Trofim Lysenko is dead, but his spirit is alive and well in the pharmocracy that is medicine
As a biology teacher I had never given much credence to reincarnation, but after the last six years in New Zealand, I’m beginning to wonder.
Since the link is probably obscure, I’d better explain.
In the famine of 1931-3, millions of people in the Soviet Union suffered starvation because of a man called Trofim Lysenko. An agronomist from Ukraine, he first caught Stalin’s attention as a man able to motivate the peasants. Using his political skills he promoted Lamarck’s idea of inheritance of acquired characters — change the environment of crops and not only will they adapt to the change — their offspring would be better adapted too.
Though this view had long been discredited, it appealed to Stalin because it suggested that if people were forced to work for the common good, eventually their children would inherit good socialist attitudes.
As a “barefoot scientist”, Lysenko was hailed by Stalin as the embodiment of peasant genius. He sneered at those academics who had hitherto dominated genetics, and indeed he denied the very existence of genes, maintaining that they were a “fascist” invention.
Among Lysenko’s more harebrained ideas was the notion that if seeds were planted close together the seedlings would cooperate rather than compete. Predictably, crop yields fell disastrously. In a healthy society, such ideas would be judged on their results.
Under Stalin’s protection, Lysenko enjoyed near-absolute power, but agricultural research withered and died. Any geneticist who was naïve enough to think that science was about testing ideas by experiment and listening to alternative hypotheses went to the gulags or was put up against a wall.
Never mind that the crackpot ideas of Lysenkoism led to a succession of crop failures and that people starved; it was the doctrine that counted. It was only after Stalin’s death in 1953 that the noose was removed from the neck of Soviet agriculture.
What has all this to do with the Covid ‘pandemic’? For sure, nobody has been sent to a gulag or put up against a wall for publicly disagreeing with the government narrative. But science is being undoubtedly suppressed at the cost of many lives, albeit by more subtle means.
Science depends, above all, on evidence, yet whenever anyone quotes evidence that is at variance with government propaganda, media dismiss it as ‘misinformation’, or ‘conspiracy theory’.
Such ‘soft’ repressive measures are essential tools for maintaining the illusion of democracy. Only when the government’s back is against the wall is it forced to use more robust methods, such as happened recently with the treatment of Barry Young, when all pretence of legality was dropped.
But even before Barry Young blew his whistle, it was clear to those paying attention that there are parallels between the Soviet Union in Lysenko’s time and the suppression of science in medicine today. They differ in three two, possibly three, ways. First, the tools of the former were brutal and overt, whereas the latter operates subtly, with the help of complicit media.
Second, deaths from Lysenkoism were from starvation, whereas the effects of mRNA injections ranged from injury to death, which could be sudden, or long delayed from cancer and other effects of damage to the immune system.
There may also be a third, and most sinister effect. Whereas there is no reason to believe that Stalin actually intended to kill millions of Ukrainians, there are indications that the Covid ‘pandemic’ was intended to reduce world population. If so, the crime is democide.
My purpose is to show that despite the great difference in method, the result is the same – the loss of millions of lives by suppression of science in the pursuit of power. New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom and other European countries are characterized as ‘democracies’, but the reality is that they are much closer to pharmocracies, and the rulers, pharmocrats.
***
“Trust Me, I’m a Doctor” is a BBC 2 programme with the declared intention of giving viewers the evidence behind health claims made in the media, in order to help them make their own decisions.
Star of the show was medical journalist Michael Mosley, who had been at the forefront of a media campaign to instil fear of The Virus. While the UK was in lockdown in May 2020, he made a blood-curdling video with the title “Covid-19: what you need to know about the coronavirus, and the race for a vaccine”.
And the following year he wrote an article in the Daily Mail titled “Why I went a bit wild after my Covid jab: Dr Michael Mosley says he forgot the rules in his excitement… but whatever you do, don’t be put off by the vaccine myths – they’re not true”.
That was in March, 2021, barely three months after the vaccine rollout had begun in the UK, the majority of readers’ comments were already sceptical, one accusing him of being a “paid shill”.
So if those readers were anything like representative, the fear-mongers needed to work harder.
It was not as if they hadn’t already been doing their utmost, as Laura Dodsworth documented in detail in her book A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Most damning of all was her revelation that stoking fear was deliberate policy, as evinced by UK Government publications. On 22 March 2020, SPI-B, the behavioural science sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), published a document titled “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures”, advocating the use of applied psychology to influence social behaviour. Though the focus of the document was on social distancing rather than masks, the intention to use fear is clear:
“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.”
