Dec 7, 2021
seen from China
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Kazakhstan
seen from Poland
seen from Brazil
seen from China
seen from Poland
seen from China
seen from France
seen from Yemen
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Indonesia
seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from Israel
seen from South Korea
seen from India
There are no exemptions to informed consent
Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Centre, emphasised the importance of informed consent regarding vaccination in a presentation to the Florida Department of Health.
She emphasised that there are no exemptions to informed consent because science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible and vaccines can cause harm.
On 16 March, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and President of the National Vaccine Information Centre (“NVIC”), gave a presentation on informed consent ethic to Florida Department of Health employees.
Titled ‘The Informed Consent Principle: A Guide for Public Health Policy and Medical Ethics’, Loe Fisher began her presentation with a video of a debate she had with a medical doctor from Johns Hopkins University about mandatory vaccination in 1997.
https://rumble.com/embed/v75y5fq/?pub=4 National Vaccine Information Centre: Grand Rounds Presentation Florida Department of Health, March 16, 2026, Tallahassee, Florida, uploaded 7 April 2026 (59 mins)
The text of her presentation has been published on the NVIC website HERE. The following are some highlights from the presentation.
The 1997 debate Loe Fisher had with a medical doctor was the first time the subject of informed consent to medical risk-taking was discussed on national television. It was also the first time it was suggested that there is a possible link between the administration of multiple vaccines in early childhood and increases in chronic disease and disability among children.
The US vaccine safety and informed consent movement was launched in 1982 by parents of DPT vaccine-injured children. The world of vaccines has changed dramatically since 1982: there are more college-educated parents today who conduct their own research and so are aware of the risks of vaccination, particularly during the response to the covid pandemic, where they were exposed to lockdowns, mandatory masking, online censorship about the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and mandatory use of an mRNA biological product that was labelled a vaccine.
The covid vaccine not only failed to prevent infection, but it is also associated with an enormous number of suspected injuries. The covid vaccination campaign resulted in over 1.6 million covid vaccine adverse event reports, including heart and brain inflammation and death, being made to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (“VAERS”), Loe Fisher said.
Despite this, many doctors still dismiss vaccine reactions as "normal" or "coincidental" and unrelated to the vaccination just given.
It’s no surprise then that there isa serious crisis of trust in public health policy and law, with public perception of the safety and effectiveness of vaccination and the wisdom of mandatory vaccination laws being challenged at the grassroots level.
It’s not just covid vaccines that are being eyed by the public with scepticism.
"There are questions about whether atypically manipulating the immune system to mount inflammatory responses over and over again by giving multiple doses of vaccines in early childhood and throughout life could be an important co-factor in the rise in chronic disease and disability in our society,” Loe Fisher said.
“There are unresolved issues discussed in the medical literature, such as asymptomatic infection and transmission of pertussis and measles in highly vaccinated populations that give evidence for waning immunity and also the evolution of microbes into vaccine-resistant strains.
“These facts are being debated even as efforts by-industry backed corporations to censor those conversations in the digital public square continues in this country and in Europe.”
She then explained why measles vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, which we haven’t gone into here. You can read about this beginning with the section of her presentation titled ‘Reported Cases of Measles: There’s More to the Story’.
The measles vaccine is pivotal because the introduction of the measles vaccine in the mid-20th century marked the beginning of a crusade to eradicate the virus from the earth with mandatory measles vaccination campaigns, similar to the smallpox vaccine. This crusade has expanded to include multiple vaccines, with the number of doses given to children increasing significantly over the years.
The number of vaccine doses given to children has exploded from 23 doses of 7 vaccines between two months and six years old in 1983 to over 70 doses of 17 vaccines given to children between the day of birth and age 18 today. This expansion of vaccine mandates has raised important questions about the ethics of medicine and the importance of individual human life.
Loe Fisher then explained the history of the vaccine mandates, beginning with the smallpox vaccine and the public protests to it, including the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case.
In 1809, the first mandate for US citizens to be vaccinated against smallpox was enacted by the state of Massachusetts. In 1855, the State’s legislature became the first to pass a law requiring children to show proof of smallpox inoculation to attend school.
In 1905, Henning Jacobson, a Lutheran pastor, refused to be re-vaccinated due to severe reactions he and his son had experienced to previous vaccines. His case ultimately made its way to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling, agreed by 7 of the 9 judges, established the constitutional authority of state legislatures to pass mandatory smallpox vaccination laws, with the court arguing that the "greater good" rationale outweighs individual liberty and autonomy.
