led to Galileo’s house arrest for eight years before his death in 1642 at the age of 77.

The dispute between the Church and Galileo has long stood as one of history’s great emblems of conflict between reason and dogma, science and faith. The Vatican’s formal acknowledgement of an error, moreover, is a rarity in an institution built over centuries on the belief that the Church is the final arbiter in matters of faith.

…

By the end of his trial, Galileo was forced to recant his own scientific findings as “abjured, cursed and detested,” a renunciation that caused him great personal anguish but which saved him from being burned at the stake.”

Good science is fickle only to the currently measurable data. Tycho Brahe’s meticulous data gathering instigated a scientific revolution. Brahe was also suspected of heresy by the church. Beware, flat-earth deniers. The day may theoretically return where the Flat Earth Model makes a comeback. According to Wikipedia, in the 8th century, the Vatican subscribed to it:

‘St Vergilius of Salzburg (c. 700–784), in the middle of the 8th century, discussed or taught some geographical or cosmographical ideas that St Boniface found sufficiently objectionable that he complained about them to Pope Zachary. The only surviving record of the incident is contained in Zachary’s reply, dated 748, where he wrote:

“As for the perverse and sinful doctrine which he (Virgil) against God and his own soul has uttered – if it shall be clearly established that he professes belief in another world and other men existing beneath the Earth, or in (another) sun and moon there, thou art to hold a council, deprive him of his sacerdotal rank, and expel him from the Church.”’

By the 17th century the Vatican-approved Jesuits were propounding the Spherical Earth Model to the Chinese. Damascene conversion may yet strike Mr Kirsch.

Regarding Germ or Terrain, I don’t know. Yet, I am prepared to keep an open mind. So what if germ theory has prevailed for more than 100 years? There is a long history of verifiable, monumental, institutionalised lies and tactical reversals after many centuries. A sudden collapse of a century-long scientific edifice is short and unexceptional.

Dr Mullis and Professors Gallo, Montagnier & Duesberg

Is it too much to ask for visual proof of an isolated and purified virus in our age where there are electron microscopy techniques to approximate individual atoms? Especially when the said virus is seemingly ubiquitous and said to be easily filterable by the billions of masks we have been induced into believing do work.

Luc Montagnier tried his best to produce an HIV purification, but it may be he didn’t quite convincingly succeed. Regardless of his receiving a Nobel for discovering it. Even by his own reported tacit admission to fellow Nobel winner Kary Mullis. Mullis records this and his thoughts on Robert Gallo and Peter Duesberg in Chapter 18 of his revealing book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Mullis was searching fruitlessly for a bona fide scientific paper proving HIV as the probable cause of AIDS:

Ghosts of the pandemics past

TCP takes leave with Ms Ethel D. Hume’s prescient words:

“When such ominous danger signals [a doubling of English and Welsh cancer death rates from 1891 to 1939] flare into view after a century of vaccination, the thoughtful may well contemplate with alarm the risks of wholesale inoculation.

“That medical orthodoxy should be blind to the dangers of Pasteur’s techniques should not surprise the honest student of medical history. He has, for instance, only to remind himself how, in 1754, the Royal College of Physicians pronounced the inoculation of smallpox to be ‘highly salutary,’ and how in 1807 the same body, in reply to a question from the House of Commons, had changed its mind, and declared it to be ‘mischievous’.

“Fashions in medicine, like fashions in clothes, change from generation to generation, and it is as difficult for a medical man to break away from the one as it is for a society belle to free herself from the trammels of the other.

And also with wise words from Professor Antoine Béchamp, in Les Microzymas (1878):

“The most serious, even fatal, disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms [read also either microzyma, or replicating covid gene lipid nanoparticle technology] into the blood; organisms which, existing in the organs proper to them, fulfil necessary and beneficial functions – chemical and physiological – but injected into the blood, into a medium not intended for them, provoke redoubtable manifestations of the gravest morbid phenomena.

6th August 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 & Substacks at https://thecovidphysician.substack.com

Conflicts of interest: TCP prefers organic raw milk

To support TCP please share and retweet

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.

The Matrix

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.

Semiotics

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.

Dissent

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.

Unipolarity

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

Friday 7th January 2022, King’s College Hospital, London. The Fascistic Minister of Ill-Health, Mr. Sajid Javid marched in and stood squat, like a Mussolini, sadomasochistic in standard NHS issue gimp mask. It was as if a pimp rolled up with a fine cane and a fur coat to ensure his brothel was in good order. He taunted the huddle of muzzled NHS nurses. So, girls, what do you think of the NHS jab mandate with which I destroy the NHS and scientific reason? Pretty cool, huh? Was it arrogance or ignorance? Should not a right-minded person have begged the ground to swallow him up whole for such faux-pas?

The nurses, stunned, giggled nervously like school-girls. What else could they do when paraded in front of their abusive master and executioner? The truth is they are professional nurses who know the answer. It is an unethical evil. It is political, it is unscientific. But the truth of which they knew, they could not speak. Then, someone spoke, softly. Dr. Steve James, ICU consultant. He did the Englishman’s equivalent of standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square. He politely interjected. In the short, split-second of a narcissistic politician’s photo-call, fuelled by adrenalin, Dr. James slipped an awkward, unpractised left jab which landed like a bomb on the polished chin of his monied opponent. He beseeched the minister (I paraphrase), I’m not happy about that. I have been working on covid ITU since the beginning. I’m unvaccinated, your policy makes no scientific sense. You would have to boost us all every month. I will lose my job, I am not alone. Won’t you reconsider?

And there it was. The sorcerer’s spell was broken. It was as if Toto had pulled back the curtain. Javid would be well advised to institute the focused protection of Great Barrington, or very strictly shield himself from all NHS establishments until at least his April Fools’ mandate. Those nurses will not spare the Wizard of Health next time. No booster on earth will protect him from their wrath.

It was like a scene from Dickensian London. High-bred Oliver Twist, recent prisoner to some rich industrialist’s workhouse. Limpid blue, hungry wide eyes asking innocently, Please sir, I want some more. The uncalculated impudence of it was heroic. As it happens, in 1840 King’s College Hospital was originally opened in the disused St Clement Danes workhouse of Portugal Street, Lincoln Inn Fields. In truth, nothing has changed. In this, the plebeians’ Fourth Industrial Humiliation, unscrupulous, vacuous professional mouthpieces such as Javid continue to represent the interests of the Klaus Schwabs and elite investment companies to the general detriment to humanity. Dr. James is a hero for scientific and medical discourse. Where the NHS and the GMC failed to shut down Drs. Mohammed Adil and Sam White, Dr. James should gird himself for bought-media hit jobs and ad hominem attacks. He should take them as the highest form of compliment.

Christmas 2021

Christmas 2021 was re-traumatising for this GP. First, there were the letters confirming unemployment to sensible, rational, hitherto un-jabbed NHS professionals: Your vaccination status is currently ‘undisclosed’. Human Resources invites you to discuss this. Merry Christmas. The perversity of non-medical NHS staff preying on their clinical colleagues who are far wiser on the subject is difficult to bear. It is turkeys voting for Christmas.

Two Archbishops made the news. Desmond Tutu died. He fought apartheid. Welby celebrated like an ordained bull in a china shop by promoting the experimental covid injections. In doing so, he demoted Christianity and endorsed vaccine apartheid. The PM bolstered the unwise man’s message like King Herod. He stoked the Church of Pharma’s unchristian message with his own nativity-themed population-programming, Follow Jesus: JUST GET THE BLOODY BOOSTER. We were in lipid nano-particle-encased, modified mRNA winter wonderland. Peace on Earth and Graphene oxides to All Men!

I worried this Christmas that my recent patient who had suffered a very unusual concurrent arterial limb embolus and pulmonary embolus two weeks post-second jab might also be queuing up at some military tent for a third autoimmune clot-shot. One delivered by an army private with an hour of training and no idea as to his complicity in the crimes against humanity being committed on home soil. He would not aware of the criminal neglect of his being instructed not to wait even 15 minutes before sending the target out to develop anaphylaxis at a bus stop.

Worse still was the return of a ghost of Christmas past. Agent Fear.

Clinically Extremely Vulnerable?

In the week of Christmas, the mother of my 17 year old male patient called. Mother was, understandably, beside herself with worry. She was terrified for her 20 year old son. The 20 year old was ‘Clinically Extremely Vulnerable’ (CEV). The words tripped off her tongue as if she herself had invented the phrase. I had heard it somewhere. It was reminiscent of the pre-jab Terror of March 2020, but I could not fathom why. Furthermore, I appeared to be at least two degrees removed from the actual patient. I had no idea if the younger boy knew what his mother was up to. Her mentioning CEV seemed designed by government to trigger the doctor, but it was all subliminal water under the bridge for me. So, it did not. I disentangled the situation. She was desperate for her 17 year old son to be triple jabbed, in order to protect her 20 year old who had a very historic, repaired congenital heart defect. A healthy heart risked for a repaired one. How was she to know she was unnecessarily risking both her precious sons’ myocardia? Wasn’t it enough to see a pandemic of super fit professional sportsmen dropping like flies? But there was more. She had been refused her request by the local jab joint. She was informed she had to wait for him to turn 18 before he could partake further in the anointments.

She held out the gauntlet to me. Only I could save her eldest. How? It was simple. She had been told only I had the authority to override the government regulations. I had no idea if I did. It had seemed crystal clear I had no real clinical authority left invested in me to independently do anything covid-related. I was not flattered. For once, I was relieved to hide behind what may or may not have been a strict interpretation of Whitehall’s NHS guidelines. Had I refused on principle, giving my own professional reasons, I knew she would instinctively attack my professional status with all the ferocity of a tigress protecting her young cubs. I understood. She did not. I was trying to protect her precious sons, too. They did not need any of these potions, and her forcing the issue had only increased their risk of illness. I cannot properly intimate how upsetting such an encounter is. It is akin to being dared to be complicit with a genocide by the very victims themselves.

Incidentally, one will see from these UK guidelines a fourth potentially immunosuppressive dose is now a real option for those already immunocompromised. It does not seem the medical mandarins can ever see a way out from their self-fulfilling policies.

The Bodysnatchers

Just when one thinks matters could not deteriorate, they do. On return from the Christmas break. I discovered the unsettling answer to the first 17 year old patient in the next patient. A man in his late 20s. He was confused, and worn out. He had spent four days over Christmas agonising over an NHS text message. I could not help him. I had no idea myself. He uttered two unpronounceable drug brand names. He said he was informed he would be called in 24 hours about them, and if not, to call his GP. I urged him to provide more information, so I could help. Again, he dropped those apocalyptic code words. The message from the centralised physician in the sky had gaslit him. He was Clinically Extremely Vulnerable and had recently tested PCR positive. The patient was well and stable on a second line immunosuppressant, nothing too out of the ordinary.

The mother of the first patient and this man had both responded like Manchurian Candidates. Only their amnesiac doctor stood between them and their mission. I probed, anxiously… but what is wrong with you? Nothing, I just have a cold. But are you sure? It sounds like they (whoever they were) want to give you some kind of intravenous monoclonal antibodies. Surely, there must be more? There was not. I made a plan: Let me see for myself and read what has been sent. I planned to assess the patient for clinical sepsis. If there was none, and the patient did in fact have a cold, I would run some bloods, and wait overnight. The same patient two years ago would not have even called me, and I would not have even cared. What the devil was afoot? The patient did not show. I waited, and I waited. Then, more medical dystopia. A receptionist poked a masked face through the door, We’ve moved your patient to the Red Hub. PCR positive. And that was that. The patient had been body-snatched from under my very nose and into the hands of a commercial clearing-centre.

Something about the new normal had changed gear, yet again. Red Hub was another bygone word for me. There was an unnecessary sense of further urgency. Whitehall was ramping up the divide and rule, and the winter terror for the un-mighty omicron. Perhaps the receptionist had arbitrarily decided what to do based on her own fear and internal agenda. I wish she hadn’t. I know what I am doing, it is my bread and butter to balance medical risk and benefit. Even so, why should she be any different to the unions, the teachers, the media, and the transnational corporations? Everyone is medically qualified to decide these days except the medical profession – it no longer dares. I tapped in to the work email and there the answer lay.

The week before Christmas, the local NHS Trust had sent me a triumphant email. It was a Christmas miracle. Two years after the facts of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, they proclaimed a brand new covid concept: early pre-hospital intervention in the community. The authorities had received a festive epiphany: if they allowed treatment of this thing called covid sooner, patients might stand a better chance of recovery. Excited at this state-sanctioned innovation, they began inappropriately bombarding those formerly classed as the ‘shielded’ and still classed as ‘clinically extremely vulnerable’ with fearful missives. To paraphrase:

“You are classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, you have survived two years of tyranny, three experimental jabs, and several killer variants, but still, you may die. Do not worry, help is at hand. The government cavalry has arrived. If you test PCR positive, even if you are well, we will contact you within 24 hours with regard to two more fast-tracked, inadequately tested and costly treatments. If we don’t, call your GP. You may qualify for click and collect Molnupiravir (aka iverMERCKtin). It is inferior to ivermectin, a cheap generic which you all could have had easy access to two years ago. We ensured you did not. You may also qualify for a one-off, half hour intravenous infusion of monoclonal antibodies called sotrovimab. Good luck”.