Moreover, Option 2 of Appendix B recommends using the media “to increase sense of personal threat” (emphasis added).
All this should have come as no surprise. Fear is the oldest and most effective weapon in government toolboxes. Fear dulls critical faculties, and increases people’s need for sanctuary in membership of the majority in-group. The pharmocrats’ aim is to isolate those with the capacity for independent thought as ‘conspiracy theorists’.
Interestingly, fear of Covid seems to have increased trust in government, as Lenka Hrbková and Aleš Kudrnáč suggested in “Fear, trust, and compliance with Covid-19 measures: a study in mediating effect of trust in government on the relationship between fear and compliance”.
The UK government’s publication of its policy of increasing level of perceived personal threat came about 7 weeks after the WHO had declared Covid to be a “public health emergency of international concern”.
Soon after the vaccine had been introduced, the official narrative became:
- Covid-19 is a serious threat to life and health;
- The mRNA vaccine is both safe and effective;
- The immunity induced by the vaccine is superior to natural immunity resulting from infection;
- Ivermectin and other alternatives are useless and in some cases, dangerous.
Each of these statements is false.
‘A serious threat’
There is so much evidence that Covid only poses a threat to life in the elderly, the immune-compromised, and those with co-morbidity factors such as chronic kidney disease, diabetes, lung and liver diseases, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.
The most authoritative source is the work by John Ioannidis, one of the world’s most published and distinguished immunologists. His paper Age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly informed from pre-vaccination national seroprevalence studies showed that for people younger than 70 years who had not been vaccinated and had who had not been previously infected, the infection fatality rates (IFR) were, for various age groups:
- 0-19: 0.0003%
- 20-29: 0.003%
- 30-39: 0.11%
- 40-49: 0.035%
- 50-59: 0.129%
- 60-69: 0.501%
Put another way, the chances of someone aged 19 or under dying from Covid is 3 in a million, yet many school-aged children were compelled to take the injection in order to attend school or to be on sports teams.
‘Safe and effective’
There have been thousands of reports of serious harm following Covid “vaccine” injections.
To give just one example, according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), between Dec. 14, 2020 and Jan. 21, 2022, there were 35,000 reports of COVID vaccine injuries among 5 to 17-year-olds.
While some might think that Pfizer was just choosing to ignore such reports, the reality is orders of magnitude worse, for Pfizer’s internal documents showed that they knew that thousands of people were being killed or gravely injured by their “vaccine”.
How could this happen? Before marketing its product, Pfizer needed EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which required Pfizer to conduct post-jab safety trials. The results of the trials were submitted to the FDA, which went ahead to award EUA for ages 16+ in December 2020.
What those who had taken the shot didn’t know was that vaccine safety testing, which normally takes 10-12 years, had been circumvented by the FDA’s “Emergency Use Authorization”. Those who had been mandated to roll up their sleeves under threat of unemployment or suspension of education had submitted to an experimental product rather than a tested one.
In attempting to gain public support for Covid-19 injections, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Given the promise of transparency, a group of distinguished scientists submitted a Freedom of Information request to the FDA for Pfizer’s data.
The FDA did not respond, so in September 2021, the scientists sued the FDA, demanding it produce the data by March 2022.
In response, the FDA asked a federal judge for permission to make the public wait 75 years to disclose all of the data it relied upon to license Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
By 2096, nearly all the affected people would be dead, so in September 2021 the scientists, represented by attorney Aaron Siri, sued the FDA, demanding it release the data by March 2022. And on January 6, 2022, Judge Mark Pittman ordered the FDA to produce at least 55,000 pages per month.
The FDA’s reluctance to disclose Pfizer’s data should have come as no surprise, given the environment in which vaccine producers operate in the United States. Vaccine-injured Americans cannot sue the manufacturers. As Aaron Siri points out:
There is virtually no other product where a consumer is prohibited from suing the company that manufactures, markets, and profits from the product.
Decoupling a company’s profit interest from its interest in safety creates a moral hazard and departs from centuries of product liability doctrine. Thus, it is extraordinary that Americans must take this product under penalty of expulsion from work, school, the military and civil life, but they cannot sue Pfizer for any resulting injuries.
The federal government created this unprecedented situation. It granted the immunity, licensed the product, and aggressively sought mandates. This situation therefore warrants unprecedented transparency.
A corporation’s wet dream – compulsory consumption with zero liability. It would be hard to imagine a situation more certain to lead to criminality.
And so it proved. Pfizer’s documents amounted to a daunting 450,000 pages, many in technical language. The analysis of such enormous quantities of data could only be achieved by a team of medical and scientific specialists with diverse expertise.