“If you take the time to read the majority opinion, it is characterised by a provincial view that medical doctors are omnipotent and incapable of error. The judges conveniently ignored the lack of scientific and medical knowledge about the unknown biological mechanisms and potential genetic or other high-risk factors involved in smallpox vaccine reactions that can cause individuals to suffer injury and death. Instead, they insisted that police powers of the state must be employed to force a one-size-fits-all vaccine mandate to protect the health and security of the state,” Loe Fisher said.
“121 years later, it is clear that the categorical statements those seven judges made in 1905 are unscientific, illogical and frightening.”
Yet, the Jacobson v. Massachusetts ruling is the most important Supreme Court opinion in the history of American public health law, and it has been upheld and strengthened in numerous court cases over the past century.
The “Greater Good,” Eugenics and Forced Sterilisation
The 1927 Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell, led by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a self-identified Darwinian atheist and utilitarian, endorsed the use of force to achieve the “greater good,” and gave the state of Virginia the authority to sterilise Carrie Buck, a 17-year-old single mother who was incorrectly judged to be mentally retarded.
The utilitarian premise that "the ends justify the means" was also echoed in the concept of Social Darwinism and eugenics, which was viewed as a new science by intellectuals and social reformers during the 1920s and 1930s. Prominent figures such as American biologist Charles Davenport and Margaret Sanger endorsed the practice of eugenics.
By 1932, compulsory sterilisation laws had been passed in 29 US states and the practice of eugenics was widely endorsed by leading US scientists, medical doctors, lawyers, professors, businessmen, politicians, philanthropists and social reformers, before being adopted by Hitler in 1933 as a central piece of his plan to protect the common good by eliminating people he considered to be a threat to the health, security and economic well-being of the State.
The concept of eugenics was also integrated into US public school textbooks, with the National Education Association having a Committee on Racial Well-Being to help teachers incorporate eugenics content, and courses on eugenics being offered at prestigious universities such as Harvard, Columbia, Cornell and Brown.
The implementation of eugenics policies in the United States led to the involuntary sterilisation of over 60,000 mentally disabled or chronically ill Americans by the time it became politically incorrect in the 1940s.
Establishment of The Nuremberg Code
Hitler was influenced by the US eugenic laws and incorporated them into his own ideology that blended utilitarianism, social Darwinism and nationalism.
Hitler's ideology led to the identification of certain groups, including severely handicapped children, the chronically sick and the mentally ill, as "useless eaters" who were considered a threat to national health, security and prosperity. The list of “useless eaters” eventually expanded to include minorities, the elderly and those who held certain religious or political beliefs.
The 1947 Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, where doctors were charged with crimes against humanity for conducting horrific scientific experiments, including vaccine experiments, on captive children and adults in concentration camps, discredited utilitarianism as a pseudo-ethic and led to the establishment of the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code, which was developed as a result of the Doctors' Trial, emphasises the importance of voluntary consent and the protection of individual inviolability. The Code’s first principle states that the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential and must be given without any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or coercion.
The Nuremberg Code has become a timeless guide to ethical behaviour for scientists, physicians and public health officials. And its principles have been widely accepted, including the affirmation of the natural rights to autonomy, protection of bodily integrity and freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In contrast to post-World War II Europe, where the horrors of the Holocaust and forced scientific experimentation led to a re-evaluation of eugenics and utilitarianism, the United States did not require its prominent citizens who had promoted and participated in eugenics to reflect on their actions or face public disgrace, resulting in a lack of awareness among younger generations about the history of utilitarianism and eugenics in the US.
The current education system in public schools prioritises science and maths but often neglects the study of philosophy and its impact on human history, including the dangers of utilitarian thinking that led to the acceptance of eugenics in America in the early 20th century.
The influence of utilitarian philosophers like Dr. Peter Singer, who believes it is ethical to euthanise disabled babies and elderly or disabled persons who are deemed to have no useful purpose in society, is a concern that younger generations should be aware of, as they will be steering the nation into the future.
The Importance of Individual Freedom and Choice
The freedom to acquire knowledge and follow one's conscience is a fundamental, inalienable right. It is essential to protect this right, as it allows people to make choices that align with their values and morals, and helps them to avoid harm to themselves or their children.
The ability to make choices about one's own health and well-being is a crucial aspect of individual freedom, and if the state can force individuals to undergo medical procedures against their will, it can lead to a slippery slope where other individual freedoms are taken away in the name of the “greater good.” This is why it is essential to protect the right to informed consent and the freedom to make choices about one's own body.
