Registered Health Practitioners' Violations of the Medical Council NZ's Standards for Informed Consent
Who could be held accountable for breaches of the law?
*This is an image-dense article and although too long for an email, shouldn’t take long to read, but I’ve recorded it anyway!* Thank you for your support!
There has been lots published recently about the ongoing and worldwide breaches of domestic laws and international treaties of Informed Consent. After a valuable conversation with
last week, who quite rightly has been banging this drum very loudly and continuously since well before the covid era tyranny began, I thought I’d kick-start the New Zealand thread on this subject. Here is a list of names who were/are registered healthcare practitioners with the Medical Council of New Zealand (MCNZ) and yet shockingly, flagrantly abandoned this basic tenet of their vocation.
First, what is ‘Informed Consent’, as defined by the MCNZ? Here’s what the entity states in their Standards (suspiciously, updated June 2021 see here for details):
Every time treatment is provided, a doctor must have permission to provide that treatment. The process of obtaining that permission is called ‘informed consent’. Without informed consent, the treatment may be unlawful. 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.
And here, according to this Official Information Act (OIA) request (and others) is the extract from the relevant ‘Informed Consent’ form for patients of the covid ‘vaccination’. (Notice the space for a signature):
And additionally, this was the additional ‘guideline’ given to the ‘vaccinator’ about the Informed Consent issue and form:
Notice the language in the above: ‘patients’ are ‘consumers’ and the ambiguousness of the wording. Who is the ‘vaccinator support person’? and how is informed consent recorded when it is NOT written down? Note also how “IPC (Infection Prevention Control) guidance must be observed WHEN dealing with hard-copy consent forms…” presumably implying that they aren’t always used?
No-one seems sure now, where these completed informed consent forms were stored? Many anecdotes from staff and volunteers at the pharmacies, clinics and ‘pop-up’ jab centres, relate how no time or space for valid informed consent was provided for patients: if you turned-up, basically it was assumed you had already consented to the experimental genetic injection. And this wasn’t just in NZ, in the UK,
described his own experience of this, too.One of the main issues around obtaining valid informed consent was during the era of the Vaccination Order - the mandates that were rolled-out to most New Zealand’s public sector workers, and by default to commercial and voluntary sectors too. I’ve written extensively about this topic, including the controversial ‘Exemptions’ that ~8000 individuals managed to (against the odds) obtain. The confusing bureaucracy promoted the ‘application’ for an ‘exemption’ that could be ‘allowed’ by [Sir] Dr Ashley Bloomfield (at the time, NZ Director-General of Health). Importantly, during Bloomfield’s senior role in this evil farce he was (and still is) a registered doctor:
My questions for Bloomfield include:
Why were ‘exemptions’ provided, if the MCNZ Standards of Informed Consent were/are valid? Surely if someone has the information they need to make a decision and does not consent to any intervention, then that is sufficient to ‘exempt’ them from any further interactions? Isn’t the precautionary principle appropriate for pregnant women, who should always be protected from potentially harmful interventions?
The horrifying aspect of those who submitted an application for an ‘exemption’ - including those advised by their GP NOT to take the ‘vaccination’ (for reasons of previous anaphylaxis or current/planned pregnancy for example), were the unknown numbers Bloomfield declined. Many of those applicants went on to lose their jobs, or felt forced to take the jab, and suffered health consequences as a result. Doesn’t this deliberate action from Bloomfield seem callous and go against anyone’s understanding of basic medical ethics and Human Rights, and Informed Consent?
Alongside Bloomfield, I want to identify others closely involved with the covid era tyranny, also registered medical practitioners. This will take a while to collate fully, but let me start today with those specifically involved with the coercion of pregnant women to get the jab, which personally I think is a crime beyond comprehension or words.
I’ve written before about the unethical “Expert Advisory Panel” for NZ’s arm of the propaganda machine that was the Google News Initiative. This was the panel which also promoted the ‘Research Project’ by the University of Auckland, that targetted pregnant women for the jab roll-out:
So let’s look at those ‘experts’ and whether they, like Bloomfield were also registered healthcare practitioners, and therefore bound by the MCNZ Standards:
Dr Rawiri Jensen, Fellow of the Royal NZ College of GPs and an interesting interview available here.