The challenge was taken up by investigative journalist and author Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly, who gathered and coordinated such a volunteer team.
For two years Amy Kelly and her team of volunteers worked through 2,369 documents. The result was their book “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes against Humanity”.
Its 408 pages are packed with information showing that the ‘safe and effective’ PR tool for coercing millions of people into taking the Covid injection was nothing less than a barefaced lie.
A small sample of the revelations:
- Within 3 months of the injection becoming available, Pfizer had become aware that it was ineffective in preventing the spread of Covid.
- Whereas officialdom claimed that the vaccine remained localised in the shoulder muscle, Pfizer knew that within 48 hours it became widely distributed in the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, ovaries, and crossed the blood-brain barrier into the brain.
- Pfizer knew by April 2021 that its injection was damaging the hearts of young people.
- Pfizer knew, by the end of February 2021, that its injection was linked to many adverse events. In addition to over 1,233 deaths within 3 months, there were cases of liver and kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, facial paralysis, multiple organ failure, thousands of arthritis-type joint pain, blood clots, myocarditis, and pericarditis. Half of the serious adverse events, including death, took place within seventy-two hours of the injection. Half of the strokes took place within forty-eight hours.
- In Chapter 10, Ute Krüger, a specialist in breast cancer, documents a surge in cancers following the introduction of the mRNA Covid injections. Kruger reports that she was suddenly receiving reports of: tumours in young people, 30-50 years old; tumours that were growing unusually fast; and most significantly, tumours that were multifocal, meaning that two or more tumours had originated independently in the same breast.
- The most sinister effects were on women’s reproduction. By early 2021 Pfizer knew that its Covid injections caused serious foetal and infant risks, including death (23% of vaccinated mothers’ foetuses or new-born infants died).
Despite this, Pfizer mounted a campaign to vaccinate pregnant women. Chapter 2 reveals, unsurprisingly, that nine months after the COVID mRNA ‘vaccine’ rollout, there were significant falls in birth rates in 13 of 19 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan.
The above are but a sample of the compelling evidence, amounting to proof, that Pfizer continued to promote the sale of its Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ knowing within three months of the ‘vaccine’ rollout that it had already killed and severely injured thousands.
Table 1 of the document (dated 30 April, 2021) summarises the analysis of Pfizer’s Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports.
Note that out of 42086 cases, 1223 were fatal.
No wonder that Pfizer didn’t want the data to be released.
And as for “effective . . . .”
In a number of countries, covid vaccination has not resulted in a significant reduction of covid cases.
For example Gibraltar, “the most vaccinated place on Earth”, experienced a surge in Covid cases, despite having the world’s most highly vaccinated population. Public vaccination began in January 2021, and was immediately followed by the surge in Covid deaths, as can be seen from Worldometer.
Similar evidence for lack of efficacy of Covid vaccine can be seen in many countries.
‘The immunity induced by the vaccine is superior to natural immunity resulting from infection’
On 5 October 2021, TVNZ’s Seven Sharp featured epidemiologist Dr. Maia Brewerton to debunk certain ‘covid myths’. One such ‘myth’ was the belief that natural immunity, acquired as a result of previous infection, was superior to vaccine-induced immunity. Accordingly, viewers who had recovered from covid didn’t need to take the “vaccine”.
Brewerton told viewers that natural immunity to Covid-19 is not as good as the vaccine. Ex-cathedra statements such as this evidently do not require evidence.
We are constantly being told that we should ‘trust the science’, so we should therefore trust Brewerton to speak the truth.
But such ‘trust’ shows a fundamental, and probably deliberate, misrepresentation of the very nature of science. This is expressed emphatically in the motto of the oldest scientific society in the world, the Royal Society, founded in 1660 during the reign of King Charles II:
“Nullius in verba, or “Take nobody’s word for it”
The essence of science is doubt and questioning, particularly with regard to orthodoxy. It was science that broke the stranglehold of the Catholic doctrine of geocentrism in Europe, and to the development of modern medicine.
How ironic, then, that it is science that is now under threat by the medical establishment.
Dr. Brewerton’s statement was unsatisfactory for a reason that can be understood by any high school biology student, and certainly by Dr. Brewerton:
The “vaccine” can only generate antibodies to a single viral antigen (the ‘spike’ protein), but the whole SARS-CoV-2 virus particle that causes Covid-19 contains 29 proteins, which can evoke the production of a correspondingly greater diversity of antibodies.