Such statements bear hallmarks of an aggressive, premeditated and sophisticated marketing operation. As with the jabs, molnupiravir and sotrovimab only have conditional marketing authorisation under regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. That is, for temporary use only in certain exceptional situations. This has very arguably never been the case. Even disregarding wrongful covid diagnoses, the 150,000 so-called UK covid deaths over two years are looking somewhat counterfeit. The truer figure is somewhere between 6,000 – 17,000 deaths, according to these two FOIA requests.

In the email, the local NHS Trust celebrated treating its first patient like this. Challenged by the government to warp speed the roll-out, it had arrived, two years and billions of pounds too late to the party. The irony is as colossal as the criminal enterprise behind it. Last month the state would have continued to throw such patients to the dogs. For two years it denied ingenious lateral-thinking doctors from prescribing cheap, effective pre-hospital care. That these patented novel antivirals should follow the zero-liability, touted cure of novel triple gene jabs is a further multiple mockery to humanity and the medical profession. However, nobody seems to notice or care anymore. Who is the invisible, responsible prescribing doctor for this experimental mail-order pill service? It seems the only qualifying clinical examination is a PCR test. PCR is a poor investigation, not an examination, and not a substitute for a diagnosis. The following day I check the patient’s notes. A colleague had dealt with my patient remotely and peremptorily, like an actor reading a script: ‘Qualifies for anti-virals.’ Non cogito, ergo sum.

Taxi Medicine

Next, a 62 year male on immunosuppressants, with ischaemic heart disease and other multiple ailments. Worsening breathlessness for a week, and PCR positive last week. Again, by government mandate, clinically extremely vulnerable. He staggers, tachypneic, into my surgery last but not least. I am shocked (again) – so might he be. He is so clinically extremely profitable that he was simply sent a five day Molnupiravir course in a taxi, again after a mysterious text message. There were dozens of other possible causes for his breathlessness but why not remotely pick the only one that suits the new normal, not the patient? Complex medical care has become like delivering a pizza, but without the legal liability. Had anyone examined him? No. Had he seen anyone? No.

Over Christmas, the veterinary nature of what general practice has become has multiplied. It is less personal with less clinical contact. It makes more distant, speculative decisions and diagnoses with an over-reliance on blood tests, referrals, and scans. There seems a tacit acceptance that the clinical confusion and probable complications caused by jabs and government policy are here to stay, a mere fact of the new regime. Patients have, in the main, accepted this deterioration in care and by doing so effectively sanction the politically-led drop in professional clinical standards. How much more will the majority accept? Will they blindly accept any bodily medical assault without protest forevermore?

The End of Medicine as we knew it

The physician is dead. First fêted by, then flogged, and ultimately bypassed by Pharma. An unwanted, troublesome middleman. The classical physician is surplus to the corporatised equation of health. Our patients walk off with Pharma, hand in hand like a kidnapped infant with a charming stranger. They are on the rebound. Why should they trust medics? We have been abysmal.

The doctor-patient relationship is also dead. Both doctor and patient seem to have somewhat willingly embraced this divorce greased by covid fear. Despite the external and internal inconsistencies of the whole covid narrative, most of my colleagues have put up no fight and joined their nemesis. Many with ideological gusto. Some colleagues with greed. They have happily stuffed their snouts in the trough of the coronavirus financial feeding frenzy at the continued expense of the evermore terrorised patient. One colleague admitted he has made more in private PCR tests in one year than ten years of being a partner in three NHS general practices. He cannot wait to shed the onerous responsibility of holding and maintaining a UK licence to practise medicine. It is distressing how quickly the medical profession unlearned doing the right thing.

If there was any good left in the doctor’s role, it was as a benevolent arbiter for the patient, heavily armed with the shields of medical ethics: physician independence, patient choice, patient confidentiality, informed consent, bodily autonomy, beneficence, justice and primary non-maleficence. Don’t hurt patients. An intelligent advocate stood firm between patient and illness, between patient and the predatory lucre-stained talons of Pharma and industrialised medicine. The medic would sooth patients’ fears and fortify their vulnerabilities. Today, in a tryst with evil, we indulge in the reverse. We peddle fear and connive with exploitative drug barons to push their dangerous, experimental and unnecessary genetic potions. Covid is the friend of Pharma. The people are the enemy, the fodder of the corporate biosecurity state.

It is now not difficult to envisage a world in the near future where no human may legally heal another. For, no commoner must be above the other, nor burden Mother Earth more than the prescribed one score and ten. Reproduction? No longer yours by biological birthright. A natural lifecycle and natural health will be the preserve of the privileged pure genes. For the rest, the Pharma-State-Complex will simply genetically and algorithmically manage the proletariat’s programmed accelerated and profitable decline from birth.

The Rockefeller capture and industrialisation of allopathic medicine in the early 1900s introduced toxins to the masses. It marginalised and suppressed cheap, effective non-allopathic medical systems. It sired the supra-governmental WHO. Then, industry captured sovereign states and governments pimped their populations to Pharma.These factors combine with the current covid-catalysed vaporisation of medical ethics and have led to the complete exposure of the human condition to the grip of Pharma tyranny. It is an unbearable intrusion on communal life for no good reason other than a brutal doctrine of total control through fear. Climate fear, viral fear, resource fear. The message is clear: limited resources mean liberty and vitality must perish. Get your jab. Put up, or shut up and starve. However, there is plenty to go round if we could all just learn to share. If population is critical, it is only through an elite pursuit of industrial practices for dominion and profit.

Perhaps the death of the medic is not so bad with a suitable moral and ethical alternative. But the Pharmaceutical state’s vision is a terrifying prospect. It is not by mistake it overlooks natural immunity. It will not be by mistake when the assumption of being born naturally of good health vanishes, and forced treatment from conception becomes the norm. The brave new medicine does not want ethical doctors. It does not want healthy immune systems. It does not want patients. It wants robots to put jabs in flesh. It wants several pills for every mass media-propagated delusion of an imagined ill.

Covid has specifically been the murder of public health medicine. The absence of public health doctors in the mainstream corona-narrative was mystifying until a senior, and inevitably retired colleague explained in uncommon clarity how the specialty’s norms have been entirely betrayed.

The End of end-of-life care & the Start of mass Euthanasia

The last patient is a frail 82 years. She is a delirious grandmother with end-stage bladder cancer. She has been waiting for a palliative care package since mid-December. The first time the issue can be considered is February 2022. She needs urgent pain relief. She is rather pleased. She thinks she is having a second-coming. Her period has returned. But it is from her bladder. In the same day, two patients on the breadline consult me about going private. They cannot afford it. They are desperate and unwell, they cannot wait. Why does the NHS continue to string them along, while it winds itself down by ten percent more in April? Let these poor souls off the abusive leash. Let them move on from faithful reliance on a perfidious state. Let them realise the political system for what it is. Let them revolt in fury.

It is already an irrational fact that unvaccinated GPs in England, cannot visit care homes to care. For that alone we are the scourge of our colleagues. Yet, the scourge is the deranged government. Even if we wished that personal fact to remain anonymous, it practically cannot. I recall the humiliation in the 1970s and the unnecessary pain of having to squeak ‘free school dinner’ at the school dinner counter, flanked by more-privileged school children. I am reminded of that now. Very soon, tens of thousands of the most ethical and most knowledgeable in the NHS will not be able to walk back into work. We will be disappeared for no good scientific reason at all. Victims of a skilfully curated, arbitrary prejudice. A 21st century medical apartheid sponsored by the inverted archbishop Welby who insists he loves thy neighbour. What is a faith when its head stands for nothing in particular? He should follow this London GP for spiritual guidance.

Euthanasia is another self-fulfilling prophecy of grotesque mathematical modelling overestimations and the psychological techniques of SAGE. If one is terrorised, given no hope and in further severe mental or physical distress because there is no proper access to healthcare, one may well accept being put down. In The Terror of March-April 2020, the state nudged doctors toward covid-centric diagnoses, death certification, and default euthanasia. It facilitated euthanasia by the proscribing of normal access to healthcare. On April 17, 2020, Dr. Luke Evans MP and Matt Hancock talked of it as ‘a good death’. It sounded like a parliamentary death wish. I wrote of my contemporaneous clinical experience of these insane measures. Premature documents such as the wholly unnecessary, so-called ‘death document’ NICE Guidance NG163 (published on 3rd April 2020) egged the malfeasance on. At the time, there was an absence of any coherent medical knowledge about COVID-19, so it seems inappropriate to have published specific palliative care covid guidelines. Why assume death was inevitable? The speed at which the government’s radical coronavirus legislation and policies were instantly formulated and implemented beggars belief and deserves intense scrutiny. More so, as it flew in the face of long-standing public health and medical norms.

New Zealand is also unnecessarily prejudicing doctors’ decision-making toward euthanasia in covid by their unnecessary, immoral nudging. When it comes to covid there is a legally-enshrined, state-emphasised choice of euthanasia but no real choice on the experimental serial jab. Imagine the reception to such an announcement had it been made for the flu. Perhaps two years of hypnosis mean there would be no reaction. Anyone who has been very depressed, seriously ill or in serious pain may be aware of the accompanying functional and strangely welcome prospect of death. That is, until you are helped to feel better. If there is no prospect of feeling better, there is every prospect euthanasia will be your only friend. This is the resource-efficient acme of the new medical order.

Your Life in their Hands

As a child, I was obsessed with a television program. My family subliminally fostered the obsession. Serving society remains a guiding family value. The program was called Your Life in their Hands. It inspired me to become a doctor. It showcased the very best of the NHS. Doctors and nurses performed heroic feats of humanity, It presented a noble, caring profession, one always there for you. Now, it is not. It is unrecognisable. It is a plaything of Pharma.

Medical ethics and bioethics have been exterminated with hardly a whimper from the profession. Pharmaceutical medicine makes haste for profits and, with the government’s aid falsely prophesies and forcibly retrofits the truth through bought modelling, opaque, laundered trials and manipulative statistics.

Your lives are now firmly in Pharma’s profiteering hands, at zero liability thanks to your government. You are laid open to it by the state, rendered defenceless by its brutal and irrational policies. Many are extremely grateful for it, yet nothing either has done has helped. Everything they do makes life worse. Why are the majority still entranced?

Medical and legal principles of consent, confidentiality, parental responsibility, child safeguarding, medical ethics, bioethics and human rights lay in tatters in the UK and abroad. This is the government’s doing on behalf of the financial elite. The pillars of our state institutions: the legislature, executive and the judiciary all bear responsibility. Corporate-captured journalism rather than hold each to account props them up.

Every one of the clinical events described herein would normally be subject of a significant event analysis and a commensurate uproar amongst colleagues and the system. Heads would roll, or hang in professional shame. Now, gross negligence is gold standard practice.

Traditional wisdoms

Traditionally, patients have been best served by less is more. The more one rummages for something not there, the more likely one will find it. The more one treats that figment, the more harm and confusion will inevitably result. In general practice I note we are substituting seeing, talking with and examining our patients with unnecessary tests. Specialist hospital consultations are replaced with online consultations, Temporary patient gratification with remote batteries of unnecessary, wasteful tests and misdirected scans without good clinical context often begs more questions than solved and frustrate both patient and doctor in the long run.

Seeing the patient often remains the old and only way out of clinical doubt, but we have become more adept at putting expensive obstacles on that road since covid. It is dangerous and inefficient. Whom are we fooling? Ourselves, while we harm our patients and our profession. In the old normal, most GPs would fight tooth and nail for the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and regarded the process of a physical meeting for examination as fundamental.

The orthodox way of the NHS was to peddle benign, cost-effective reassurance, not to ruthlessly foment inappropriate anxiety. If it were to, it would be overwhelmed with pandemics of hypochondriasis and polypharmacy at the expense of tackling serious illness, as it is now because of the governmental Munchausen’s by proxy. This is the sick desire to induce fictitious coronavirus illness in all its subjects. The NHS does not need saving from anybody except the government who exsanguinate it to death for commercial profits and tyrannical population control. It has created a brutal, coercive pharmacological hell on earth.

We are in extraordinary times. They are becoming more extraordinary. There is a complete absence of sense and nuance. Emerging data increasingly reassures us about the virus and terrifies us from the jabs, but the government ups the ante on an orgy of continued unnecessary population experimentation and reckless prescribing. It must be the most shameful, shameless and duplicitous episode in all human history. The simple truth is no one has full command of the knowledge, no one really knows. Even if one did, no one has authority to force any substance in another’s body. It is wrong for those who do not know to adopt an uncompromising attitude where there is every reason to compromise and backtrack.

This winter the elderly have been double loaded with flu shots and covid boosters. They may have a triple problem: jab toxicity, vaccine derived viral interference and antibody dependent enhancement. Data suggests the covid jabs have negative efficacy: the triple covid-jabbed are even more susceptible to covid infection. Once jabbed, they may be deprived of the opportunity to ever attain adequate, sterilising, and sustained immunity to covid. A concern is when, as usual, the annual winter seasonal respiratory deaths increase as they should by April 2022, how high will the numbers be, how will the jabbed, boosted, and also-flu-vaccinated fare compared to the non-jabbed? How many of those deaths will again be misattributed to covid and the un-mighty but rife omicron? Omicron will, no doubt, be coincidently ‘detected’ by overzealous, inaccurate testing in hospitals and nursing homes where it should flourish. It is inevitable the government will exploit this. Nobody should panic.

For two years there has been a pandemic pantomime about a virus the scale of flu. The world amputated itself for the sake of its nose. A simple script of ‘Oh no it does, oh no it doesn’t’ has magicked a mass suspension of critical thinking and a rush to collective suicide. All endorsed by HMG. The consistent ‘pandemic’ improvement over two years is very likely not due to jabs, but to natural, acquired immunity and improved scientific data gathering and interpretation. The damage was in large part due to the jabs, perverted opportunists and non-pharmaceutical interventionist policies. It was better to do nothing.