The NVIC advocates for the repeal of vaccine mandates, allowing the law of supply and demand to dictate the use of vaccines, where people can choose to use vaccines that they consider safe, necessary and effective, and reject those they consider unsafe, unnecessary and ineffective.
The principle of informed consent to medical risk-taking should be codified into US public health policy and law, as there are no exemptions to informed consent. Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible and vaccines can cause harm. Preserving the public's health requires respect for personal liberty.
Study that claims Pfizer and AstraZeneca covid injections do not increase the risk of thrombosis, heart attacks and strokes is lying
About 90% of those who accepted a covid vaccine in England received a Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca injection.
A study published in July 2024 stated that incidences of thrombosis, heart attacks and strokes were “generally” lower in those who received a covid vaccine – but that was just the text. The data published in the same study contradicted what the researchers wrote.
In the following, Dr. Michael Tomlinson discusses what the study’s data actually showed: incidence rates of cardiovascular events were substantially higher after vaccination with the Pfizer and AstraZeneca covid “vaccines.”
The study’s conclusion that the net cardiovascular effect of the vaccines is beneficial is deceitful and constitutes scientific misinformation. According to the study’s own data, “most covid-19 vaccinations increased cardiac risks,” Dr. Tomlinson writes.
The Heart of the Matter: Cardiac Risks of covid-19 Vaccines
By Dr. Michael Tomlinson, as published by Brownstone Institute on 4 January 2025
Evidence continues to mount indicating that the global response to the covid-19 pandemic was counterproductive and harmful, yet mainstream opinion continues to proclaim that it was a triumph.
This is based on scientific papers that often manipulate the data or present it selectively.
Exhibit 1: ‘Cohort study of cardiovascular safety of different covid-19 vaccination doses among 46 million adults in England’ by Ip et al. The authors conclude that “the incidence of common arterial thrombotic events (mainly acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke) was generally lower after each vaccine dose, brand and combination” and “the incidence of common venous thrombotic events (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination.”
This seems to be a straightforward outcome, based on a most inclusive sample - the whole population of England. However, Table 2 shows incidence rates of cardiovascular events were substantially higher (nearly double for arterial events) after the first dose of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, compared to no vaccination:
This contradicts the text: “The incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications was generally lower after each dose of each vaccine brand.” Of course, “generally” is a weasel word. It means that the incidence of complications after each dose was lower except where it was higher. Incidence rates for the Moderna vaccine were indeed much lower, at least in the medium term (up to 26 weeks), but rates for AstraZeneca and Pfizer were much higher.
Incidence rates after the second dose were indeed “generally” lower in the tables. But Supplementary Table 3 reveals that the definition of “no vaccination” for Dose 2 in fact means the interval between a first dose and a second dose. The largest increases in incidence rates are for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca Dose 1 vaccination groups; the only cohorts compared with a true vaccination naïve control group.
Supplementary Table 4 shows substantial increases in incidence rates for Dose 1 broken down for all eleven cardiac events measured (and two composites).
Returning to Table 2, the vaccinated group and the unvaccinated groups have comparable numbers of events, but the vaccinated groups are calculated with reference to approximately half the number of person years. If we apply the incidence rates to the numbers of people in each group (at the top of Table 1), we can calculate that vaccination with the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines brought about in the region of 91,000 additional serious cardiac events (euphemistically described as “complications”) compared to the no vaccination group in a little over one year. On the other hand, the Moderna group experienced over 34,000 fewer events compared with the no vaccination group, leading to an overall balance of around 56,000 additional events. How many of the people who had additional heart attacks, strokes and thromboses subsequently died? The results are shocking, but after further processing, we are told they are “reassuring.”
To obscure the alarming results, the text relies not on the straight incidence rates but on hazard ratios “adjusting for a wide range of potential confounding factors.”
It is not apparent why any adjustment was necessary. On the one hand, “There were few differences between subgroups defined by demographic and clinical characteristics,” and on the other hand, “we addressed potential confounding by adjusting for a wide range of demographic factors and prior diagnoses.” Were there significant differences in demographics, or weren’t there?
Further on, we are told that “subgroup analyses by age group, ethnic group, previous history of the event of interest and sex were conducted” and outcomes “were generally similar across subgroups.” What were the potentially confounding factors that had to be adjusted for if not these? How could an incidence rate of approximately 1.9 for the Pfizer Dose 1 arterial events be adjusted to a hazard ratio of 0.9?
If an adjustment leads to the reversal of findings of this magnitude, then it must be done transparently and with full substantiation. Without further explanation, the adjustment seems extraordinary and unjustifiable if outcomes were similar across subgroups and no differentiating factor is identified. They are statistical artefacts of low credibility and should not be used to guide policy.