So, if the part of the viral RNA that codes for the spike protein undergoes a mutation, the vaccine-induced antibody may be unable to bind to the mutant antigen. But with natural immunity there will a range of ‘back-up’ antibodies that can bind to the other proteins of the virus.
I wrote to Dr. Brewerton to make this point, asking her if she could provide evidence for her Seven Sharp statement.
Unsurprisingly, I received no reply.
And soon after Dr. Brewerton’s appearance, Stuff invited readers to submit questions on Covid, so I sent a similar question to the one I had asked of Dr. Brewerton.
Again, no reply.
I was beginning to sense that the authorities might not be too keen to act on their own advice to ‘follow with the science’.
This is not altogether surprising, considering that
- Maia Brewerton is a Team Leader at the Malaghan Institute,
- which has close links with VAANZ (the Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand),
- which is part of the global organisation GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance,
- a co-founder of which was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It was Bill Gates who famously described vaccines as the “best investment” he’d ever made. And it shouldn’t be forgotten that Gates has been a major financier of the deeply corrupt World Health Organisation, about which much more could be said.
Of course, it could be argued that such links to big pharma are tenuous and innocent, but the fact remains that Dr. Brewerton’s appearance on Seven Sharp did no harm to Pfizer’s bottom line.
And all this aside, there is abundant published evidence that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, for example:
‘Finally’ The Lancet Acknowledges Natural Immunity is Superior to mRNA COVID Vaccines
and
CDC Admits Natural Immunity Trumps Vaccine Immunity — 5 Months After Touting Vaccines as Superior
And
‘Ivermectin and other alternatives are useless and dangerous’
In 2015 the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura for the discovery and development of ivermectin for its effectiveness in treating a range of parasitic infections in humans. It is on the WHO’s list of “Essential Medicines” – medicines it considers should be freely available in all countries.
In early 2020 some people began to think it might help with Covid-19, because the French MedinCell company was developing an injectable version (which would be able to be patented).
A study led by Dr Kylie Wagstaff has shown that an anti-parasitic drug already available around the world stopped the SARS-CoV-2 virus growing in cell culture within 48 hours.
And evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin in Covid-19 was not long in coming.
And in Peru, Chamie-Quintero produced a study of his own, looking into the role of ivermectin in reducing the COVID-19 case fatality rate (CFR), where the local government approved ivermectin as a treatment for the virus on May 8, 2020. “Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p=.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted”
Similar reports came from Japan and Uttar Pradesh in India here and here. Such a cheap, safe and effective over-the-counter pill would be a serious threat to Big Pharma.
And in May 2021, the American Journal of Therapeutics published a research paper calling for ivermectin to be “globally & systematically deployed” as a treatment for COVID-19.
All this was bad news for the pharmocrats, so they used their power over the media. The Business Insider, for example, reported that “The drug has been promoted as a cure for COVID-19, in spite of lack of evidence”, . . . . “It’s not been approved as a COVID-19 treatment and can be dangerous if not used appropriately”. The Los Angeles Times headlined “Anti-vaccine forces pushing ivermectin. It can be toxic, dangerous, officials say”.
The pharmocracy’s campaign against a cheap and effective competitor was not limited to its compliant media. It extended to trusted medical organisations such as the AMA (American Medical Association), which on 1 September 2021 released the following press statement:
“The American Medical Association (AMA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.”
And governments played their part, too. In New Zealand, importing ivermectin became an offence, and New Zealand doctors were threatened with deregistration and consequent loss of livelihood if found giving it to patients, and even worse if they imported it, for example:
Doctor punished for COVID heresy, and Doctor who prescribed Ivermectin for Covid-19 says questions over practise ‘witch hunt’
The New Zealand government was evidently going to great lengths to prevent people wasting their money on a useless product. Only a cynic would think that it was motivated by concern for big pharma’s shareholders.
***
The global, organised attempt to discredit ivermectin has been covered in detail in Dr. Pierre Kory’s book The War on Ivermectin.
It is a detailed exposé of the near-complete control that Big Pharma exerts over medicine. In its 290 pages he quotes two former editors of one of the most prestigious medical journals, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
Arnold Relman MD, Harvard Professor of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM from 1977-1991, wrote in 2002:
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.”
and
Dr Marcia Angell had been editor in chief of the NEJM for over 20 years when she resigned in 2002 because of what she described as the rising and indefensible influence being exerted by Pharma. In 2004 she wrote The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What to Do About It.
In her book she summarised the state of the medical industrial complex:
“It is no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I have reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.
By December 2025 over 100 scientific papers had been published attesting to the safety of ivermectin.