There is hope. Elements of the malicious narrative appear to be turning. More staff and patients are openly dissenting from government policy. They are beginning to slowly exercise the faculty of unassailable logic. Nothing the government does is delivering. Poly-jabbed as they may or may not become, they are still ‘getting covid’ and still very much alive; and still being increasingly oppressed and over-medicated by their government’s cosy Big Lie. The guts of the people have begun to sense they are being force-fed stone cold turds. Yet, most of their doctors continue to seem strangely unaware of the fatal problems of the narrative. They comply and wait poised to do nothing; silently and passively accepting the abuse for reasons of their own personal short-term gain. It does not seem to stack, and is the ultimate professional act of deliberate self-harm. The medical profession euthanises itself.

In this World War 3 for medical freedom, and bodily and national sovereignties, it should never be forgotten that only a small minority fought like lions against a wholesale dehumanising of the population. Our elected government has committed atrocities on us in the name of medicine. Most of my medical colleagues were complicit or cowered. Only a small percentage refused the jab, most of the rest did not adequately defend their wrongly-vilified colleagues, patients or their profession. Yet, we share the same knowledge of medicine and ethics. This is very disappointing. Pleading ignorance in this profoundly medical matter is not an excuse any member of the medical profession can validly make.

Wisdom is not constantly televised. We must look to the past for it. I leave some for my colleagues to reflect upon:

Primum non nocere.

“First do no harm”, Hippocratic Oath

किं कर्म किमकर्मेति कवयोऽप्यत्र मोहिता: |

तत्ते कर्म प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वा मोक्ष्यसेऽशुभात् ॥16॥

कर्मणो ह्यपि बोद्धव्यं बोद्धव्यं च विकर्मण: |

अकर्मणश्च बोद्धव्यं गहना कर्मणो गति: ॥17॥

कर्मण्यकर्म य: पश्येदकर्मणि च कर्म य: |

स बुद्धिमान्मनुष्येषु स युक्त: कृत्स्नकर्मकृत् ॥18॥

“The true nature of action is difficult to grasp. You must understand what is action and what is inaction and what kind of action should be avoided. The wise see that there is action in the midst of inaction and inaction in midst of action. Their consciousness is unified, and every act is done with complete awareness.” Bhagavad Gita 4:16-18.

23rd January 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

26th November 2021

What has been witnessed in the last two years is not medical science. It is the death of reason and the birth of a religious cult. The Church of Covid fathered illegitimately by the financial elite and delivered from the womb of governments. Its Holy Trinity, the Pfizer, the Moderna, and the Aztec-Zeneca. Baptism is by experimental vaccination. Its priesthood (SAGE), itself controlled by the papal WHO. Pope WHO mediates between the people and the Viral Gods mostly through belief systems of fear and disgust. The cult even possesses strange triplet mantras, ritual ablutions and symbolic headgear. Fit, healthy children are being sacrificed at its altars. Those who willingly joined are too scared to leave, many were coerced, a minority resist hoping for a saviour and a promised land. It is more effective and covid-safe to believe in garlic, silver bullets and wooden stakes.

To hold dominion the cult practices peculiar sorcery. It redefines our currency of ideas: words. If it cannot cherry-pick statistics, it invokes alchemy to make them lemons. It inculcates a suspension of critical faculties and delusional mass behaviours by an indoctrination with fixed false beliefs. Hence, the public seems hypnotised to suspend belief in their own eyes and ears, replacing it with the cult’s doctrine that everyone is at risk of a horrible, premature death and our sole saviour is the covid jab. The NHS piously chants along reinforcing it all like a church choir. If one effectively challenges the beliefs, it casts more spells: censorship, cancellation, lie bigger. Heretics are exhorted to drink from the poisoned chalice lest excommunication. It falsely stains outsiders as unclean, unbelievers, anti-vax infidels. The masses flock to the cult. They are thrilled: each could help save the world. Finally, little lives had big meanings, mission, and a free holiday. They would do whatever it took in an extreme solidarity. Why on earth would they wish to return to reality?

One Last Cult Ward Round

Spiked Patients

Renal failure man, 60 years. He calls. My headset is ready. He is desperate to have the third jab. He has called the 119 covid call-centres and exhausted their algorithms. Okay, I say, book in with the vaccination nurse for your booster. However, it is not okay. I am thinking: your immune system, suppress and interfere with it at your peril. Renal man cries, but they only do the booster. I need the third jab! I confess, I do not know the material difference. But who will? He moaned, becoming more frustrated. I apologised, knowing I would not have either over my dead body, yet alone three. He said his renal specialist had advised him to have the third. Before I even speak to say I would write to confirm what my colleague meant by ‘the third, not the booster’ he slams down the phone. Regardless, I write to my colleague to resolve my desperate patient’s personal covid nightmare.

The answer comes two weeks later. Lymphoma man, 74, calls. The NHS has written to him. Doctor, he asks, do I need four jabs? I raise my eyebrows. What is this new NHS hell? I have a copy of the letter filed in his notes. There is no date on the letter, where it should be, there is a menacing QR code looking like a mutant space invader. The letter confesses it does not know if he is immunocompromised or merely a normal punter. In either case, it recommends a further jab. The letter reasons, if you are immunocompromised let us call it “the third jab of a course” (as if the third jab six months later was always the intention). The letter explains, “It is different to the booster as it is part of the first (‘primary’) course.” It appears like a sentence constructed in the abstract by a team of highly-paid, clueless government lawyers, not medics.

It continues, sagely, “If you … have already received a booster following your first and second dose, please treat this as your third dose.” I shake my head. Curious. The answer seems to be same jab, different nomenclature. So what do these semantics mean for the future of my patients? Who should have the booster? How many boosts will they need. When will they need them? How is it decided? The language seems to anticipate a ‘secondary’ three-course covid meal for the immunocompromised. It does seem all rather arbitrary. Sadly, lymphoma man is not done. He couldn’t care less if he has three or four jabs. He just wanted to know. Know what his duty to Queen and country is. I probed tactfully, testing his feelings: didn’t the language disturb him? No. Didn’t he find it concerning that four weeks ago (after his glorious first and second super jabs) he was hospitalised with a primary covid diagnosis, and treated for a secondary bacterial pneumonia on the hospital ward? No. Given this, did he have any reservations about a third jab? No. Not one tooth of one cog could be turned. He was sold on it, ‘til death would he and the Nth jab part. The degrees of covid irony are infinite.

Then there are the jab mix-sceptics. This is what our triggered health secretary thinks of them. Mr Agonised, 81, smells a rat. He had the AZ custom clot-shot twice. He survived. He is aggrieved. Why can’t they give him a third-time lucky AZ? He is being offered Pfizer. Can it be safe or effective to mix them? It’s a good question. But not the only one he needs to ask. He rang the call-centres, they cannot help him. They have referred him to his doctor. ‘Doctor’ is likely going to refer him to the corporatised government advice: Just do it! He tells me his daughter is a district nurse, and is going to do her research. Good luck. She will need access to the Dark Net to get an iota of truth. He asks me what I think, and while he’s here (he is not, he is on the phone) should he have the flu jab at the same time? Just do it! I tell him he should do nothing of the sort while he is on antibiotics and steroids. He need to be well. And besides, Pfizer don’t want his immune response to be suppressed by steroids. They want to see its full glorious spectacle. As for mixing vaccines, Lord knows, it is as speculative as the whole show. I tell him I cannot comment, it is all so novel and phase three trials are not even complete for two shots. He is frustrated. I mitigate. Does he really want the AZ? Did he know that it has been withdrawn from under 40s because of the clot risk? He did not. All he knows is he needs a third something, and will make god damn sure he gets it by hook or crook. He resiles a little. Should he have flu and covid jabs together? I tell him that’s what the government would advise, but it would hide the culprit should he become unwell with one. It would be best for him get well, get off steroids and to stagger them. What’s the rush? Of course, for the vaccine companies the more immunogenic the response, the better for efficacy. But it comes with the risk of unpredictable inflammation. Besides, a significant number of patients paradoxically develop respiratory infections after the flu vaccine (and possible the covid jabs). Vaccine-derived viral interference may be responsible.

Mr The Tide-is-Turning, 76, is similar. Should he get the third Pfizer with the flu jab? I run through the basics. He is with me. He confides in me his neighbour got the third recently and then ‘got covid’, whatever that means. He is skeptical. Next week he returns, calling me for more advice. I have made an ally. I discover his son works in the practice admin department.

Mr & Mrs Compliant in their 30s. She asks when can he get his booster. Will his piles delay this? I can tell that this is an important social rite of passage from her excitable tone. She does not need Dr. Party Pooper. Her man needs to hold down a job with a triple jab and feed the three little ones. Besides, what would the neighbours on her row of terraces say?

Parkinson’s man, 65. He said the job was very stressful. Three of his colleagues all had TIAs at the start of the year. I took a double take. That was not the medical stuff of stress. If it were, I would also be in the stroke unit most days over the last two years. Could it be the jab? But it was too early for most. I checked his notes. He (and his colleagues) had the first jab Feb 2021 as they were key workers in a high security government facility. We eye each other. He was a canny fellow. He left, remarking it was ‘nice talking to someone who thinks like me’.

Possible Parkinson’s man, 70, cannot speak properly, probably due to Parkinson’s, but no one really knows. He has been waiting for a NHS neurologist’s diagnosis for two years. Again it is all on a headset. The weak, distant, shuffling bradykinetic monotone of a suffering man. A simple generic medication would cure it and release him from a covid-measures jail sentence. There is no emotion in the voice because he is neurologically unwell. A colleague wrote, self-appeasingly, that the mask-like facies of Parkinson’s was not observable because of his face mask. Really? She did not dare even peak through a gaping aperture? This was written to abrogate clinical responsibility for a simple diagnosis. The universal excuse for everything is “’cos of covid”. I apologise, and do what has become a daily ritual – a letter to expedite what was already urgent a year ago. Non-specialist GPs would not generally make the formal diagnosis nor initiate treatment for Parkinson’s. He is trapped in a manufactured, immoral situation of spineless, supine risk-aversion. However, I will make an exception in this horrific situation. I instruct him to call me if there is no progress within seven days, I will diagnose and treat him myself. This is the real emergency. Not covid.

Quinsy man, 46 is a medical misnomer of three months standing. His battle-axe wife strong-armed me through the headset. He could not speak (she said he had a speech impediment). It would become clear why that was the case. But he hasn’t been seen in two years by you! Sure enough, the frequent patient contacts, meticulously documented and crafted to feign the safety of physical presence were all by telephone. She went on. He had been given three courses of antibiotic via telephone consultation for quinsy over three months. That was really interesting, given quinsy is a medical emergency. Something was not right. I sacrifice a precious face-to-face slot. He confesses to being an ex-smoker and a heavy drinker. I look in his oropharynx. It looked like tonsillar carcinoma until proven otherwise. Shocking. His wife pulls the ‘whilst we’re here, doctor’ manoeuvre, twice. I am glad she does. A ten-minute consultation again becomes thirty, but how can I ignore these poor people deceived by the government into vainly still relying on an NHS they can no longer rely upon. He had a four month neck lesion. He was promised a referral three months ago. It never materialised. I take a peak: barn door rodent ulcer. Skin cancer, festering and eating away at this pale, ginger fellow’s neck. Two fast track cancer referrals in rapid succession for one patient. Patients are meant to be seen within two weeks, but it is not happening. I anticipate this by asking them to call me if there is a millisecond of delay. It is not that surprising after two years of neglect, given the lifetime risk of cancer is 1 in 2. It might get worse. Dr Ryan Cole explains cancer is a possible effect of covid jabs upon TLR receptors. Moreover, it might if as suspected the jab-manufactured spike protein does in fact ‘strongly interact with p53 and BRCA-1/2 proteins. p53 and BRCA are the well-known tumour suppressor proteins’.

Sleeping Beauty is 21. She fell asleep at the wheel driving to the gym, dreamed of the impact, and was later woken up by a prince passing by. My task at the end of a long chain of practitioners was to tell her conclusively that her TATT bloods (Tired All The Time) bloods were normal. No cause for tiredness, bye-bye. She was about to accept the good news and slam the phone down. But, I am genuinely concerned for my patients. I stop her, and ask, but are you sleepy or tired? No, it just happens at the most unexpected of times. I know the likely diagnosis. I click on the patient’s list of medications. Tragic, really. I need to be tactful. No one believes they are unsafe or ineffective. They get offended. I ask when her woes began. Is she sure? Yes. Did you have anything new around that time? No. Are you sure? Yes. This is the problem. The event is so insignificant as to be forgotten. Did she realise she had the second jab two weeks before? No. No memory of this life-changing event. I politely apologise for casting aspersions, but explain she may have narcolepsy. I explain this is extraordinarily rare, and one of the causes is vaccine injury. I self-deprecate more, I am only telling her because no one else might, and I will be mentioning this to the neurologist, just for her information. I will request an urgent brain scan since at the current rate she might receive a telephone call from an NHS neurologist in a year or two. Scans are one of the only primary care requests to hospitals which seems to happen more quickly during covid. She must report it to the DVLA. She must not drive until advised by them she can. She seems to take it in her stride. The seed does not seem planted. Even if it is, evil fairy Malepfizer is immune, unless it is proven it was underhand in someway that would put her in additional danger (as happened with the swine flu narcolepsy cases). Pfizer is rich enough to settle out of court with a non-disclaimer to boot, but it probably won’t have to. For the nominal vaccine damage scheme, £120,000 is all she could get, but she won’t. Who will class her as 60% or more disabled? She can jolly well walk and reduce her carbon footprint at the same time.