This is a well-established academic trope - something that seems on the face of it to be black is not really black, but when “adjusted” in an undisclosed and untransparent way, has many white characteristics.
Table 2 compares the “primary course” rates with the “after booster vaccination” rates, where the Pfizer incidence rates are again higher for this last dose in the series, compounding the primary dose increase. I would have thought the authors should have commented on this, given that it contradicts the conclusions of the paper. This rise in the rate for vaccinated people with subsequent vaccinations is unlikely to be and is not, in fact, explained by confounding factors. We are told that both second-dose-vaccinated and booster-vaccinated cohorts were older than the first-dose cohort, so age does not seem to explain the rise. Other confounding factors are not revealed. Did they exist for any of the cohorts?
The authors also resort to breaking the data down into slices (dose by dose) in a way which prioritises the micro over the macro perspective, and obscures strategic synthesis.
After three doses (including boosters), how did the incidence rates of the vaccinated groups compare with those of the unvaccinated groups in toto, over the whole study period? Were they higher or lower overall? This is not revealed. What about after a year? Two years? Three years? Why are the Moderna rates so much lower, and why do they not discuss this? On the basis of the figures in the table, repeated doses of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines pose unacceptable risks. Yet these were the main vaccines deployed in England in this period, approximately 90% of the total.
But on the basis of these misleading and selected statistics, unasked and unanswered questions, the authors triumphantly conclude:
These findings, in conjunction with the long-term higher risk of severe cardiovascular and other complications associated with COVID-19, offer compelling evidence supporting the net cardiovascular benefit of COVID vaccination.
This is a whitewash. Their unadjusted data show the reverse - most covid-19 vaccinations increased cardiac risks. The fact that the authors studiously refrain from referring to or discussing the markedly adverse incidence ratios after vaccination is strongly indicative of bias, although at least they included them in the tables, taking a risk that close readers might notice their significance.
Many other studies perpetuate the whitewash, based on a zero-sum assumption that there are two mutually exclusive groups: unvaccinated people who fall victim to covid-19 and vaccinated people who don’t. But the Cleveland Clinic preprint by Shrestha et al found that:
Consistent with similar findings in many prior studies … a higher number of prior vaccine doses was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. The exact reason for this finding is not clear. It is possible that this may be related to the fact that vaccine-induced immunity is weaker and less durable than natural immunity ... Thus, the short-term protection provided by a COVID-19 vaccine comes with a risk of increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in the future.
They reached the same conclusion in their peer-reviewed report on the effectiveness of the 2019 bivalent vaccines: “The risk of covid-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior covid-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”
Studies which show vaccinated groups have much lower rates of infection than unvaccinated groups are usually founded on the “case-counting window bias,” as explained in the peer-reviewed report on the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna by Alessandria et al. The vaccinated have lower numbers of infections in a defined window of time, but not necessarily beyond it. By contrast, the Cleveland Clinic studies above use a longer and additive timeframe, and Ip et al do not seem to exclude the first 14 days, which is a strength of their base statistics.
There is the risk that both the vaccines and the virus might cause similar harms to the cardiovascular system. Jean Marc Sabatier of Aix-Marseilles University has been warning against this from early in the pandemic. In 2021, he and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed paper: ‘The Renin-Angiotensin System: A Key Role in SARS-CoV-2-Induced COVID-19’. The paper explains:
In fact, the viral entrance promotes a downregulation of ACE2 followed by RAS balance dysregulation and an overactivation of the angiotensin II (Ang II)–angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) axis, which is characterised by a strong vasoconstriction and the induction of the profibrotic, proapoptotic and proinflammatory signalisations in the lungs and other organs. This mechanism features a massive cytokine storm, hypercoagulation, an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and subsequent multiple organ damage.
The model is depicted in Figure 1:
While the paper focuses almost entirely on covid-19, the disease, the implications of the model go to risks of the vaccine also. This is cautiously slipped into the explication of Figure 1 (my emphasis): “during SARS-CoV-2 infection or upon receiving a spike protein-based vaccine, the viral Spike (S) glycoprotein binding to ACE2 receptor induces overactivation of the ACE/Ang II/AT1R axis.”
So, we must consider the risk that, as well as the SARS-CoV-2 virus, some (if not all) vaccines might also induce overactivation of the ACE2 receptor and consequently the renin angiotensin system. There is no proof that they do, but there is equally no proof that they do not, and the model fits well with the Ip data on cardiovascular event incidence levels for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines (but not with the favourable Moderna figures – what is different about the Moderna vaccine?).
This would be an issue under any scenario, but even more so if the incidence of covid-19 increases with the number of vaccine doses previously received. The vaccinated can be repeatedly challenged by the spike protein, both in the form of the virus and in the form of the vaccines as well. The risks from infection are not obviated - the risks of vaccinations are added to them, not substituted for them.
There has been a torrent of papers on the effects of covid-19 vaccination, focusing on these limited windows of effectiveness. They display strong confirmation bias - data and findings apparently supporting effectiveness are welcomed with open arms despite obvious flaws, findings that overtly cast doubt on effectiveness or safety are vigorously contested and often succumb to a campaign to have them retracted. If the data are unfavourable, better to “adjust” them so you can reverse the conclusions. This constitutes scientific misinformation.
Although pro-vaccine papers sometimes have sophisticated technical values, they show little capability for strategic thinking.
Which is the preferable and lowest-risk strategy over the timeframe of the pandemic crisis:
- undergoing multiple vaccinations of short-term effectiveness, or - minimising exposure to the spike vaccine?
The scientific literature simply does not test this strategic comparison by comparing overall outcomes for the vaccinated from the point of vaccination to the end of the pandemic crisis period, compared with the truly unvaccinated. But what we do know from the Ip population-level study of England is that Dose 1 for the two most commonly used vaccines increased 11 out of 11 cardiac events, and a booster increased both arterial and venous events again for the Pfizer vaccine.
People should be free to make the strategic choice, guided by their health professionals, and should not be coerced into following the first strategy through mandates. Mandates should not risk creating severe adverse outcomes on a mass scale.
About the Author
Dr. Michael Tomlinson is a Higher Education Governance and Quality Consultant. He was formerly Director of the Assurance Group at Australia’s Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, where he led teams to conduct assessments of all registered providers of higher education (including all of Australia’s universities) against the Higher Education Threshold Standards. Before that, for twenty years, he held senior positions in Australian universities. He has been an expert panel member for a number of offshore reviews of universities in the Asia-Pacific region. Dr. Tomlinson is a Fellow of the Governance Institute of Australia and of the (international) Chartered Governance Institute.
Dr. René de Monchy, a psychiatrist with nearly five decades of medical experience, has submitted a testimony to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19.As well as the violation of inalienable rights and the damage to people’s lives those violations caused, he told the inquiry that the New Zealand government's mandatory vaccination policy violated the principles of informed consent, bodily autonomy and the right to refuse medical treatment, as stated in the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the Nuremberg Code.New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned was established to examine New Zealand's response to the pandemic and identify lessons for future preparedness.On 25 June 2024, the Minister of Internal Affairs announced that the Royal Commission would be conducted in two phases. Phase One covered the original terms of reference of the Royal Commission. The commission's first phase report was released in November 2024 and concluded in January 2025.Phase Two of the Inquiry began in 2024 and is focusing on matters of public concern not addressed in the first phase, such as vaccine safety and mandates. It received over 31,000 public submissions before the submissions portal closed on 27 April 2025. Last week the Chairman of the Inquiry said, “We will now begin the process of analysing all the submissions we have received.”The following is psychiatrist Dr. René de Monchy’s testimony to Phase 2 of the Royal Commission. Please note, while we have made a few minor edits to NZDSOS’ introduction, we have made no edits to Dr. Monchy’s submission, including changes from American spelling to British English, typographical errors and preferred style, e.g. “Covid” versus “covid.”Truth, Tyranny, and the Covid Years: A Doctor’s Testimony to the Royal CommissionBy New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (“NZDSOS”)We are grateful to present this thought-provoking and personal submission to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into covid-19 from Dr. René de Monchy, a psychiatrist with nearly five decades of medical experience and a long-standing commitment to ethical medical practice.In ‘Truth, Tyranny, and the Covid Years: A Doctor’s Testimony to the Royal Commission’, Dr. de Monchy reflects on his experiences during the covid response, both as a medical professional and as a citizen deeply concerned about human rights, informed consent and the erosion of core medical ethics. He reminds us that safeguarding medical ethics and individual rights must never be sacrificed, regardless of political pressure, public fear or perceived necessity.Truth, Tyranny, and the Covid Years: A Doctor’s Testimony to the Royal CommissionThe Royal Commission of Enquiry into ‘Covid-19 Lessons Learned’ in response to the Phase 2 Terms of Reference.22 April 2025Dear and esteemed CommissionersGrant Illingworth, Anthony Hill & Judy KavanaghPreambleI am deeply grateful to you as Commissioners, that you have committed yourselves to the mission of truth-finding, of