The end of ethically based medicine in New Zealand
The Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ has rendered it impossible for doctors to practise medicine according to its fundamental ethical principles. Soon after the ‘vaccine’ rollout in 2021, a number of doctors could not avoid becoming aware myocarditis and other dangerous side effects of the Covid injections, and the dictatorial way the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) was preventing conscientious doctors from informing their patients of these dangers. In short, the medical authorities were preventing doctors from acting in the best interests of their patients by being faithful to the core principles of medical ethics:
- The fundamental tenet: First Do No Harm.
- The need for informed consent, meaning that patients should be informed of possible risks of treatment, in addition to its benefits. Yet when doctors have informed their patients of possible risks of the Covid injection, they have been deregistered, or intimidated into signing a ‘cease and desist’ undertaking
- the right to refuse medical treatment. Though New Zealanders were not physically forced to submit to taking the jab, for many it was a choice of ‘jab or job’, with threatened loss of livelihood.
- the Nuremberg Code, developed after the Nuremberg trials following WWII, a set of ethical principles established after World War II, during which medical experiments were performed without consent by Nazi doctors. The code emphasised the need for voluntary consent and the welfare of research subjects.
- the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Above all this, the mandates were a fundamental breach of Section 11 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act, Section 11: Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
Informed Consent
The central ethical pillar in good medical practice is informed consent. Health New Zealand issued a COVID-19 vaccination consent form, and among the Consent Statements can be found:
It really gives the impression that ‘informed consent’ meant what those two words actually said, and in June 2021 the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) issued a document titled: Informed Consent: Helping patients make informed decisions about their care.
In the document can be found the following statement (emphasis added):
“To help the patient decide whether they want a treatment, they first need to be given information, such as the risks and benefits of their treatment options”
In other words, it has deregistered doctors for the crime of strictly adhering to its own document on Informed consent.
Evidently, doctors are expected to consider such risks as negligible and thus not to be taken seriously, despite the fact that their own advisors had drawn their attention to the danger.
In a memo to Dr Ashley Bloomfield from Dr Ian Town, Chief Science Advisor, he stated that
“Data from countries such as the United States of America (USA) and Israel, indicate that there is a risk of myocarditis and/or pericarditis following Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. The risk is well documented following the second dose (compared to the first), in age groups younger than 40 years and in males”.
In the Orwellian world of the MCNZ, ‘informed consent’ has come to mean its precise opposite.
***
And still with Orwell, the website of the MCNZ we read “We protect the public and promote good medical practice.” One might ask how this is compatible with de-registering conscientious doctors who simply want to do the best for their patients.
So how does Big Pharma exert its malign power over doctors? The answer, as New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) has repeatedly pointed out, lies with the MCNZ.
The MCNZ consists of 12 members, most of whom are doctors, though its Registrar, Christine Anderson, and Chief Executive, Joan Simeon, appear to have no medical experience.
An insight into the attitude of the MCNZ can be gained from testimony by Richard Aston, a former lay member of the MCNZ, in testifying to the New Zealand High Court. His claims were published in the New Zealand online investigative journalist platform Centrist.
In his testimony he described a dismissive culture towards doctors who raised concerns to the council about Covid suppression measures during the pandemic:
“The culture change was unreal and disturbing….The chair would introduce these COVID items with ‘Here we go – we’ve got another anti-vaxxer in front of us’. With the exception of my contributions – and occasional support from one or two others – there was no engagement by the other members of the New Zealand Medical Council with the principles of informed consent, the doctors’ code of ethics, or human rights more generally.”
He said the complaints:
“ranged from a doctor emailing a colleague with doubts about the vaccine, to doctors advising some patients – for example pregnant women and children – not to take the vaccine to doctors speaking at public meetings against wholesale vaccination of everyone.”
adding:
“The majority of the council went along with this dismissive, ridiculing approach, with maybe three people, including myself, not joining in this prejudgment game…The approach from council staff and most members was to rely on the guidance statement which indicated doctors should promote vaccine benefits not highlight risks. That meant a doctor talking about the risks associated with vaccination was a reason to take disciplinary action.”
“What alarmed me at the time was the majority of MCNZ members were aggressive in their response to all these ‘anti-vax’ doctors, calling for harsh, vindictive, even, sanctions for even the most minor of cases. The usual detailed discussion of evidence and high-level legal arguments was abandoned. It was clear that most other members of MCNZ’s council considered that any doctor who so much as doubted any of the COVID pandemic directives should be heavily sanctioned and preferably suspended. Most of our meetings were by now conducted on Zoom due to lockdowns.”