Dot Cotton is 73. The worst of the deranged zealots are the nicotine-stained COPDs. She is part of a new wave of chain-smoking geriatric covid wokeness. A bronchitic terrorist. She puffs in, suffocating herself further with her mask + face-shield combo. She is one of the brand-new radicals readying themselves for the Nth booster while they roll up tobacco. She is chesty, but mostly paranoid about being more chesty. Complaining that she hasn’t seen a GP for over two years, she does not recognise the irony of the NHS managing to jab her three times in 10 months while she continues to insist on her divine right to smoke herself to death. These are the NHS red-carpet patients whom sensible doctors and nurses like me will wave goodbye to as we are escorted off the premises as NHS lepers. She slaps her biceps, and beams. I’ve had my booster! Wow, rub it in my face whilst I’m at work, won’t you. I appear underwhelmed, whilst she is expecting extra social credits. I gently challenge her health ideas for the heck of it. It is patently clear I am not going to find a member of the French résistance hidden under her storm trooper headgear. You do realise that government advice is not necessarily the same as medical advice? Oh yes, of course, Doctor, she fawns. I become adventurous, you do appreciate the benefit of the government advice is not conclusive? Her eyes distorted by bent plastic visor briefly scan me. As she leaves, she turns like Columbo (she is wearing a beige mackintosh), asking pointedly if I’m not one of those against vaccines. Rather than asking if she is one of those who does not believe in stopping smoking, I answer politely, I believe all sides should be respectfully heard. She concedes courteously and disappears. Everything is between the lines, all eyes and smiles, a sliver away from professional crucifixion.

Swab Refusenik is 57. He is livid. He is double-jabbed and asymptomatic and the hospital still want to swab him before he has his colonoscopy. He cannot fathom it. What the hell is going on? He is scared, too. While booking a date for the procedure, he protested at being swabbed, the lady at the other end was reactive like only the NHS can be … ‘so are you refusing the colonoscopy, sir?’ No, just the swab. She puts the phone down on him.Now he confides in me, and asks what an earth he is going to do. I sympathise, and agree to write to his consultant to sort it all out. He admits me he only got jabbed to make life normal again. He did not want either. He is not having the booster. Allegedly.

Mr Plumber, 53, tells me he developed bad guttate psoriasis after the first jab, shingles after the second, and he is worried about the third. What could be in store for him next? Smallpox? Leprosy? We will find out. He still wants it. He is confused as all he ever deals with are covid call-centres. I counsel him on alternative strategies such as not having it, but he feels he should have it. The propaganda is too strong. Even offering a speculative exemption letter sounds schismatic to him. He becomes anxious. His daughter is a nurse and is looking into it – but what more does he need to know? He is alive and kicking two years later, after the world’s most over-hyped and over-televised pandemic. He is low risk. The jabs are producing disease in him. I am dealing with a mental health pandemic.

Ms Clock-Ticking, 36, is desperate for pregnancy. Irregular periods post-jab are so common they have passed into folklore. She shrugs of the three month lapse of her Swiss clock-like menses as mere piffle to her wish to be with child. Yes, doctor, my period became irregular after the jab as I thought it might. Presumably as the regularity returned, her faith in the non-science government narrative returned. She thinks the rot stops there. I wish her luck.

Ms Siren, 40. Periods absent since the second jab. Nevertheless, she went back for the third a month ago. She wonders about menopause but her mother went through it it aged 55. She admits that her periods became irregular and prolonged after the first jab in January. She is part of a hospital study (SIREN) into the jab, and has regular PCR and antibody tests. No-one has asks her about jab adverse effects.

Village fête lady, 65, takes the biscuit one busy morning. She hobbles in sporting a blue rinse perm and a home counties accent. The conversation degenerates from her poorly ankle to ‘you must be so busy these days’ to covid, rapidly. She is restrained in her frustration, but her voice quivers, why oh why can’t they all just get vaccinated, doctor? She asks as if it is a matter of mere politesse. Can’t they all just say please and thank you, doctor? Why can’t they? Then we could all go back to normal and have a merry Christmas together. She quickly moves on to covid Santa Claus … ooh, and Dr Whitty … isn’t the country so lucky to have him? This time words nearly fail me. I remind that her view is predicated on the assumption that the vaccines are safe and effective, but tens of thousands are dying from them and there are millions of ADRs. It beats the mortality of all the other vaccines rolled together over decades, and it hasn’t even been out a year. No, it’s not, she retorts, coldly. This time words do fail me. Whatever her view is predicated on or not, it is not worth being detected and singled out. The programming is way too deep. Props to the propagandists, they have done an incredible job.

Derek and Babs, my eighty-something old neighbours are loyal to the government narrative and measures. This is despite Babs being hospitalised with a near-fatal, mystery lower gastrointestinal bleed soon after the second jab, and their middle-aged son developing a mystery pancreatitis after the second jab. They still test themselves twice a week. A fortnight ago, over the street’s Whatsapp group, they announced another ten day embargo on the remainder of their precious lives. Both test positive the day after Babs got her booster. They blamed it on that damn birthday party they went to. Stay safe! came the replies. Trouble is, the elderly couple were never unwell. Both remained absolutely fine. There was no death, no disease, no deterioration. No mention of natural immunity’s infinite superiority in preventing re-infection (the jab abjectly does not prevent infection). Nor was there was any questioning of the jab. It was all as clear as mud: the jab had unclearly prevented another two inevitable deaths. Derek had not had his booster, yet. I am relieved, but Babs must be tutting. I am particularly fond of him. Later that week, we’re all in my car. Derek’s ancient mobile trills, ‘Hello Mr. Derek! So-and-so ignoramus, calling from so-so surgery. We have an extra-special Saturday unmissable booster clinic. Are you in? No pressure.’ He is apologetic. He is booked on Sunday at a pharmacy. My heart aches. ‘But, why not have it 24 hours sooner, Mr Derek?’ I can tell she is pressuring this unsuspecting old man and thinking of the money-grab. It is a veritable meat-market.

Mr Healthy Home-Worker, 55, no medication, no previous maladies. Sat slouched for two years in the loft office working 16 hour days, immobilised, dehydrating late into the night. Before, he would cycle to work, socialise there and do a regulated eight hours. He double- jabbed. He called me. He didn’t feel well. Chest pain and lethargy. I insisted on an immediate admission. Diagnosis, bilateral pulmonary emboli, DVT and diabetes. Other colleagues of mine have mention a six month post-second jab clot phenomenon. Legs, lungs, heads and hearts. I am seeing it in real-time. Merry Clotmas. More über-irony. He met a similar DVT sufferer in the scan room of the hospital. The fellow sufferer was a fellow GP who suggested they write a paper entitled, “Lockdown increases clots” reasonable… but wait for the punchline. My astute, clotted colleague predicted they would certainly find the unvaccinated would be suffering more thromboembolic events than the vaccinated. She had no cognitive latitude to suspect the only active variable, the experimental clot-shot was blameworthy. She was certain that those who simply did nothing would suffer more. Why?

Mr Blister Head, 88, is a wily old devil. But he is obedient to his wife. He took of his flat cap and revealed his alter ego. He developed a herpetiform rash to most of his scalp after both the first and second jab. It persisted, and because he struggled and failed to see a GP, it slowly improved over six months in any case. His good wife did not want him to die. She sent him off for his booster jab. He did not want it nor a chronically weeping head-sore, again. But anything for a quiet life. His rash returned. It reactivated within seven days. It resolved in a fortnight with aciclovir.

Mr. N.H.S. Phobia, 23. He only went to the vaccination joint so his grandmother could get the first jab. But the crazed nut-jobs found out in the banter that he worked with the elderly, so they pounced on him with it before he could rustle up the courage to scream rape. Granny was dead in a fortnight, and he developed severe central chest and left arm pain after week three for three solid days. He toughed it out alone. He came to see me six months on. Last week, calf pain, this week, short of breath at rest. Pulse 130, with no clear explanation. Pulmonary embolus, DVT or latent heart failure secondary to jab myocarditis? I sent him urgently to the hospital medics. Back to his perpetrators. He looked disheartened as he left. I cannot follow him up. He does not answer his phone, and there is nothing from the hospital. I suspect he was too scared to be abused by the NHS, again.

14 year old Rash Girl’s mum calls. Now the children are starting to come in. She sends some photos. She had the Pfizer five days ago. She has come out in a rash all over her torso. With relative fortune, it is a blanching rash. Urticarial in nature. I ask if she was unwell immediately after the jab. Oh, only a headache, doctor. Really? Only a headache. She speaks with natural authority. I safety-net for the future. She must be alert to cardiac, respiratory, neurological and coagulopathic symptoms. She appears unconcerned. As if to rub in the episode, before I go, she asks, so what do you think it is, doctor? Do you think it’s just her immune system? I must agree with her authoritative, if somewhat cavalier diagnosis. Her mere immune system. So what if it is irreversibly damaged? Surely, Pfizer will just peddle her a gene program for a new one.

An anxious mother. 12 year old Johnny’s peri-pubertal nipples are asymmetrical, what do I think? I do not. I am relocating my jaw. His notes say he had a covid jab last week. What about his gonads? Of all the thing she should worry about, she is oblivious to the state-assault upon her child. Perhaps she does not know herself. There are NHS trusts vowing to keep it secret from the parents. What if the child became ill overnight? How would the parent be able to react responsibly to the illness unfurnished with the key information? Do they expect the child to secretly slope off in the night to A&E incognito to retain patient confidentiality? What if it died? What would the death certificate say? How could the parent query the cause of death properly, unarmed with the vital, missing information? Who else would care enough? Only parents would wail for an eternity and stop at nothing to obtain posthumous justice for their child. It beggars belief. What have we become? I require an ‘over-25 check’ to purchase zero percent beer at Morrisons. This lad can opt for dangerous, unnecessary experimental gene therapy at school in sworn secrecy. It is healthcare hell on earth.

Little Miss Worry, 13. She was well but had slight asthma in 2019. Then the whole family, panicked by the government terrorists in their living room, all became hyper-vigilant. The little one did not recover. She has not been out of the house for over a year. School is a figment of a former self. Her first overdose aged 12, she now ruminates on self-harm. The mother cries for help, but all services are too drained with the covid charade. They pass the buck, GP to CAMHS to private-provided lip-service telephone counselling service. The impersonal touch distresses her more. She is put on a waiting list to see a physical person. She has been waiting over a year.

Another 12 year old. Single, Ex-Pat Mum is desperate to get back to Australia. She needs childcare, she needs her family. She cannot afford the quarantine costs which run into thousands of pounds. Unlike most, she is aware of the risks. She sees her only choice is jabbing him. Two weeks later he is in an emergency room covered in electrodes, wearing a mask. He has chest pain. It is labelled as pleurisy. I do not trust my colleagues. Did they exclude pulmonary emboli, pericarditis, myocarditis? She has regret. It is not her fault. It is all our faults. Is there any tests she can order to secure his future health? The trouble is, gene immunotherapy is entrenched and irreversible. He did not need the mask, he did not need the jab. He did not need this.

There is no time to report and unravel all the complications. It is a biblical deluge. Many patients and medics do not make a cause-effect link even after a few days post-jab, let alone months. Such is the blind faith that a panacea jab can do no harm, it is quickly forgotten. I cannot be the only medic swamped by this mess. Foetal, neonatal, adolescent and general mortality rates appear to be rising since the year of Lockdown and blanket vaccines. So do heart attacks: the jabs appear to increase the risk of acute coronary syndrome, NSTEMI rates have risen by 25% in Scotland; this may explain it. I predict far more pain. According to one raw analysis of ONS data vaccinated English adults under 60 are dying at twice the rate of unvaccinated people the same age, and have been for six months. A more nuanced analysis shows no all-cause mortality benefit for covid jabs. At best, the data on covid jabs is equivocal representing an extremely expensive and destructive way of doing overall harm. At worst it evidences the world’s greatest and most audacious crime.

That weekend, In a central London health food restaurant a French waiter channels his inner de Gaulle. He heroically vows to draw the line after the third jab. I remain unconvinced.

A&E

My incredulous senior colleague reports from an A&E department I spent ten years working in. Forty of the old guard have left. Some more-senior staff are holding off the booster jab, now not so keen. The new-starters, for that is mostly what is left, believe A&E has always been like this. Increased and premature cardiac events. Loads of elderly falls post-double and triple jab. Lethargic, listless youngsters with odd neurological symptoms and motor disorders. It is now no significant event to have three non-trauma patients lined up for platelet or blood transfusion on one shift. Before covid, a bag of platelets in A&E would be a rare show-stopping event. But now platelets galore? All those patients have been double or triple-jabbed. The prevailing departmental tendency is to re-frame blame upon covid-19 without laboratory proof. There is only token gesture paid to proper deep-cleaning and barrier nursing against covid, now. Forget N95 masks, anything obscuring your mouth in blind obedience will do.

