On Monday 23 March 2020, I was a gullible doctor, and I was an ignorant one regarding unfolding events.
I had just watched the Prime Minister announcing measures to combat what could be the biggest threat to UK and world health in my lifetime. Another Spanish flu, or worse, was on the cards. People may die in the streets, as the shocking videos from China (shown on the main news outlets) suggested.
I initially believed every single word that Boris Johnson said. If emergency measures were not put in place, the National Health Service, in which I had worked for nearly forty years, would be overwhelmed. It could collapse. And so, by implication, there would be no-one left to look after us when the virus, a heart attack, an injury, or a drug reaction occurred. How many NHS staff would be left to treat cancers or aid pregnant women?
So I, without questioning, locked down for the next few weeks. And I was deeply concerned, as were all those people I spoke to. The hugely successful media campaign of fear had just been launched, and we are still being bombarded by it today.
But then I realised that the airports were not closed, and millions were arriving from all over the world, including ‘virus central’, Wuhan. Instead of trying to isolate the disease at source, we—the fit—were being quarantined (i.e., locked up like prisoners in our own homes) rather than the sick: a complete reversal of quarantine use which has been known since before Roman times.
My gullibility then started giving way to scepticism and distrust of the Government and its officers. My stupidity I am continually addressing through knowledge acquisition, discussion, and enquiry. This process is ongoing.
Patient. That means you. Or it means me, when I am ill.
What to make of it all? We all need accurate information so that we can make informed decisions regarding the real risks, and the best treatment therapies. My body, my choice.
The ‘information’ coming from the various government agencies was truly terrifying. Professor Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College fame, made many ‘modelled’ predictions which are now laughable, but were not at the time. Mortality figures were bandied around of several percentage points or more. This could have resulted in hundreds of thousands, or even over one million deaths in Britain!
But the real likely outcome figures were kept in the background. The cruise ship Diamond Princess, back in early 2020, had ‘Covid-19’ on board, and was temporarily quarantined in Yokohama. Of the approximately three and a half thousand souls on board, it is believed 13 died:
- 12 aged over 70 years,
- one aged over 60 years,
- and none below 60 years.
That is a mortality rate below 0.4%. It is important to realise that no young or middle-aged people died. We now know that the mean age of death for Covid is over 80 years of age.
I find it hard to believe that the Government was not in possession of this information in the lockdown month of March 2020. Surely, the Chief Medical Officer, at the very least, had access to these figures.
And in spite of the WHO decreasing the severity of the disease in mid-March 2020 (before Mr Johnson’s edict), we were still forced into lockdown on 23 March.
The remit of Britain's General Medical Council is:
to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public by ensuring proper standards in the practice of medicine.
On 3 April 2020, I received an e-mail from the GMC.
Your registration and licence to practice have been temporarily restored, as part of the UK Government’s response to the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.
I had resigned my registration just over five years previously, as I was retiring (I was a General and Vascular Surgeon).
The GMC had no knowledge of my physical or my mental state as of 2020.
What I am saying is that they had no idea whether I was fit to practice or not.
I can only interpret this measure as blind panic by them. They were also, as I am in the higher risk group by age, prepared to place me, and other retirees, at increased risk compared to our younger colleagues.
As the year wore on, I became highly suspicious of the constant talk of a ‘vaccine’ that would cure Covid-19 and so make the panic and hysteria of 2020 a thing of the past.
Now, a vaccine, if we are to know that it is safe and effective, takes five to ten years to develop. And many of these vaccines are using novel mRNA techniques with no long-term, or really any, useful follow-up of test subjects. We were told they were ‘safe and effective’, but were given no studies to prove that. This narrative seems to be crumbling quite rapidly at the moment.
But these vaccines have been strongly endorsed by the GMC.
In a statement earlier this year, they said:
We strongly encourage those [doctors] who haven’t yet taken up the full course of vaccination to do so.
The GMC has stated that GPs (family doctors) “have a professional responsibility to get vaccinated”.
The GMC has also (like its Australian and Canadian counterparts) warned GPs that:
criticising the Covid vaccine or other pandemic measures via social media could leave them ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation.
The GMC, like most medical forums worldwide, has thus censored that debate.
The whole essence of science and medicine is to have open, honest discussion; to debate alternative views; and to come to the best, and safest, responses to disease.
The GMC seems to have bought into the government narrative completely. They have endorsed government policies and excluded the views of thousands of health professionals who disagree with the Covid measures. Over 40,000 of us signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which criticised lockdown on the grounds that it would cause more harm than good.
Thousands more of us have campaigned widely for an honest debate. Some doctors worldwide have had their licences to practice removed just for questioning the common political narrative.
At this time, there are many post-vaccine events and deaths being reported, and the GMC could do worse than to look at them before recommending ever more injections (who has ever heard of two vaccines plus two boosters!) on both doctors and patients.
In my view, the GMC has failed in its remit to protect patients. It has also failed in its remit to regulate doctors correctly.
The author has also been interviewed by UK Column.