The demolition of medical ethics by the MCNZ generated intense resentment in those doctors who were aware of being forced to be complicit in the deaths and injury caused by the covid ‘vaccine’. Among them was NSDSOS member Dr Steve Taylor, who sent the following letter to Christine Anderson, Registrar of the MCNS:
October 11, 2024
Christine Anderson
Medical Council of New Zealand
Dear Christine Anderson,
Thank you for your email advising me of the removal of my name from the medical register.
I am delighted to have confirmation that I am no longer associated with your organisation. I would be grateful if you would ensure that my name and my email address are removed from all databases that the Medical Council may hold. I do not wish, ever, to hear from your organisation again.
As the registrar and an officer of the Medical Council I would like you to be aware of the level of contempt in which I hold your organisation.
Since the year 2020 (if not before) the Medical Council of New Zealand has trampled over all the ethics and the morality on which the medical profession was founded. Using a combination of stand-over tactics and intentionally strategic malfeasance you have, in the space of four years, destroyed not only the medical profession and much of the public’s erstwhile faith in that profession, but you have done so with a vindictiveness that is not so much criminal as manifestly evil. Yours is an organisation of which any truly thinking person should be utterly ashamed. To be a member of said organisation or to willingly offer oneself as an employee is a sorry reflection of the odious character of the individuals concerned.
As I say, I hope never to receive any further communication from your organisation. I will look back on my career and my time as a medical practitioner in New Zealand (and for a short time in the UK) with pleasure. But it is more than ironic that within months of my finally ceasing practice, the medical profession – as regulated and monitored by you – turned into nothing less than a cowed excuse for a profession, dominated and controlled by a state sanctioned mafia.
It may take decades, it may take centuries, but evil is always the loser.
Dr. Steve Taylor
***
The destruction of medical ethics is not limited to New Zealand:
- Italian doctor Valerio Petterle was publicly asked about sudden deaths. He suggested that sudden deaths of adults are on the rise and recommended doing more autopsies to discover why people are dying unexpectedly. For this suggestion, Dr. Petterle was suspended for two months
- Italian pathologist Valerio Petterle was suspended without pay for two months for telling the Milanese newspaper LaVerita that he is concerned about the sudden and dramatic increase of sudden deaths, especially in heretofore healthy, middle-aged people. He expressed particular alarm about the increase in deaths from myocardial infarction, and stated the need to perform more autopsies to determine the causes.
- The Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) have warned doctors that they could be deregistered if they disseminate ‘false or deceptive’ advice or information about Covid-19 vaccines which regulators consider to be false or misleading, thus undermine the national vaccination programme.
- Highly regarded Dr. Paul Thomas had his licence terminated by the Oregon Medical Board because he believed in informed choice. Because he gave his patients the choice of not being vaccinated, the Board labelled him “a serious danger to the public health…”. His termination was just 5 days after he published a study comparing the health of his vaccinated and unvaccinated patients.
The case of Dr. Charles Hoffe
The reality of medical dictatorship was starkly revealed in the case of Charles Hoffe, a South African-born doctor with 30 years experience in the small Canadian community of Lytton, British Columbia. He became concerned about the increasing number of adverse events he saw in his patients after vaccination for COVID-19. One of his vaccinated patients was a 72-year-old man who died suddenly, and others experienced anaphylaxis or developed and sustained disabling neurological deficits. He submitted 14 vaccine injury reports from among his own patients and wrote an open letter to Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry in April 2021 with his concerns.
Soon after, his employer, Interior Health, revoked his hospital privileges, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) launched an investigation into Dr. Hoffe. It led to a February 2022 citation and three charges of misconduct, alleging that he published post online stating that:
- a) Ivermectin was “an advisable treatment for COVID-19”
- b) COVID-19 vaccines cause harms such as blood clots, neurological damage, infertility and death.
- c) the vaccinated could place the unvaccinated at risk.
The truth of each of Hoffe’s points is now well established, but The CPSBC alleged that his posts were “misleading, incorrect or inflammatory.”
Dr Hoffe was scheduled to appear before the BC College of Physicians & Surgeons’ Disciplinary Committee in March, 2024, but the trial was temporarily adjourned. Before the trial began, it became clear that the prosecution intended to deny Dr. Hoffe the right to present his case.
This was to be done by the claim that the Covid vaccines are “safe and effective” would be deemed indisputable, so Dr. Hoffe would not be able to defend himself by calling expert witnesses. Such a ‘trial’ would thus be indistinguishable from the Stalinist show trials in the Soviet Union.