the aspects of the Covid-19 period in New Zealand. I realise, in talking with many people, including my patients and friends who have either directly or indirectly suffered from the matters taken by the New Zealand authorities during that time, the hardship that this has caused to so many.My submission therefore is a plea that at last truth and information may see the light of day and for all voices to be heard, whatever their opinion of Covid-19 may be.Personal introductionMy name is Dr René de Monchy,a Medical Practitioner since 1973, Registration MCNZ8986, currently - again, after having been ‘mandated out’ - working as a psychiatrist in the Public Mental Health Services in Rotorua, Tauranga, and in private practice.Before becoming a specialist I worked as a general practitioner in New Zealand for 20 years, and 4 years as a doctor in an isolated rural area in Southern Africa. My professional background comprises ongoing clinical medical practice, endorsing the ethical and moral standards of clinical medicine and practice in New Zealand, according to the Oath of Hippocrates, which I literally swore at the end of my medical training. In the ethics of medical practice, the issues of a patient’s individual dignity, ’never to do harm’ and ‘informed consent’, hold a central place as part of age old medical practice and tradition.I was born in the Netherlands, only months after the Second World War.The history and examples of coercion and state demands to obey measures, that went against ones conscience, was always related to me by my parents, as my father was active in the Dutch Resistance, and in fact was knighted for his work for the Royal Air Force, hiding air crew who were shot down over Holland. I write this, as many of the government regulations during Covid-19 time in New Zealand bear a resemblance to what I was told in my youth about the third Reich and the abolishment of human rights. Similarly, the government measures during Covid-19 and the atmosphere of intentionally created fear, was a reminder for me of the stories of two friends of mine, who had grown up in East Germany, as something chillingly similar to what they had personally experienced. Personal situationI worked fulltime as a psychiatrist in both public and private mental health services, until October 2021, when I was suddenly “mandated out”. Within a quarter of an hour after receiving a telephone call, I was dismissed and ‘trespassed’ from all hospital grounds. This trespass has actually never officially been revoked, and therefore I could still be trespassed and committing a criminal offense by being on the property where I am employed. The lack of process, of being mandated out in a most brusque and disrespectful manner, after 48 years of unblemished medical practice with not even one complaint ever in this long career, either from patients or regulators, was a very serious life event. I refer to the attached video clip where I speak about this during two minutes.The reason for my being ‘mandated out’ was the fact that I simply could not comply with a mandatory inoculation of an experimental, genetically engineered, biochemical substance, falsely designated as vaccination, for a viral illness. This virus was of the Corona variety, which had been known for decades, and for which perfectly appropriate medications had been used for many years.In fact these medications, including Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, (which I had used hundreds of times in the endemic malaria area where I worked in Zimbabwe/Mozambique, without any untoward effects), Vitamin D, Quercetin etc, were from then on actively discouraged or forbidden to be prescribed by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.I later learnt that the Covid-19 vaccine could only be admitted by the Food & Drug Administration and regulatory agents in the US and in New Zealand under “emergency” regulation, if no existing appropriate medications were available. This aroused my suspicion as soon as I learned of this fact. This being ‘mandated out’ resulted in my losing my position as a Medical Specialist at Tauranga Hospital, for following my personal and professional conscience as I had done for almost half a century.For me, as a law abiding and responsible New Zealand citizen, a father and grandfather, a medical practitioner, and therefore a patient advocate, I could not believe how my country had so completely changed course into tyranny under the guise of ‘kindness’.The Covid-19 measures, as executed by the New Zealand Government, have had a disastrous effect on many fronts, macro- and micro bio-psycho-social, including education, economy, as well as the severely detrimental effects on the individual human immune system. It was clear after the first wave of Covid-19 deaths and injuries, mainly of old people or immune-compromised people similar to the year influenza cases, that the virus itself was not quite as pathogenic as first thought. The after-effects of the vaccination, especially myocarditis and other cardiac and neurological illnesses, and especially in young people following vaccination, were later only partially and reluctantly acknowledged by the Ministry of Health.In my own practice I have seen the after effects and the mental health deterioration of many patients due to the fear, the uncertainty, and the ongoing concerns about their life and health, and many people with increased psychiatric morbidity, especially mood disorders, suicidal ideation, and anxiety. I feel that this had been very poorly acknowledged by the Health Authorities, aided by the one-sidedness of the media, in which no contrary or even doubting voices or opinions were allowed!It is also clear that I am not alone in this mistrust in the media, as the New Zealand Bureau of Statistics showed “a reduction in trust in thew media” from a rating of 53% in 2020 to only 32% in 2025!Issue of Rights and the dignity of the individual person in New Zealand- After the Nazi atrocities in Germany, the German Constitution & Basic Law (1949) stated in Article (1):“Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community of peace and justice in the world”.