The Family & Ivermectin

We all contracted clinical covid this July. Whilst it was certainly strange for us all to have a low grade flulike illness in the heart of summer, there was no panic, no need for clinically pointless testing, no long covid. None of us have received the genetic mark of the corporation. The children barely had a fever or slight tummy ache and were well within 24 hours. Of the four adults, one recovered with no need for any intervention, within two weeks. The other three all started Zinc, Vitamins C and D, quercetin and quinine tincture. Only the matriarch in her 70s also had ivermectin. Within 24 hours she was babysitting the grandchildren and nursing the rest of us. All her pre-existing chronic joint pains disappeared. The ivermectin supply was precious and it was stopped after 72 hours due to the remarkable recovery. 48 hours later, the fever returned. It was restarted and continued for another 10 days. She did not cough until seven days after finally stopping the ivermectin (a full 21 days after symptom onset), and then it was only minor and lasted a few days. The rest of us had hacking coughs for about a month. We have all had the best chance at natural and sterilising immunity. It was free and efficient. This cheap, safe pre-hospital trial of early intervention with ivermectin was far more convincing and impressive to me than the government alternative: take the known and unknown risks of the toxic jab, prove it failed with the free government tests, and wait to get ill enough to justify a hospital admission where there is no good treatment. My home experience is real convincing clinical medicine in action. It tells me more than the corporate-captured world of evidenced-based medicine.

Grandmother, 95. Granny TCP passed this year after a four day stay in hospital for a cardiac event. After a year under government house arrest there was a merciful aspect. Granny tested negative for covid in hospital. She was taken to die on a ‘covid’ ward. I suppose it gave the NHS the best chance to manipulate her death statistic as she died. She died before the NHS could get her to test positive. In spite of this, a junior doctor caught in the act of fraud and desecration of a his patient’s death, had to be made by family to remove covid from her death certificate. Before covid I would never have believed such conduct from a colleague was possible. How many times has this crime occurred in our hospitals? I am ashamed of the role the NHS has played in this rich man’s trick.

TCP

Since this might be my last piece as an NHS GP, I should reflect upon my own recent personal and professional experiences of the covid phenomenon. I stand to lose my career and my patients soon for no good reason thanks to the government mandate. It’s not the way I would have chosen to go, but the decision is surprisingly easy: if I must medically assault myself to continue in medicine, I will spare myself that personal and professional humiliation.

It has been a depressing two years. The psychologists of SAGE reside in my head 24/7. I dream about vaccines and patients. Pfizer taunts me with every patient’s computerised medication list: Pfizer’s jab trade name is ‘Courageous’. Not bad, but better maybe ‘Outrageous’ or ‘Contagious’? I despair at the ritual damage being done to global health and my patients. For Dr Thomas Jendges, it proved unbearable. He died trying to stop the madness.

Even my professional GP appraisal (via video-link – NHSE’s choice) was awful. My colleague’s cheery opening line after two years apart was brazen, ‘Good morning, so are you double-jabbed?’ He knows it is none of his business, and I politely told him so. I suspected he was put up to it by NHSE. It had sent out an agenda for our delayed appraisal. Last year, it promoted the covid fear and rewarded us for being covid heroes by suspending this annual professional box-ticking exercise. I was over the moon. This year, following the world’s most deadly and scary event, the appraisal agenda would be soft-touch. We were to talk about the effect of covid upon us. I sensed the NHSE was tapping for information to decide when and how to nudge further, My reply was honest, succinct and designed to curtail conversation. Covid made my life easier, reduced the standard of patient care, and I was glad for the cast-iron job security job while my patients were losing theirs. He moved on swiftly. NHSE doesn’t want to know that. The worrying legal point to all this scrutiny is a doctor’s professional and supposedly confidential appraisals have been used in court as legal evidence against him.

I wake up after broken sleep each morning, praying for a safe passage through the mounting complex of avoidable death and disease in my surgeries without blowing cover or a mental gasket. Leery-eyed patients proudly announce they have had their booster, expecting my congratulations. I am horrified. There is no escape for a heretical NHS doctor. I am outflanked, and outnumbered. I am thankful for small liberties. Being allowed to shop, drive and dine unimpeded. I fear another imminent lockdown, denial of personal healthcare, and a permanent medical apartheid. I have become more peripatetic, a fugitive physician desperately trying to earn money before I am crucified for having critical faculties. Since covid, I have experienced work in six general practices over two regions across two major cities and four rural towns. For those who think GPs do not see hospital deaths, so how can a GP know the true extent of what happens to their patients, be informed that GPs write the community death certificates, and receive notifications for every hospital death. Nor am I siloed as some of my colleagues within one practice population, I am not left to speculate that the contagion must have skipped my sole practice population by mere good fortune. No. My experience in all six practices of this overwhelmingly-hyped contagion has been uniformly underwhelming. In my professional practice, covid is more an uncommon phenomenon of a minority’s weakened and dysfunctional immune systems being denied appropriate early treatment rather than a pandemic disease. However, medics feel medics are not allowed to discuss the stark inconsistencies between government messaging and the reality on the ground. Woe betide anyone who dares says it is not that bad.

In one practice, where the unspoken truth and the distinct, understandable lack of fear was expressed by a reasonable culture of not bothering to wear masks, some government informer squealed, spilling the beans on these heathens. The result: the wonderful practice manager resigned, and now the place is haemorrhaging staff.

Patient care has deteriorated. There is now an entrenched culture of tele-consultation. The justification is contagion, but it is in reality cheaper and easier. Easier to fob off a patient on the phone and avoid all accountability. As the patient has not been physically seen, there is not the same palpable notion in the patient’s mind that this was in fact a consultation with an attached duty of care. The scale of the medical denialism is shocking. Thus, it isn’t at all hard to believe the level of criminal neglect that is occurring, without as much as a squeak from anyone. No one dares. Medical freedom of speech is nearly dead in the USA where in spite of the global, woke-inspired movement of linguistic fascism, the first amendment still notionally counts for something. In the UK, a couple of high-profile medical lynchings from the GMC, combined with Ofcom’s monopoly on medical misinformation has completely killed it. The supranational institutions which have constructed the covid cult as a tool to install a global, unregulated and centralised digital prison needs to be swept away. An alternative needs to be created.

I leave the last word to the Aztecs. The truth appears most unexpectedly in the strangest of places:

Human Sacrifice at Tenochtitlan

“Whatever else it may have been, human sacrifice was a symbolic expression of political domination and economic appropriation and, at the same time, a means to their social production and reproduction. The images of the gods reified superordination (and subordination), and sacrifice to them was symbolically equivalent to payment of tribute. The sacrificing of slaves and war captives and the offering of their hearts and blood to the sun thus encoded the essential character of social hierarchy and imperial order and provided a suitable instrument for intimidating and punishing insubordination.”

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

Bitcoin: bc1q43lclcmd5vkd2k0wq3euw62tpgwgdymdy05u52

Ethereum: 0xA124DacC28070a1DfDe3Fc209e3423f9457414a1

An Open Letter of Accountability

July 6th 2021

FAO: PM, CMO, SoS Health, SoS Justice, Vaccine Minister, MHRA, GMC, NMC, RCGP, RCS, RCPCH, RCN, NHSE

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is an open communication which is copied to a number of official bodies. Its aim is to officially record some professional concerns. Your opinion and evidenced reassurance is sought.

Background

Over the course of the acute reaction to SARS-CoV-2 medics received many NHS communications on how to react to the perceived scale of emergency. This perception was based on inaccurate Imperial College modelling. It overestimated ‘first wave’ mortality by a factor of 10, perhaps more considering the overlooked nuances of misattribution and false positives. SARS-CoV-2 was correctly reclassified by PHE as not being a HCID (high consequence infectious disease) on 19.3.20. Nevertheless the government locked-down, a few days later.

The government settled on lockdowns, non-medical face masks, droplet spread, asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic spread as key principles for its subsequent policies. These types of official responses which were contrary to the medical norm engendered and fuelled further wrong-thinking, professional panic, and social fear. Political rhetoric replaced balanced scientific dialectic and overrode established medical facts and principles. It is concerning that these early, fundamental perceptual, conceptual and policy errors were not corrected as counter-evidence accumulated, and continue to be perpetuated beyond their natural endpoints.

One result of that rhetoric is an unprecedented human gamble with novel and relatively untested pharmaceuticals at great scale. But who takes the risk? Not the pharmaceutical companies – they are safely indemnified by the government. Suffice to say, the safety, efficacy, longterm consequences and whether these pharmaceuticals cause more overall harm than benefit remain very uncertain.

In stark contrast, patients and their healthcare vaccinators may not be fully indemnified from the gamble. Recklessness is never appropriate in medicine.

BBC Newsround & Devi Sridhar

One concerning example of recklessness was noted on Children’s BBC’s ‘Newsround’ programme on 8th June. A person without medical qualification nor licence, Devi Sridhar misled our children. She said some of the the experimental pharmaceutical products genetically coding for spike protein were ‘safe and effective’ and if children took them they would protect themselves, their parents and teachers. She said ‘the benefits definitely outweigh the risks’ and ‘The benefit of getting the vaccine is you don’t need to worry about Covid-19’. As a parent and experienced doctor it seems she and the BBC have deceived our children, whether through ignorance, inadequate research, or intention. Surely, this is a child-safeguarding issue remaining to be addressed? Detailed analyses of her remarks have been made by our medical colleagues at UKMFA and HART. Sridhar was given a further national ITV platform to mislead parents on GMB, 28th June 2021.

It remains uncertain if Ofcom has censured these persons. It is certain that Ofcom had a mandate from government since 23rd March 2020 to suppress ‘harmful Coronavirus-related programming’. The subjective interpretation of this vague phrase is not conducive to patient safety nor public interest. It has not been properly applied against Sridhar’s recurrent harmful Coronavirus-related programming.

Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs)

This author, a general practitioner, does not recall receiving any official notification of safety concerns regarding the experimental vaccine therapies. If she is not alone, such uncharacteristic and unsafe re-prioritising and compartmentalising of medical information seems contrary to achieving GMC Good Medical Practice standards.

It is understood the combined UK, Europe and US figures alone on voluntary reported complications is over 20,000 deaths and over 2 million ADRs in only 6 months in relation to these pharmaceutical products. These products seem dangerous by orders of magnitude like no other authorised vaccine or pharmaceutical before, surpassing perhaps even thalidomide.

Normally, one would have had letters in the post and official emails informing of these risks. There would have been extensive media coverage. Those products might have been withdrawn from the market at less than 50 deaths. But, one has not received anything official to suggest these products are dangerous. One has resorted to actively searching for this under-reported data via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) yellow card scheme, EudraVigilance and VAERS. Any search for safety information is marred by internet censorship, and confusing propaganda proclaiming these products’ reassuring safety and efficacy.

At the very least all hospital and community doctors should have been warned by the CMOs to consider running baseline investigations such as full blood counts, cardiac enzymes, and clotting screens with D-dimers on anyone appreciably unwell post-vaccine. Instead, there is a growing official wall of studied silence. Our patients and their doctors have been abandoned to chance. This is at the very least criminally-negligent of those responsible.

Some of these severe complications were predicted in early March 2020 by Doctors for Covid Ethics but its prescient warnings were dismissed by the European Medicines Agency.

There remain scientifically valid concerns regarding a generally inadequate and only short-term safety profiling of these products in humans and animals There seems particularly inadequate attention to pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, genotoxicity, gene treatment mutations, and widespread tissue toxicity. There are reasoned concerns that these iatrogenic, bio-toxic spike protein encoders may make matters worse for recipients whether pre-exposed, unexposed or when exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Pathogenic priming, future antibody dependent enhancement, molecular mimicry and vaccine derived virus interference all remain concerns.

There are well-founded concerns these proteins are responsible for possible and reported clotting disorders, cardiovascular disease (notably myocarditis and vasculitis), dysfunction of male and female reproductive organs. Potential for deposition in the nervous system has generated concerns for dementia, other neurodegenerative disease and prion protein encephalopathies. Not being sure of these risk potentials is every reason to have a moratorium, not a reason to continue unrelentingly towards our youth and children, who are at next to no risk of dying from COVID-19.

Yet, our youngest children can come home and be informed by a BBC-sponsored, medically-unqualified person of the complete safety and efficacy of these products. Such gross, prejudiced misinformation would be illegal for a pharmaceutical advertisement in a medical journal.

None of above sits comfortably. To suggest experimenting on the whole global population indiscriminately based on the data of SARS-CoV-2 and limited research does not at all seem safe, scientific, reasonable, necessary or justifiable. A recent study showed for three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination and eight serious ADRs.

We are a approaching a crossing of the bioethical Rubicon in regard to our youth and children. This summer, news is full of untreatable and rampant variants, yet general and covid mortality is at an unsurprising summer low. There are 2 months until parliament votes on extending emergency coronavirus legislation in September. Inevitably, there will be a winter surge in respiratory deaths from many different diseases.

The timing of Devi Sridhar’s unbalanced and unacceptable psychological intervention upon our children should concern our society. As a further winter lockdown looms, denial of normality may well be used as a tool to coerce, compel and incentivise our young and those remaining to be injected in a non-medical transaction to avoid a further restriction of basic socioeconomic, mental, and physical necessities. This may include more restrictions to education in schools and on university campuses as a new academic year fast approaches.

Medical Ethics, Bioethics & Illegality

This brings one to the key issue of coercion and consent. Particularly child consent. Your urgent advice on this matter is sought. It deserves to be openly discussed, despite a sense that even valid, expert and responsible free speech is no longer condoned in our society, not even in regard to a medical matter of life and death. The premise of the concern is the risk-benefit ratio for experimentally vaccinating young persons is unreasonably high. Recommending or coercing all of them and their parents to accept this will inevitably result in unnecessary, predictable and preventable child deaths and injuries.