The CPSBC had scheduled the disciplinary hearing for March 4th through March 15th, but at the last minute, the College invoked Judicial Notice, a legal trick meaning that the disciplinary Panel would accept all the College’s basic assertions as uncontestably true. This would mean that Hoffe’s mountainous evidence that the Covid mRNA vaccines cause widespread death and injury would be inadmissible. On top of that the College deposited a huge pile of documents with Dr. Hoffe’s lawyer, giving him no choice but to request an adjournment and hire more attorneys to sift through the College’s eleventh-hour document-dump.
In a March 7 interview, Hoffe said:
“When [the College] saw the mountain of evidence stacked against them, and against the public health narrative, obviously they panicked because I don’t think they realized how vigorous our opposition was going to be. If the Disciplinary Committee implements Judicial Notice, I would have no opportunity to testify in my defense, nor would any of [my eight] expert witnesses….It would render this literally a kangaroo court. This is an astonishing act of injustice, where you literally accuse somebody of something and then remove their ability to defend themselves.” Hoffe said that the government’s objective is “to try to make an example of me and make sure all the other doctors toe the line and keep quiet and just obey.”
In the event however, the CPSBC dropped the case against Dr. Hoffe, on the grounds that, as they put it, the circumstances around Hoffe’s case “materially changed” because the COVID-19 emergency is over.”
The Federation of State Medical Boards
Medical boards across the globe are, like the MCNZ, intimidating doctors into acting as rent boys for the pharmocracy. They have the same purpose – the prevention of informed consent by doctors, which would threaten big pharma’s bottom line.
It’s evident that state medical boards are under some kind of central control. Its identity remained largely unknown to most doctors until one of their own, Dr. Bruce Dooley did the research.
What he found should be of great concern to every citizen across the globe.
The MCNZ is part of a network of national medical boards, the Federation of State Medical Boards. In an interview with campaigner Liz Gunn, he explained. NZDSOS issued the following Media Release:
Dr Dooley and the smoking Gunn.
https://nzdsos.com/2022/09/28/explosive-interview-dr-dooley-smoking-gunn/
Medical practitioner Dr Bruce Dooley has shone a light on simmering concerns over international interference in New Zealand’s medical regulatory processes.
Dr Dooley sat down with FreeNZ’s Liz Gunn in an explosive interview released on 24 September 2022, where he discussed connections between the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) and a private, secretive organisation called the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), based in the United States.
The MCNZ is a member organisation of an international arm of the FSMB called the International Association of Medical Regulatory Authorities (IAMRA).
Dr Dooley told Gunn the FSMB and IAMRA are registered US charities with ‘hidden and anonymous’ donors who oversee disciplinary action of licensed medical doctors. They particularly target clinicians working beyond the Big Pharma paradigm whom they label as ‘quack’ or ‘fringe’.
Members lobby lawmakers to restrict the freedom of clinical practice in areas seen as competing with pharmaceutical industry profits, arguing a need for medical council control to ‘protect public health’. In his interview, Dooley spoke about a letter released in July 2021 from the FSMB, claiming that medical professionals speaking against the mainstream narrative were a ‘scourge of misinformation and disinformation’ on the profession who ‘risk the suspension or revocation of their medical licence’.
The letter went on to claim these doctors were a ‘fringe group of licensed physicians who had intentionally spread false and misleading claims about COVID-19 and vaccinations, advocating the use of unproven, potentially dangerous therapies and influencing communities across this country’.
“Imagine calling doctors, who are discussing Ivermectin, a safe Nobel Prize-winning medication, and Vitamin D, a scourge,” said a spokesperson for NZDSOS. Despite being under the watchful eye of the FSMB, doctors licensed to practice in New Zealand are unaware of the organisation’s existence.” I have never met a doctor when I bring up the Federation of State Medical Boards, who knows what I’m talking about”, said Dr Dooley. He went on to describe the FSMB statement made in 2021 as a “battle cry to the medical councils” and that it interestingly coincides with a meteoric rise in ‘dissident’ or ‘scourge’ doctors being disciplined and de-licensed by medical councils across the globe. The NZDSOS spokesperson asked, “if such an organisation exists to lobby against those who speak out about Vitamin D and Ivermectin, both essential for fighting disease, what else or who else, are they silencing in the process?”
MCNZ CEO and acting chair (due to be future chair) of IAMRA, Ms Joan Simeon has already written to every licensed New Zealand doctor, saying (in her medically untrained definition) misinformation and disinformation is being spread by “a few doctors”.
On this, NZDSOS agrees with Ontario Supreme Court Judge Pazaratz, who asked if “misinformation is even a real word … or has it become a crass, self-serving tool to pre-empt scrutiny and discredit your opponent?”.