- The New Zealand Bill of Rights states the same in Article 11 – “everyone has the right to refuse and undergo any medical treatment”, Article 13 – “Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”, and Article 14 – “freedom of expression”In my medical practice, this dignity and the inviolable right to bodily autonomy has always been my guiding professional principle, as at the time was also expressed in guidelines of the Medical Council.Therefore, for me the central issue was and remains “is the Covid-19 inoculation a legitimate accepted medical treatment or is it actually a medical experimentation?”This is important as the New Zealand Bill of Rights stipulates “everyone’s right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment”.The New Zealand Bill of Rights was, in respect of the Covid-19 regulations, declared as not valid, or “not absolute”, as stated by the Court of Appeal in NZTSOS vs The Minister of Covid in July 2024.Issue of Generally Approved Medical Procedure or ExperimentationI personally and professionally have a fundamental difficulty with accepting Covid-19 inoculation as a medical treatment rather than an experimental treatment, and similarly with the Court’s ruling setting aside the patient’s right under Article 11 of The New Zealand Bill of Rights, as this ‘treatment’:- Penetrates the human bodily integrity, mostly without informed consent.- Never been used on humans before.- Only had very brief and limited research in the first phases, and with no long-term research and/or research into effects on pregnancy and lactation, and the placebo/control ‘arm’ of the research had been obliterated after an unacceptable brief period of time.- Did not have full authorisation, as it was still in the phase of “Phase 3” research until 2025.Therefore, in my view, it was still an experimental procedure, for which the “Nuremberg Code” (1947) applies, of which each of the 10 Articles was transgressed in the case of the Covid-19 measures. The Nuremberg Code, after the trial of German physicians in 1945 and 1946, is considered a foundational document in medical ethics, and continues to form the basis of research guidelines. It states 10 basic articles, later renewed and confirmed at the Helsinki Declaration (1964):- Voluntary Consent:– the most fundamental principle is that participation in an experiment must be voluntary with no coercion or deception. The subject must be fully informed about the nature, risks and benefits of the experiment.- Ethical Justifications:- experiments shall only be conducted if they are likely to yield results that are beneficial to society, and cannot be obtained through less harmful methods.- Scientific foundation: - experiments must be based on prior knowledge and animal studies, and should be designed to avoid unnecessary suffering.- Risk Minimisation:- The risks to participants must be carefully considered and weighed against the potential benefits of the research. – The significant pre-marketing risks were known and published by the manufacturer and known by the NZ government, but kept confidential.- Qualified Personnel:- experiments must be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons, ensuring appropriate expertise and care. – This was transgressed during the vaccinations.- Participant’s Rights to Withdraw. – This would lead to loss of job or and/or significant civil rights curtailments.- Protection from Harm – The harm (see 4) could be foreseen, but was not divulged to the NZ public.- Avoiding Unnecessary Suffering.- Precedent of Animal Studies:- the experiment should be based on a knowledge of the natural history of the disease, and the results of prior animal experimentation. No research had been done on ongoing late effects, including research on pregnancy and breastfeeding.- Proper Facilities:- adequate facilities should be provided. The inoculations were often given in a carpark through an open windowIn Medicine, tragically, we have been at this stage before in history, with the thalidomide scandal in 1950-1960s, when a medication that was insufficiently researched was given full authority, which led to death, huge life-long and devastating physical disabilities in an estimated 10-20.000 cases.SubmissionIt is clear, therefore, that I am strongly critical of the measures by the New Zealand Government, the medical regulatory authorities and the New Zealand media during this Covid-19 period. I have personally and professionally suffered severely from the government measures and the Covid-19 regulations, as have a great number of my patients and friends.I am disappointed and sad that many, if not most, of my medical colleagues show(ed) a lack of critical medical thinking, and still often do not listen to or acknowledge their patients’ suffering as the after- effects of the Covid-19 ‘vaccination’, despite the overwhelming evidence now that this intervention was never safe nor effective.With kind regards.Yours sincerely,René de MonchyMD(Neth) Dip Obs FRANZCPConsultant PsychiatristAddendum sent by email:I just saw that in my submission one part was left was not sent to you and I hope that I can very briefly still add that to my submission.Via a lawyer in Australia, who had heard of the family’s plight and was going to bring that to the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, I