(a) Can one be given reassurances that those who take consent for young patients to be vaccinated will not be guilty of, or complicit in offences against the person, such as battery, ABH and GBH; or even of fatal offences? A defence for such crimes is consent. Legal consent requires for it to be positive and genuine. Submission is not consent. Fraud and lack of comprehension vitiate consent. There are certain situations where adults cannot mutually consent to causing and receiving ABH and GBH (R v Brown, 1993). Thus, (b) how may a healthcare professional (HCP) properly obtain consent from a paediatric patient to an experimental, inadequately safety-profiled unnecessary substance of no benefit to it, and with every risk of irreversible harm or fatality?

There exists a principle of Gillick competency where a child can consent to a treatment if it has adequate mental capacity to comprehend the nature of the treatment, but only then if the treatment is in their best interest. (c) How may one truthfully say these experimental genetic therapies are treating them in their best interests?

Further, when doctors do not have the necessary ADR information to decide amongst their peers what is the right way to proceed, (d) how can one properly assume or take informed consent in a lay adult, let alone a child?

Do we leave it to Devi Sridhar, ITV and the BBC to implant the germ of future co-operation for an opportunistic injection at school under the masquerade of Gillick competency? We must not. There is no immediate nor patient confidentiality reason to inject them without first consulting their parents, as might arise if a child sustains a broken an arm and attends an accident and emergency department alone, or confidentially requests contraception from a GP.

Montgomery ruled doctors must discuss substantial uncommon risks, benefits and alternatives with patients before they can properly be consented, including those which are rare but serious. Only then may consent be fully informed.

Article 6 of Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) reinforces these established principles of consent, but deals specifically with the current experimental situation. Implied consent is inadequate, it must be “prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent.”

Moreover, such seems the official censorship of scientific debate and restriction on diverse scientific information, how may some of our medical and nursing colleagues even know there is a risk to their patients? Could this mean, regarding vaccine and elderly care home deaths, the Department of Health itself is also culpable of crimes including corporate manslaughter, as might be complicit corporations and employers stipulating covid vaccination?

These experimental, uninformed and coercive aspects have introduced an unexpected and anachronistic medico-legal anxiety to clinical practice. Pre-covid it was unimaginable the Nuremberg Code could become so relevant to UK medical practice. Today, all ten points of the Code concentrate the medical mind. The Code’s origin in the Nazi Doctors’ Trial heightens concern that the it is currently being violated by our state health system and its registered doctors and nurses.

Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Rome Statute proscribe phenomena comparable to what we may be observing develop. Experimental medical apartheid, and intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health are amongst them. We have former prime minister denying there is de facto coercion yet promoting distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated. These will divide populations, prohibit free movement in accordance to who is prepared to take unnecessary pharmaceutical risk. (e) How do such socioeconomic threats amount to real choice and not coercion?

Lowering the threshold of proper consent to experimental treatments on children has other possible consequences. (f) Will this be the gateway consent to lowering the age of sexual consent and the entire removal of parental consent and responsibility?

On June 16th the world was witness to the Health Secretary’s extraordinary allusion to cause punitive and calculated health inequality by discriminating to deny treatment to persons who decline risky and experimental therapy. He said, ‘The duty that we have when somebody has not been offered the vaccine is greater than the duty we have when we have offered a vaccine but somebody has chosen not to take it up.’ This is tantamount to claiming that we have less duty of care if someone makes any decision we decide is against our advice, such as eating sugar. (g) Would it ever be condonable for any healthcare practitioner if she arbitrarily or prejudicially refused to treat a patient?

Mandatory influenza and COVID-19 experimental vaccine therapy is already happening in some employment sectors even though it has always been a principle that treatment is by patient choice. It is believed the Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of General Practitioners have declined to recommend its members are mandated to have COVID-19 therapies. How long will they sustain this position?

Based on such recent experiences perhaps it is only a matter of time before the concept of forcing treatments on patients with full mental capacity becomes an acceptable point of debate in the media and parliament. Would a detention camp be the ultimate destination for those who assert sovereignty and integrity of their own bodies?

Legal human rights standards are therefore at grave risk. Experimental or not, beneficial or not, coerced, mandated or forced treatment is inhuman and degrading treatment, and remains illegal under several international human rights standards. Given the fatalities from treatments, the right to life, provisions are also material. Neither Articles 2 or 3 can be derogated from under ECHR provisions.

Other relevant, fundamental legal human rights such as Articles 8-11 freedoms of assembly, association, expression, thought, conscience, religion, and right to a personal and family life, may be restricted, for instance, if deemed necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As time progresses, and epidemiological data accumulates and there is a movement to vaccinate the young, it seems that government coronavirus policy is increasingly disproportionate and unjustifiable on these grounds, and even counterproductive to these grounds.

Section 45E Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 proscribes forced treatments, including vaccinations in regard to its own sections 45B and 45C international and domestic restriction provisions. One can only take cold comfort from this as an ethical doctor and a moral person because these have become politically inconvenient provisions and the Government has shown an extreme capacity to force any legislation it likes through with little challenge from MPs.

The restrictions justified by such public health legislation may well be based on flawed and unjustifiable medical concepts such as asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic respiratory spread. This has never been an accepted guiding principle of respiratory infections in clinical experience. Despite the scientific and medical evidence to the contrary, non-medical face-mask wearing in the community remains a pillar of government infection control policy and symbol of social reinforcement of its ideas. Nor are the covid vaccinations said to guarantee prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection, disease or transmission.Thus, these measures do not seem to guarantee an ending of social restrictions or mask-wearing. (h) Therefore how can we reasonably conclude such measures are necessary in a democratic society?

MHRA Yellow Card System

It strikes one that if clinicians and the public are not formally made aware of the extraordinarily numerous ADRs, and spike protein gene therapy concerns, we are correspondingly unlikely be alert to report and clinically act upon them as such. It is understood the MHRA yellow card system is designed to be an ‘early warning system’. One is no longer certain the system is safely functioning, given the reported ADRs stark contrast with government messaging. It seems insincere to remain muted on the precautionary principle for fatal and serious ADRs only to disproportionately continue vigorously exercising it for SARS-CoV-2 risk.

It is a grave position to have the trust and life of a patient in one’s hands, and one is increasingly at a loss to know what to say to patients and parents regarding covid vaccine safety.

The starting point for professional medico-legal concerns in this regard are the Medical Act 1983 & the GMC Good Medical Practice document, particularly, but not exclusively:

Medical Act 1983

(1B) The pursuit by the General (Medical) Council of their over-arching objective involves the pursuit of the following objectives—

(a) to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well-being of the public,

(b) to promote and maintain public confidence in the medical profession, and

(c) to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of that profession.

GMC Good Medical Practice

Domain 2

‘Safety and quality’ – ‘Contribute to and comply with systems to protect patients’, section 23 (b-d),

23 To help keep patients safe you must:

…

b) contribute to adverse event recognition

c) report adverse incidents involving medical devices that put or have the potential to put the safety of a patient, or another person, at risk

d) report suspected adverse drug reactions

and,

‘Responds to risks to safety’ section 24,

24 You must promote and encourage a culture that allows all staff to raise concerns openly and safely.

Conclusion

As doctors, we are more qualified than the BBC, Devi Sridhar and politicians to speak on medical and bioethical matters. When our patients’ lives are at stake in such medical situations, it is our duty to create a constructive debate when the domineering, unipolar narrative risks the science and ethics we should stand for.

Among 12 to 17 year-olds, VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to June 11, 2021, show: 6,332 total adverse events, including 271 rated as serious and seven reported deaths 974 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to17-year-olds with 98% of cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine, 1.4% to Moderna and 0.2% (or two cases) to J&J. 109 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 108 attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. 24 reports of blood clotting disorders, all attributed to Pfizer .

Dr. Tess Lawrie summarised in an urgent, independent yellow card preliminary report the general serious vaccine concerns in a letter to the MHRA. Colleagues at UKMFA have raised independent paediatric COVID-19 vaccination concerns to the MHRA.

Doctors should strive to both prolong and improve life. We do these instinctively by performing constant risk-benefit analyses of our interventions based on data and experience. A concern is some in the health professions are being politically and socially coerced into a position they may believe is professionally unjustifiable since it is not beneficial to the young (possible numbers needed to vaccinate to save one child, is >2 million children) and will result in unnecessary, inevitable injury and deaths in our youth and children who are at no risk of covid, with many already immune.

SARS-CoV-2 presents virtually no risk to children or young adults. In comparison influenza poses more risk to children. We do not coerce or mandate influenza vaccines in all children. We recommend influenza vaccine only for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with risk-increasing co-morbidities. Why then push experimental covid therapies upon children and other not-at-risk populations?

There is valid discussion of prioritising vulnerable children for covid vaccines, but it must be an equal concern that covid vaccine ADRs such as clotting disorders, anaphylaxis and myocarditis may be of even more risk to certain vulnerable paediatric groups.

As human experience of this disease prolongs, so does the potential for far safer, better longer-term natural herd immunity, particularly amongst the young. Most of the paediatric (and adult) population are already be immune, and pose little or no risk to the vulnerable-but-vaccinated elderly. They may well handle infection asymptomatically and with a low viral load and therefore pose an insignificant or no risk to others. This risk to vulnerable older adults may be even less if the government is correct in its belief its experimental vaccines, are extraordinarily safe and effective.

ONS antibody surveys show approaching 60% 16-24 year olds and 90% of adults are antibody positive. If one factors for these percentages rising every week, for pre-existing T-cell immunity and antibody levels too low to detect, 2/3 to 3/4 of children should have immunity, and almost all adults, if the vaccines are effective.

It should go without saying that, if there were a proven safe pharmaceutical that prevented a serious infectious disease and its transmission, there would be no need for censorship, reprisals and coercion to promote its acceptance.

We can learn to live with this issue, assisted by alternative approaches to conceptualising and managing the problem, without a major destruction and rebuilding of society. These would include other combination treatments proven in the field and ‘focussed protection’ to protect the vulnerable and enable the majority in society to carry on much as normal.

Would you please urgently, particularly as the consideration to vaccinate the young is active, clarify these issues and questions for healthcare professionals?

Questions

1. Presumably, you have already considered these above medico-legal/ethical questions (a) to (h)? If so, what are the outcomes of your legal assessment of these issues and their impact on doctors? If not, can you answer these questions, please?

2. A doctor must not be complicit in the maiming or death of a person or child by exposing it to unnecessary risk. Will you support HCPs (healthcare professionals) who assert this stance?

3. Based on the ADRs and known and unknown risks, many could not justify, administer or recommend these experimental treatments to our youth and children. Would you support doctors and other HCPs who find themselves reasonably unable to comply with such state edicts at this grave medical and bio-ethical juncture in world history?

4. Will you support HCPs’ right to voice our dissenting professional concerns in open forums of debate, free from censorship and repercussion?

5. Some seem already to have accepted preparatory paediatric psychological inducements to future covid vaccination of our children by the BBC and Devi Sridhar, and politicians’ suggestions of medical apartheid and discriminatory medical treatment. Overt material inducements have occurred in other countries. Will you condemn such behaviour?

6. Would you concur, even if these pharmaceutical manufacturers are indemnified against their products’ harm, individual vaccinators cannot take informed consent properly unless the basis of the treatment is not fraudulent, and they explicitly inform the patient of risks, benefits and alternatives, including but not exclusively, about the:

a. absence of meaningful commercial liability;

b. presence instead of only a very limited state vaccine damage payment scheme for only severe disability, but not necessarily for death;

c. serious and common risks to the patient, including current death and ADR passively identified by VAERS, MHRA and EudraVigilance;

d. experimental, novel genetic nature of the therapies with unknown consequences, which may cause additional future fatal or serious harms;

e. fact that it is not fully-established how well the vaccines prevent infection, disease or transmission, reduce mortality or prevent the need for further experimental injections, masks, restrictions and lockdowns;

f. true risk benefit analysis of the particular demographic being vaccinated;

g. treatment alternatives, including not having treatments?

7. If they do not do as per point (6), would you agree our colleagues as individuals HCPs risk breaching GMC Good Medical Practice guidance, and acting illegally, to include negligently and/or criminally? If not, why not?

8. Would you agree it can be unacceptable for a doctor to indiscriminately follow government edict and expect absolution from professional or legal consequences, and further, that an ignorance of vaccine risk-benefit profile, following government policy, or misplaced loyalty may be no defence or mitigation? If not, why not?

We remain imperfect in a complex and challenging situation. No one body or person is expert in all the aspects. Please correct me if any issue has been misapprehended. By discouraging open scientific debate we will never arrive at any useful truth to extricate our society from this extraordinary global grip. To accept such gross transgressions of medical conduct complicitly and silently may mean we and the health professions stand for little of real, ethical substance.

No doctor should be complicit in hiding the above critical medical information. If they do, they act in the-best interests of pharmaceutical-industrial complex and the government, not their patient. The fact I cannot personally sign this letter since the NHSE’s summary professional dismissal of colleague, Dr. Sam White for expressing safety concerns should shame any one who claims to care. Such authoritarian conduct has no place in patient care. How NHSE can do this yet let NHS workers perform choreographed dances in hospitals on social media without professional reproach in an apparent medical emergency is incomprehensible.