For the record, here is his entry on the MCNZ website:
And here’s another MCNZ registered medical practioner ‘expert’:
Dr Maia Brewerton is a specialist at Auckland Hospital, and spoke about ‘vaccine hesitancy’ here and attended a community hui at Okorihi Marae in Kaikohe to talk about herd immunity and the importance of getting vaccinated […] claiming the vaccine creates "roadblocks" for the virus so it can't spread throughout the community…when she must have known the truth?
And likewise, her registration:
And here’s another ‘expert’ on that panel funded by the Google News Initiative:
Dr Api Talemaitoga was the Pasifika voice, being chair of the Pasifika GP Network. He was also in the Covid Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group during Chris Hipkins’ role as Minister of Health.
And another, more interesting ‘expert panel member’ has some fascinating close associations with other institutions which were part of the propaganda machinery, including the UN, WEF and WHO. Prof David Murdoch ironically mentions in this research medal acceptance speech (below) his own childhood, having mumps and measles aged 3… ‘deadly diseases now preventable by vaccinations’.
It’s worth watching the beginning and end of this speech, to get some useful insights on Murdoch as ‘expert in respiratory infections’ as he pats himself on the back for his ‘excellent’ covid response and ends on the UN Aotearoa 'One Health’s role in ‘the next plandemic’. Urghhh. Interesting that he admits he was ‘inspired’ to join the UN’s efforts because of ‘expert’ David Nabarro, who some of you may know from investigations into SDGs, World Bank and Ebola response in 2014:
Prof Murdoch was co-leader of NZ The NZ Infection Group, is the co-director of One Health Aotearoa, a Senior Associate in the Department of International Health at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and a clinical microbiologist at Canterbury Health Laboratories. He was also Vice-Chancellor of the University of Otago from February 2022 to March 2023. Quite a resumé! But where are your ethical standards of informed consent, Prof Murdoch?
And finally for today, another ‘academic’ who was on the ‘expert panel’ promoting the jab, including to unforgivably, pregnant women, also received a Knighthood for his services:
Dr Collin Tukuitonga, Associate Dean Pacific in the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland who interesting recently resigned from his Government role (rats from a sinking ship?).
As the excess deaths continue and increasing ill-health impacts our friends and family… will any of these individuals be held accountable in the months/years ahead? To support the efforts of future accountability under the banner of Informed Consent, and the work of researchers like
and others, I will investigate other registered healthcare practitioners. This includes Committee members mentioned on the covid era response meeting minutes of the various OIAs I’ve received. If any of my subscribers has specific names they would like me to add to this list, do let me know below.You can buy me a coffee, so I can pay it forward here. Thanks!
The informed consent should have been the start and finish of coercive mandates. If, like many, you were mandated to receive a gene therapy medication then you should have been able to turn up at the “vax clinic” and decline informed consent. This would then have placed the vaccinator in a position of either going ahead illegally or declining the administration of the medical intervention. You could then claim to those that mandated the treatment that no one is willing to administer this to you - no longer your problem.
MCMZ is but one of a long list of complicit boards and councils under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCA Act 2003). Unsurprisingly, the Act like those it regulates, is notably light and selective about 'ethics'.
There is an irony in the obvious, that participating practitioners who were erstwhile 'jabsters' know diddly squat about what they were injecting and even less about the non-generalisable, unpredictable consequences that were potentially lethal, or invariably sickening and weakening. Any pretence around the illusion of fully informed consent was and remains merely that, a conglomeration of unbridled, over paid hubris give or take an element of institutional coercion or compliance. Further, prohibition was imposed on practitioners forbidding them to comment to patients about "vaccines" as the matter lay outside their defined scopes of practice for a vast majority. A spineless cowered majority complied, while a few upstanding vertebrates walked away from practice, careers, and livelihoods.
The unethical protagonists were thoroughly aware of what they were engaged in. Their culpability appears indefensible, even more notably now, as they continue to engage in their lethal incoherence in the face of a vast constellation of literature illustrating injury, harm, and death that is incontestably damning of this "biotechnology" with its killing financial gains.
Cartwright 2.0 (Feb 2022) highlights further aspects that ensure there was not only no consent, there was no mitigation of death, harm and injury, ....all of course by design.
https://nzdsos.com/2022/02/08/is-new-zealand-ready-for-cartwright-2-0/