Dr Dooley recommended New Zealand needed to “disentangle our health care regulatory bodies totally from these powerful and malign influences. The Medical Council of New Zealand must disengage from the international bodies and the government must allow an open debate on issues of public health”.
“Dr Dooley’s story belongs to every New Zealander, and particularly every New Zealand doctor and licensed health care practitioner. Big money must not be allowed to beat integrity and experience,” said the spokesperson.
The full NZDSOS analysis and article is available here.
Watch the full interview with Liz Gunn and Dr Dooley.
And finally, a closer look at Simeon shows that she has close links to the WHO, which itself has links with GAVI and Bill Gates, about much more could be said …
***
How many deaths?
We can never know how many mRNA deaths are on the shoulders of big pharma but globally, it certainly runs into the millions. The evidence comes from such diverse sources that it can no longer be doubted except, for political reasons, by big pharma executives and shareholders.
A small sample:
- The unprecedented global increase in excess deaths following the Covid vaccine rollout. Particularly significant was the revelation by OneAmerica and other Life insurance companies of a massive surge in deaths and disabilities of young, working age people. “These are one in a trillion year type events. You could add the mortalities from WW1 and WW2 and still not get such increases in death.”
- Edward Dowd, author of ‘Cause Unknown’, has revealed that the insurance industry is now seeing up to 5,000 deaths every week that are linked to Covid mRNA “vaccines.”
- The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has approximately 38,000 reported deaths from Covid-19 injections. However, it is widely acknowledged that deaths from covid injections are under-reported to the extent of between 1/30 and 1/100 of the reality. Taking the lower figure, this would mean that the actual deaths would have been 38,000 x 30, or over a million (1,140,000) deaths, or almost double the number of Americans killed in WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined.
- Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, estimates that the C19 vaccine killed 17 million (“but not in the way you think”).
- Pfizer mRNA Shots Alone Likely Responsible for Over 470,000 American Deaths: MIT/Florida Surgeon General Study
Though Covid-19 injections have resulted in the deaths of millions, we will never know how many millions. Likewise, deaths due to Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union are uncertain, estimates running varying from 3 million to 30 million.
But it hardly matters – the parallels are clear. In both, millions of lives were sacrificed by suppression of science, enforced in the pursuit of power.
However, there are differences. Lysenko drew his power from a psychopathic dictator in one country, but big pharma exerts its malign influence on governments globally, aided by media. And whereas in the Soviet Union, genes were held to be ‘fascist’, scientific arguments challenging the mRNA orthodoxy were labeled ‘misinformation’.
In a nutshell, Soviet Union dictatorship was in the open, in ‘democratic’ countries it is covert and ‘soft’.
There remains one other possible difference. Stalin was guilty of callous indifference to deaths caused by his refusal to accept science, but to my knowledge, no one has suggested that starvation was his deliberate intent.
But in an article in Global Research, Dr Joseph Sansone, a psychotherapist, used the word ‘murdered’, which would imply that deaths were the desired result.
In other words – depopulation, a view that is gaining traction among some of the cognoscenti. Though definitive proof is lacking, there are indications that it may be the case. Given that five billion people have had at least one Covid injection, the Covid ‘pandemic’ would be by far the greatest crime in history.
And it’s being perpetrated on a largely compliant, quiescent, naïve, brainwashed, population.
But the fact that ‘largely’ implies that there is a minority of exceptions, wherein lies hope.
And indeed there is. In February 2026, under the banner ‘Battle for Science’, an international group of over 20 distinguished medical experts, scientists, journalists and others, took part in a panel discussion in front of a packed audience of mainly healthcare providers in Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. The panel included Dr. Peter McCullough (US cardiologist), journalist Del Bigtree (The HighWire), microbiologist Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (Germany), oncologist Prof. Dr. Angus Dalgleish (Ireland), psychologist Prof. Dr. Mattias Desmet (Belgium), and former British MP Andrew Bridgen.
The overarching theme was the disintegration of trust in medical orthodoxy following the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ the vaccine debacle, and the need for truth in medicine.
Recurring topics were the suppression of data, corruption of government institutions, manipulation of the public by the use of fear, and the necessity of transparency in health systems.
Some powerful statements were made. Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi said that the perpetrators have committed murder, and is the greatest organised crime, against humanity.”
Mass murder with the effect, if not the aim, of population reduction, is democide. Acceptance of this necessitates a fundamental, top-to-bottom reconstruction of one’s worldview. The ‘battle for science’ is, perhaps, an early sign that Lysenko’s spirit is being exorcised from medicine.