Moving forward, how we respond to this extraordinary global event will determine future standards of care and safety in medicine. It may be they have already irreversibly collapsed. Your reasoned and evidenced public reassurances to all HCPs will be appreciated.

Kind regards,

An NHS Doctor

Sent to:

Boris Johnson, Prime Minister

Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Health

Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice

Nadhim Zahawi, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for COVID Vaccine Deployment) Dr. June Raine, MHRA Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer of England

Chief Executive NHS England

Andrea Sutcliffe, Chief Executive Nursing and Midwifery Council

Clare Marx, Chair General Medical Council

Denise Chaffer, President, Royal College of Nurses

Amanda Howe, The President, Royal College of General Practitioners

Camilla Kingdon, The President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

Neil Mortensen, The President, Royal College of Surgeons of England

The Covid Physician is an unheroic NHS doctor. This article is a personal view and does not necessarily represent the views of the NHS. Dr. TCP tweets at @tcp_dr and blogs at at tcp.art.blog

6th June 2021

I was moved to again write about the Covid construct having seen the predictable and mounting new concerns about ‘vaccines’ being realised, and having heard the perspective of another NHS whistleblower interviewed by James Delingpole. ‘Nina’ is a GP receptionist, gate-keeping the uncensored complaints in a practice of 20,000 patients before any even reach the GP. She occupies a commanding vantage point from which to survey the unfolding man-made disaster. I have no way of knowing of her authenticity, but it resonated very strongly with my experiences in General Practice since February 2020. The irony of NHS whistle-blowing protection is that it is worse than no protection. Hence, the anonymity adds to the authenticity, for me.

When one reads of the recent attacks on Dr. Kendrick, a veteran of countering the cholesterol myth, one will understand that medical pogroms against scientifically-valid counter-opinions exist in plain sight. The irony is there are TV doctors saying all manner of unethical and unprofessional, pro-government things who are not pursued by the GMC. Prescribing fearful, non-medical, no alternative, transactional, and secondary gain imperatives to coerce a population to accept experimental treatment; declaring that a rushed, experimental genetic therapy has led to ‘ZERO side effects’ a week after one has been injected; changing one’s tune according to government edict, or simply being irresponsibly and grossly wrong live on TV, all seem at first face unethical and unprofessional in my opinion. I have noted some of the more cerebral celebrity doctors maintain a studious silence on the topic.

Even the RCN and RCGP who have been on the side of the official Covid narrative have stood up against mandatory ‘vaccinations’ of their members. I suspect this is due to a view of a significant body of grassroots members which these colleges have struggled to ignore. These very GPs and nurses at the same time unhappily collude with the injection assembly line to some degree or another.

In my surgery there are new special ‘vaccination’ nurses funded temporarily for the practice. They dole out experimental, incompletely-tested, harmful intramuscular injections in the waiting room directly in view and earshot of other patients, the receptionists, visitors and staff passing by. All that separates them is a short, thin, and minimal two panel screen with a large gap at the hinge. I expect more at M&S when I try on a shirt. No crash trolley, no post-jab waiting period. What if there were an immediate anaphylactic reaction? Not only is it wrong, it is relentless.

I suppose it is the ideal place to capture, control and coerce passing patients into pseudo-vaccination. Who would dare say no, who would dare to challenge or question it in front of everyone. They would fear being summarily labelled a trouble-maker and losing access to any remaining, meaningful NHS healthcare in the ruination of the government’s unevidenced, unbalanced and disproportionate response to the coronavirus issue. What couldn’t go wrong with such an approach?

This public injection ritual is not even conducive to consent, never mind informed consent, nor basic safety. This is the new-acceptable standard of practice. Thousands of new doctors and nurses will never know any better. The mass hypnosis and hypernormalisation created by this pandemic of global role-play means it even took me some time to realise it was all thoroughly reprehensible.

Three similar playbooks?

Incentivising eugenics, and covert anti-fertility vaccines: a tangled web.

We have not yet been so overt in the UK to offer jabs for joints, fries and burgers; but basic rights to free movement, a job and independence in exchange for compliance is amounting to the same smiling bully. I recall Sanjay, son of Indian PM Indira Gandhi awarding villagers transistor radios in exchange for undergoing sterilisation in the mid 1970s. He combined a state of emergency, eugenics, sterilisation passports, and radio news propaganda in the same fell swoop. Sound familiar? India was and remains the elite’s testing ground.

Gates’ recent damaging and fatal escapades in India and globally are a reboot of those bioethical abuses. Levich has analysed in depth Gate’s profound and disruptive intervention into Pharma. India has long been a more unregulated and ungoverned medical Wild West than Europe. To see such unethical practice waived through in the West without so much of a pause for thought is the result of the kind of unbridled terror the government is consistently and repeatedly terrorising the UK psyche with.

The WHO established a Special Program of Research in human reproduction (HRP) in 1972 just three years prior to Sanjay Gandhi’s eugenics spree. The WHO/HRP convened in Geneva, 1992 to discuss fertility regulating vaccines. Amongst the research was that of Professor G P Talwar, of the National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi. When the WHO’s early 1990s Nicaraguan, Mexican, Philippine and Tanzanian tetanus vaccine campaigns were mired in eugenics controversy, its supporters hit back

Regarding that controversy, I was saddened to hear of the untimely death allegedly, coincidentally and conveniently from coronavirus, of Kenyan Dr. Stephen Karanja. This came only days after a shocking interview where he spoke of the ignored success of safe pharmaceutical alternatives to the coerced COVID-19 gene therapy. He also recounted the WHO’s efforts to create an infertility vaccine. It is worth watching his compelling testimony (at 41 to 48 minutes) where he explains his 2013 experience of potential covert tetanus vaccine laced with hCG given as an unusual, accelerated course to cause infertility. His paper implicates the Serum Institute of India (SII) in the manufacturing of those vaccine vials. In another article, ‘A shot at contraception’ (Nature Medicine, February 2018), Killugudi Jayaraman reported Talwar was renewing testing of a birth control vaccine with the aid of The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). Gates has recently ‘donated’ money to the Serum Institute of India for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing. Gates recently conferred the ICMR “Lifetime Achievement Medal” on the owner of the Serum Institute of India. Talwar has worked for the WHO and ICMR. Truly tangled.

Fear, propaganda, and medicine: a toxic mix.

These proved corrosive to humanity before, both in Germany and the US. In the early 2000s the US Attorney General, in his infamous 2001 Bybee Memoconspired with George W. Bush and his endless and indeterminate ‘War on Terror’ ideology to redefine the meaning of torture so as to escape the rule of international law. Torture, in essence was distinguished from ill treatment by being anything that brought you past the threshold of organ failure. Just as superpowers unilaterally redefined torture, the supranational WHO similarly conspires to redefine ‘pandemic’, ‘vaccine adverse reactions’ and ‘herd immunity’.

This same ‘War on Terror’ US administration was also accused of ‘reverse-engineering’ interrogation and torture survival techniques in the pursuit of torturing detainees into ‘learned helplessness’ by concealing them under the euphemism of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. This is reminiscent of the poor excuse for the US outsourcing and funding ‘gain of function’ studies to create deadly viral bioweapons at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This official Sino-American collaboration was reverse-engineering a deadly chimaeric bat coronavirus virus purportedly to second-guess the potential for spillover into a future human pandemic. That any responsible state should fund this, and particularly within enemy superpower territory is extraordinary and remains unsatisfactorily addressed.

Bush Jr.’s US physicians, psychologists and nurses who assisted in his redefined torture by preventing detainees from dying during torture escaped concerted attempts to sanction them in the US. The American Medical Association (AMA) and American Psychological Association remained notably passive in their condemnation, and did not move to professionally discipline a single member impugned in such crimes. It is notable the AMA proactively called for the punishment of unethical doctors in 1949 when it testified at Nuremberg. Similarly, some now propose for the psychologists of ‘SAGE’ to be brought to book by their regulatory body following members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviour (SPI-B) expressing regret for unethically terrorising a nation. Again, it is unlikely to succeed given the current extreme political climate.

This is the same split-loyalty conflict many medics face, today. It may only loom largely only in their suppressed subconsciousness. Patient or institution? Patient or State? The accepted medical culture becomes distorted by alternative motives and imperatives. Prior to Covid, aside from torture and ill-treatment in wartime, the most illustrative peacetime UK scenario that medical split-loyalty could occur in was prisons and in NHS and social care outsourced to commercial providers. Now it is preying daily on every sentient NHS doctor and nurses’ mind.

Nazi Germany’s Doctors.

What distinguishes Nazis and the global War on Covid from the US War on Terror’s transgressions is the added salt of population medicine. The moral and ethical rift between it and the hippocratic healing of the individual patient are not immediately obvious. The consequences are even more disturbing. Population medicine is cold, morally distant, callous and prejudicial. The individual is forsaken for the group. It is the perfect weapon for tyrants.

I can do no better to illustrate this by quoting an abstract from a medical paper entitled ‘Why did so many German doctors join the Nazi Party early?’

“During the Weimar Republic in the mid-twentieth century, more than half of all German physicians became early joiners of the Nazi Party, surpassing the party enrollments of all other professions. From early on, the German Medical Society played the most instrumental role in the Nazi medical program, beginning with the marginalization of Jewish physicians, proceeding to coerced “experimentation,” “euthanization,” and sterilization, and culminating in genocide via the medicalization of mass murder of Jews and others caricatured and demonized by Nazi ideology.

Given the medical oath to “do no harm,” many postwar ethical analyses have strained to make sense of these seemingly paradoxical atrocities. Why did physicians act in such a manner? Yet few have tried to explain the self-selected Nazi enrollment of such an overwhelming proportion of the German Medical Society in the first place.

This article lends insight into this paradox by exploring some major vulnerabilities, motives, and rationalizations that may have predisposed German physicians to Nazi membership—professional vulnerabilities among physicians in general (valuing conformity and obedience to authority, valuing the prevention of contamination and fighting against mortality, …, economic factors and motives …

Of particular significance for future research and education is the manner in which the persecution of Jewish physician colleagues was rationalized in the name of medical ethics itself. Giving proper consideration to the forces that fueled “Nazi Medicine” is of great importance, as it can highlight the conditions and motivations that make physicians susceptible to misapplications of medicine, and guide us toward prevention of future abuse.”

It would seem our species never retains lessons. However, Germany’s judicial system is providing some illumination in a post-enlightenment Europe (even as one German judge’s home was raided by police and his anti-government decision overturned) with a recent new anti-lockdown decision.

Two jabbed patients, and a conscience pricked

I am not impervious to these societal pressures. Two recent patients pricked my conscience. The first, a 29 year old lady rang concerned and wishing to conceive for the first time. She had always experienced regular monthly menstrual periods until April 2nd this year. But in that month she had three. I glanced at her records and noticed she had her first Covid jab March 30th. What should I say? It could have been coincidence. Many doctors, given the rampant mainstream censorship would still at that point not be aware of the potential fertility, coagulopathy, post-menopausal bleeding, miscarriage and menstrual risks. Many are too busy, and trust the script. I, however, knew of possible mechanisms of risk to male and female reproductive systems.

If it were my relative I could have spoken my mind. Normally my patients are as precious as my family. However, we live in exceptional times and I am a societal pariah, so I decided to test the waters. “How was your first Covid jab?” The reply was emphatically unconcerned, “Oh, absolutely fine, no problem at all.” I reasoned further: if she were minded, she would understand I asked for a reason, and perhaps have already researched the temporal link to her jab and her novel symptoms. Women who are desperate to achieve a hard-fought and valued pregnancy are normally scrupulous about their health. What could I do? To frighten her off the state panacea mid-course and suggest it may be the reason she may never conceive did not seem to be anything other than heretically alarmist and an impossible dilemma.

I worked through my basic checklist of medical ethics on the hoof: Primum non nocere, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, Justice and Autonomy.

I had tried to plant a seed of caution, but she had thrown it to the wind. Any potential damage was notionally already half done, and besides I did not have the state, nor her on my side. Had she asked me before committing to it, I would have suggested she confirm for herself (and with her ‘vaccinator’) my understanding that adequate animal and human trials had not yet been conducted to reassure us of the risks in pregnant or fecund females first. Do I report it to the MHRA, having not said a jot to the patient? On balance I decided I would.

The next was 57 year old alcoholic. I knew his current intake of four litres of White Lightning daily was actually a reduction for him. Even so, lockdown had made him drink more this year. The notes were complex and very involved over the last 4 weeks, and his request was unrelated to my concern. This patient had developed a coagulopathy in the last 4 weeks and had been in and out of hospital several times. This in itself is not unusual for someone with liver cirrhosis. What was unusual was the way in which this cirrhotic bled. He had developed some unusual form of florid, bruising (I wasn’t there to decide what type, and this might have guided a more specific diagnosis) to both legs and soles of his feet. His platelets simultaneously plummeted to levels just shy of transfusion range.

The hospital medics had gone for the most alcoholically prejudicial diagnosis, in spite of the atypical presentation. They dutifully gave vitamin K to ‘improve’ his coagulation and advised the patient to seek expert help to safely reduce his alcohol intake. Then I saw it. Only that week he had attended for follow-up bloods and had a second AZ jab. When was the first jab? A week or so prior to the bruising and hospital admissions.

Unless one is working with a paediatric case, working with the immunocompromised or checking for tetanus immunity, no doctor is trained to or has time to routinely delve into a full vaccination history. The convenient assumption and narrative is they are safe, effective and do not cause significant disease. I only noticed by chance and curiosity.

