John, Gp. Auckland, NZ.

The name I supplied above is false, because I still feel very unsafe sharing this information for fear of professional repercussions. (New Zealand Medical Council).

With over two decades of medical practice as a vocationally registered general practitioner in New Zealand, I have been deeply involved in pandemic preparedness efforts since approximately 2009. As part of a 14-doctor group practice, we were designated as a Community-Based Assessment Centre (CBAC) during preparations for a potential influenza pandemic. This experience provided me with valuable insights into pandemic response protocols.

In addition to managing our large general practice, I was engaged in phase 3 clinical research for multinational pharmaceutical companies and the United States Defence Force. Serving as a principal investigator for clinical trials, I underwent rigorous training emphasizing ethical conduct and good clinical practice, as outlined by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). These principles underscored the importance of safety, informed consent, and adherence to protocol.

When reports of a possible pandemic emerged in early 2020, my prior training and experience positioned me to comprehend the implications more acutely than many colleagues. I diligently sought information from reputable sources, attended numerous training events, and made myself available to assist, including with vaccination efforts.

However, as the pandemic unfolded, I observed concerning trends. Scientific debate was stifled, alternative viewpoints were criticized, and dissenting voices were marginalized. Despite my initial trust in expert guidance, I grew increasingly skeptical as official narratives seemed disconnected from emerging data.

The rollout of mRNA vaccines raised significant red flags. Despite assurances of safety and efficacy from government officials, I harbored reservations. Data on adverse reactions, particularly compared to established vaccine standards, troubled me deeply. Concerns were further compounded by the suppression of dissenting opinions within the medical community and the imposition of vaccine mandates.

The evolving narrative, shifting from preventing infection to mitigating severe outcomes, underscored the uncertainty surrounding vaccine effectiveness. My decision, along with my wife, to refrain from vaccination was met with societal restrictions and professional consequences, highlighting the coercive nature of mandates.

As the pandemic progressed, I witnessed a concerning erosion of trust in institutions and a pervasive atmosphere of censorship and propaganda. Transparency and informed consent, foundational principles of medical ethics, were disregarded in favor of a singular agenda.

In conclusion, my pandemic experiences have revealed systemic failures in ethical conduct, regulatory oversight, and transparency. The rushed deployment of novel vaccine technologies, coupled with a climate of censorship and coercion, has eroded trust in the medical establishment. Moving forward, it is imperative to address these issues openly and transparently to restore public confidence and ensure accountability.

Share This