was asked to make contact with the family P. consisting of two parents and two children.This family had been placed under strict house arrest on their island in their village in Tokelau without being allowed outside their house and small garden for having refused to be vaccinated on religious grounds.Their teenage daughter had been expelled from school for the same reason and not allowed her school supplied laptop to take home, thereby not having any communication with previous friends.This family was shunned and yelled at by the village community.This had already been going on for six months before I was asked to get involved. This family was severely struggling with absolutely no contact with the rest of the village and island and not even allowed to be outside of the house and small plot or using their boat for fishing in the ocean at the end of their small garden.The mother, who was suffering from a neurological condition, had also developed depression, especially in view of the difficulties to feed her family by tending their little vegetable patch at night, when no one could see them.I understand that this house arrest was associated with the fact that the father of Prime Minister Ardern was or had just been the governor, or similar supreme authority in Tokelau, implementing the mandates for vaccination for everyone in this most remote island in the Pacific.Under difficult circumstances, and with usually broken video connections, I was able to do weekly Telehealth consultations with his family, which was almost the only connection for them with the outside world.I understand that their house arrest lasted for 14-16 from the beginning of the mandate 16 month until they were finally able to travel to New Zealand in February 2023. A group of good hearted people in the Wairarapa, who I was in contact with, had organized a temporary domicile for them.This long episode of weekly medical and health consultations for about 10 months per Tele health was of great significance for them and for me.It gave another example and dimension to the suffering that the New Zealand Government’s Covid 19 measures had caused.I would be grateful if you could add this to my submission.With kind regardsYours sincerely,Dr René de MonchyMD(Neth) Dip Obs FRANZCPConsultant PsychiatristFeatured image: Former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern announced a Royal Commission will probe the country's response to the covid-19 pandemic on 5 December 2022. Source: United Press International Read the full article
The Department of Defense is dealing with scrutiny after the Pentagon's inspector general decided it
The Department of Defense is dealing with scrutiny after the Pentagon’s inspector general decided it’s in “potential noncompliance” over the number of religious exemption denials issued to service members in response to the vaccine mandate.
First Liberty’s senior counsel Mike Berry joined “Fox & Friends” Wednesday to discuss why he considers the effort an “ideological litmus test” as service members proceed to push back against the policy.
“The federal law requires the government, in this case the Pentagon, to do an individualized assessment,” Berry informed co-host Brian Kilmeade.
“They have to treat everybody fairly. They have to give them a fair and objective analysis when they ask for a religious exemption, and this report says it sure doesn’t look like the Department of Defense has been doing that.”
“It’s been a rubber stamp process that confirms what we’ve been saying for the past ten months,” he continued. “And really what it is, it’s an ideological litmus test. They don’t want anybody of faith to serve in our military.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin speaks during a plenary session at the 19th International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-la Dialogue, Asia’s annual defense and security forum, in Singapore, Saturday, June 11, 2022. (AP Photograph/Danial Hakim) ((AP Photograph/Danial Hakim))
Based on an internal memo circulated earlier this month, the Pentagon is in “potential noncompliance” over its denial of religious exemption requests to the vaccine mandate.
The DOD’s Acting Inspector General Sean O’Donnell wrote the report back in June, highlighting “concerning denials” in reference to the number issued.
The IG report comes as the Navy discretely reversed punishments for SEALs looking for religious exemptions from the vaccine, which previously made them nondeployable.
“We’ve got to keep our foot on the gas pedal,” Berry stated. “We’ve got to continue to tell the American people and this administration that this vaccine mandate is doing nothing to help us. It’s hurting our country. It’s forcing people out of the military who are capable of serving,” stated Berry, adding that the military isn’t meeting its recruitment goals.
“So we’ve got to stop this nonsense and allow people who are ready, willing and able to serve our country to continue to do so, and this DOD inspector general memo is really bad news for the administration, for the Pentagon, because it shows evidence that the Department of Defense is probably breaking the law,” he continued.
Fox News medical contributor Dr. Marc Siegel criticized the vaccine mandate and stated the Pentagon has been permitting medical exemptions, but not spiritual ones.
“There is no public health reason whatsoever that this should be enforced. Absolute disgrace.”
Source: Pentagon accused of ’ideological litmus test’ over vaccine mandate: ’Probably breaking the law’
#wheresthelietho #roevswade #vaccinemandates #WhatHappenedToMyBodyMyChoice #hypocrites #hypocrisy (at Washington D.C.) https://www.instagram.com/p/CfPYN4busaQ/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=