Again a similar medical dilemma befell me. Do I throw the cat amongst the pigeons and terrify him? He had already accepted both jabs. This was a damage-limitation exercise, and something of academic interest. Again an oblique question, “Did you have the bloods before your second jab?” The reply was in two parts, “Yes,” satisfied my academic interest. If he started to bruise again, at least we had baseline bloods. He followed up with the corollary to my question, “Why you asking, Doc?” My answer was incomplete, “Oh, I just wanted to clarify which came first for the future, it wasn’t clear from your notes, and it is important to know for the record.” He did not push any further. We talked some more and I safety-netted: if he had any problems, and further bleeding tendency whatsoever he was to let us know and seek medical attention urgently.

Am I right in my concerns? It’s a moot point. Did I do the right thing? I don’t know, but I did my best to retrospectively limit the harm to the mind, body and spirit of my patient. Do I report to the MHRA, again I decided, yes. He, more than the first patient is now more likely to pick up on a potential cause-effect relationship should matters worsen for him a second time.

Sadly, he was readmitted to the hospital specialists, but they did not seem to suspect he could have an intra-abdominal thrombosis, such as a one of the recognised complications I read of in a research paper on the AstraZeneca jab: a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Not even when the red flags of his portal hypertension, his symptoms, the vaccine and ironically his previous vitamin K treatment all pointed that way. I know this because they have not thought to test his D-dimer on several missed opportunities.

The research paper’s proposed genetic mechanisms for these too frequent, fatal and horrifying ‘vaccine’ complications are extremely concerning in themselves. But what if the truth is even simpler, and worse. What if the problem is an interaction between a common upper respiratory tract virus (such as the chimpanzee adenovirus gene vector of the AZ vaccine) combined with a spike protein cofactor? What does this mean for such vaccinated patients this winter exposed to SARS-CoV-2? Why has this dangerous genetic therapy not been banned? Why are my patients still been given it by my NHS colleagues?

For a clinician, this kind of iatrogenic clinical risk and confusion creates a chaotic, impossible backdrop on which to practice safe, effective clinical medicine. It is the kind of confusion that commercial healthcare and Pharma profit and thrive upon.

My patients both trust the system, but their GP no longer does. The whole point of a treatment is to heal, and not to not harm. It is not there to irrationally assuage the fear of a propagandised, state-terrorised population. It remains difficult not to conclude that for most of the population, the best vaccine out there remains naturally-acquired live, unattenuated SARS-CoV-2 by a large margin.

Pseudo-vaccines, alternatives and risk

If you want a real world, sobering rendition of the fractional Covid jab benefits, take a look at the absolute risk ratio statistics. When one hears a Yale professor of epidemiology suggest 60% of new COVID cases are in vaccinated people, one should pay attention.

If what we do know of the risks of injecting gene therapies coding for potentially unmitigated bio-toxic, pro-inflammatory and pro-coagulopathic peptide production comes to fruition with other concerns regarding prion disease, placental development and antibody-dependent enhancement, we could have the mother of all global health crises. But it does not end there. If the gene, its antigen, mutated antigen, or a related antibody is transmissible via materno-fetal, breast-feeding, hereditary or sexual routes we could have a hell humanity may never fully recover from.

We have already seen evidence this spring that some of the frailer ‘vaccinated’ have increased rates of infection and hospital admission in one study. We should be concerned at suggestions the main Covid risk group becomes infected and ill after experimental injection. We have already seen a surge of ‘cases’ in many countries coinciding with the start of mass injecting. In India this is blamed by the UK government on an ‘Indian variant’ cover story, which is essentially very much (99.7%) similar to any of the other thousands of SAR-CoV-2 variants we have been trained to irrationally fear. Conversely, it is scientifically equally valid to propose that injections may be driving the increased illness.

If COVID-19 continues to behave seasonally in the UK, we cannot say with certainty until winter that the injections have done anything to improve or worsen the outcomes of COVID-19 affliction. It could simply be the seasonal summer lull in general respiratory illness.

Thus, if there is a similar affliction rate this coming winter we could reasonably conclude the pseudo-vaccines have done nothing to change outcome and we must learn to accept the risk with Liberty intact. I am of the reasonable alternative proposition that nothing we have done so far has or could have significantly mitigated outcomes. It may even have made our present and future far worse. But all this is heretical.

I am sure the government will spin this (or an increase in deaths) as ‘it would have been worse’, and ‘we need more designer, commercial gene therapy injections, more PPE, more testing’ whilst mandating more never-ending incarceration for more insignificant variants.

If there is an increase in Covid-affliction, (the word ‘case’ has become meaningless in a totalitarian and technocratic Britain) however much CMO Whitty wishes us to believe he will regard it just like flu this coming winter, the current ‘Indian’ variant summertime madness suggests the government has no intention of any such sanity. Yet, it continues to dismiss alternative safe, pre-existing treatments proven in the field. If it had acknowledged and backed them, Pharma would never have received its Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) licenses and government indemnity to experiment on the world on a flimsy pretext. Moreover, how can a legally valid vaccine EUA be given to something which does not meet the medical definition of ‘vaccine’?

Some of my more enlightened colleagues in higher risk specialties are taking prophylactic ivermectin. I have a ready stock, should I or my family get symptoms. It would be one of the first therapeutics I reach for. Yet the government prefer forcing experimental genetic biotoxins into NHS staff, and the GMC could discipline a doctor for treating self and family with anything, let alone ivermectin. The NHS continues to refuse to approve ivermectin as evidence for its safety and effectiveness in COVID-19 mounts and mounts.

In India, where there was a recent increase in Covid cases and deaths coinciding with the vaccine roll-out, states have returned to ivermectin and cases correspondingly are falling. Yet, in India there may be a WHO campaign of suppressing such cheap effective alternatives, to which the Indian Bar Association is responding against. A Nobel prize-winning virologist reinforces concerns that inappropriate ‘vaccination’ is making matters worse.

The Pharma-State cartel has us cornered: its way or no way. What is the use of having decades of clinical experience and high professional ethical standards if they are dismissed as quaint irrelevancies in the blink of an eye?

State-sponsored meta-pandemics

My greatest short-term concern is that the above mechanisms of gene therapy destabilising the inflammatory, coagulation and immune systems come to disastrous fruition this winter with an additional mountain of new chronic disease. Of course, the government will not acknowledge this, not even when its precarious edifice collapses on top of it. They will say that more pseudo-vaccinations are the key to saving us from something 99.97% never needed saving from.

I do hope I am wrong, but much of what many marginalised scientists and medics like me have hoped was not right so far seems to increasingly have sound basis. Maybe another tragic thalidomide-like salutary narrative is the only thing that can save us? From official figures, this Pharma scandal is already far worse than thalidomide, and disproportionately high compared with all other conventional vaccinations.

Vaccine playbooks and pandemic simulations have been well-planned. In 2021 those labours are on the cusp of successful fruition. The US swine flu debacle of 1976 is a fable of why not to mix politics, vaccination and profit with haste. The 2009 swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix (whose chronic, maiming effects play out to this day) had far fewer reported harmful effects before it was pulled, yet no one considers stopping these Covid jabs, even when a body of senior experts demands it. The same rush to develop, hasty wrong-thinking and turning of blind eyes to data occurred then, as now.

The phoney War on Covid, with its haute couture mainstream media propaganda creates mega profits for the elites and hyperinflation for us. We have a global Pharma empire subjugating nations as if they were turning the screw on naive colonies. The time has come for mass non-cooperation and prison-filling.

A friend is terrified of the coerced needless Covid jabbing of her children. She is a pharmaceutical chemist. She knows Pharma, “I’ll have to take it, no choice, but not my kids.” She does not apprehend a severe medical risk from Covid, just one of losing her job and her freedom. What if she is maimed or killed by such folly and her precious children go into care? The ‘care’ system’s rabid tick-box priority will be to risk injecting them, too. I wonder if jabbing our children will be a national redline, but last year giving this to an eight month baby would have been a crime for company, medic and parent. Today, it is state-sponsored child abuse.

Over 5000 US and 1200 UK deaths and over half a million UK/US adverse reactions (ADR) have been officially recorded as suspected with the various COVID-19 injections. Europe has many thousands more. Collation of vaccine ADRs is a voluntary, haphazard cottage industry compared to the force of Covid statistics gathering. How long can Pharma and Government lead this cult of denial and death with such impunity? Why haven’t Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson pulled these? Why do they compound this iatrogenic disaster further by going for our children? This is not only a disaster, it is criminally reckless at the very least. In the presence of all the deaths, they have knowledge and there is a subjective and objective criminal intent of sorts that can be imputed from their conduct. Johnson must smell serious trouble and have concocted a legal exit strategy, perhaps this is why he has very publicly and irrationally gone on record stating that lockdowns are far more effective than his health secretary’s injections. This is the biggest potential case of gross negligence or corporate manslaughter in UK history, but you won’t see the CPS willingly consider this. Grenfell, tragic as it is, pales in comparison.

Moreover, crimes against humanity and genocide as per the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Articles 6 and 7 cover many of the possible criminal consequences of government Covid measures. Apartheid is one of those crimes (imagine the biological, two-tier segregation and prejudice of our species which will inevitably follow ‘vaccination’ passports). Biological experimentation is even prohibited by the Geneva Convention. If only we were in a conventional war, POWs and civilians alike would be protected.

Hope?

I live in a vain hope that the unethical, seismic changes in medical culture I have witnessed over the preceding 16 months will be reversed, but I see a worsening personal and professional outcome before me and the world. One which means I will inevitably have to leave a profession I no longer recognise as noble nor benevolent.

The balance of perception of risk of injection versus an infection is for the individual to take. If it is a question of mass effect, herd immunity and ‘might is right’, then the injected, fearful, coercive majority have nothing to fear. Who knows, perhaps the non-injected may have everything to fear from their mutated, super-spreading, spike protein-shedding, magnetised hysterical counterparts, yet they remain uncommonly calm, and do not seem to begrudge them their unwise, hasty decisions. All they seem to be asking is, please respect our personal choice at this crazy time.

Given the actual mortality statistics had no resemblance to the terror-inducing Imperial College modelling why do most still behave as if these were accurate? I will reasonably rely on my age, lack of co-morbidities cross-immunity, natural acquired immunity and good nutrition. I’m still alive and well after one and a half years (apart from lockdown effects), and my personal and professional medical experiences and research do not confirm the media propaganda. Just as most of us do not need coercion to eat, in a real pandemic no one needs to be hoodwinked into a true, necessary vaccination. The new players in the debate are the public-private partnerships of coercion, fear-mongering propaganda and censorship of sense. I reasonably pay no credence to these.

What we have is another microbial risk to life, and one far less in magnitude to many others. Each individual and parent has a natural right to decide how she manages it. The logical solution can never be mandatory experimental gene technology for all. Yet this is what medical-industrial complex compels the world to believe. Isn’t the right to remain passive and accept the default, natural consequences an even more fundamental philosophical and ethical position? I far prefer illness and death by omission than by commission in the absence of being sure. Or is it better to have been jabbed and lost rather than to never be jabbed at all?

My mind turns to war again. Despised conscientious objector? Is that me, or am I better or worse than that? Is remaining non-jabbed a pacifist or moral position? Or is it a morally despicable, passive violence upon the victimised injected. Injecting eight billion with experimental compounds leaves no comparator and no trail. Surely the experimentally injected would want a foolish but willing control group to gloat upon?

What of the fate of The Covid Physician? I constantly imagine an impending cultural clash of civilisations in a pokey GP consultation room with my Clinical Lead. Have you had your vaccine? No. Why not? Why? Deadlock. You do realise you can’t practice medicine without a vaccination passport? Silence. There would be no point in complex argument. One doctor versus another. Neither is invalid. There is no point in indulging in complex, illusory bioethical or immunological rhetoric to force your will upon another. I don’t tell you to inject substances into your body, you don’t tell me to. It’s a choice. We both should have individual sovereignty over our bodies. The population outcome is the sum of all our choices. It is perfectly liberal and democratic.

And that will be it. I will be gone. I do wonder if I could struggle along in a telemedicine role, working from home. But as someone who struggled with the brainless, careless algorithmic and centralised concept of ‘NHS Direct’ in the late 1990s, it is unlikely. In less than 25 years I have witnessed the commercial capture of ethical medical practice. COVID-19 is the denouement.

I no longer feel I belong in the NHS. It has been weaponised by the government into treatment coercion, lack of consent, and lack of patient confidentiality. Its nonchalance in arbitrarily condemning perfectly treatable, septic over-70 year olds to home palliative care pathways and unnecessarily excluding patients from their vital healthcare are abuses. I am a hippocratic anachronism. Too old to embrace these woke totalitarian times but too young to retire, and too unvaccinated to have a meaningful and dignified future in the state-sanctioned new abnormal. I have noted that some of my respected, more senior NHS colleagues have already jumped ship and taken unexpected early retirement amidst the chaos of the great reset. A braver doctor than me, Dr. Samuel White, has resigned from a GP partnership in open protest.

Perhaps like the WHO, NHS Pensions would consider redefining my un-injectedness as a physical or mental illness (pseudo-vaccine hesitancy?), and pension me off early on ill-health grounds? I am not so dignified and selfless to turn down personal escape.

No one knows what the future holds, least of all those who believe they control the future. What I do know is we have been coaxed to jump like lemmings head first off a cliff into unchartered, unnecessary medical risk.

The state is attacking us, failing to protect us and denuding us of any right to self-defences. The human species has gone where angels long feared to tread.

The Covid Physician is 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