My testimony to the medical council.
We have signals. We have signals of potential harm, and we, as a profession, have an obligation to be aware
During the Section 150 Hearing I had just been asked if I would have 2 shots of the covid vax by the prescribed deadline:
By the time we've finished , You will understand why I won't be complying with that mandate. At least not by that timeframe.
DR M. : Okay.
DR OOSTERHUIS: You see, part of the concern with this investigational agent is that we don't have any long term data on its safety. And as they say, I don't know if the virus is novel, but the vaccine is certainly novel and the past history of mRNA therapies and coronavirus vaccine attempts is known to have had very bad outcomes among the animal hosts being studied.
This time we've gone ahead with this - we'll call it a “vaccine”, because that's what everyone's calling it - but it hasn't - we all know that it has skipped the normal sort of 10-year - the reason vaccines take so long to get the full approval is because it does take time for long-term effects to be manifest.
And you can't speed up time. And I think a lot of people want to sit back and see what the data - more of the longer term data as it becomes available and what we can address is the acute data and short-term data and medium-term data, the stuff that we have so far. And honestly, neither you nor I can be certain of what these long term effects will be. It may be that it's perfectly a nonissue and that it doesn't imply risk. But I'm saying that based on the short-term data that we have already -
I'm talking about : EudraVigilance, I'm talking about CDC VAERS data, I'm
talking even about the Australian TGA data. We have signals. We have signals of potential harm, and we, as a profession, have an obligation to be aware and to keep an eye on it, to make sure that we're not - especially when we're mandating it, we want to be really, really sure that this therapy has been properly tested, safe, and that we know its long-term harm profile.
And I'm certain that neither you nor I could go to a court of law and put our hand on the Bible and say that we knew that it was or wasn't safe,?
So I think there is an issue with mandating a therapy where there are signals of harm, where the long-term data is not known,
where because it was approved under emergency use in the US as a vaccine, it meant that it didn't have the FDA panel of
tests that you would normally do for a gene therapy.
Gene therapies have their own panels of
tests that they need to go through. So far, none of them,
outside of people dying of cancer having mRNA immunotherapy approaches to treat them.
Because, you know, they're dying and, they've got a serious life-threatening illness, these therapies have been used investigationally for treatment. But that's not
what we're talking about here. We're talking about massive global - not even just global elective, but globally, coordinated and to completely vaccinate everyone.
I think as a profession we have to be cognisant of informed consent. and patient autonomy. These
were all things I've learnt, all through my career. The key focus of our ethics training and our practice, and even your own practice as a board was to make
sure that we provide patients with informed consent and we maintain bodily autonomy.
And I don't think that informed consent can exist in an environment of coercion or censorship or even limiting open debate?
So I'm concerned about limiting discussions over treatments or therapies when - where potential for harm is actually extraordinary.
Consider supporting my work, it will be much appreciated:
Here’s a freedom QR code: