The Mafiosi Tactics of the Medical Council of New Zealand
Turning Cats into Sheep
Years ago as the head of a fairly large group of psychoanalytic psychiatrists in Philadelphia, a group that had formed in response to the inroads of managed care – inroads that actually kept patients from the insurance benefits to which they were entitled, among other things – the old adage about herding cats was often in the air. Physicians were generally stubbornly independent and they tended to resist any attempts to impose uniformity, even when in agreement with a common mission.
After three years of the Corona War here in New Zealand, it turns out that getting the more than twenty thousand practicing physicians to bury their consciences and keep mum about the Hippocratic Oath, informed consent, the benefits of medically treating patients with Covid before they became sick enough to go to hospital, and the utter uselessness of masks, one of the principal tools of propaganda wielded by the Ministry of Health here and elsewhere around the world, has been very very easy.
Any doctor who dares to question the government’s Covid policies, no matter how irrational or destructive these policies have been, is in danger of losing his or her license to practice medicine, all thanks to the zealous Medical Council of New Zealand.
Because I had voiced my concerns about the Ministry of Health’s management of Covid in letters and in several videos in 2020 and 2021, when it came time for my license to be renewed I was informed that it had been suspended. Colleagues who espoused similar concerns were also targeted. The message was loud and clear: if you question the jab or discuss actual treatment and prevention, you’ll be jeopardizing your license and your livelihood.
Doctors had been given particularly explicit instructions to toe the line regarding ‘vaccination’. In a ‘guidance statement’ issued by the Medical and Dental Councils of New Zealand, we were warned that ‘there is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, nor any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media and advertising by health practitioners.’
To date, as far as I can gather, some twenty doctors have made it into the crosshairs of the Medical Council. Some have signed ‘voluntary undertakings’ as they protest suspensions or fight against ‘professional conduct complaints’, and these undertakings have amounted to gag orders.
I recently learned that this process has taken a particularly sinister and cruelly absurd turn: some of these doctors are now being required to agree not to obtain or prescribe Ivermectin, should they wish to retain their licenses.
Despite the growing mountain of evidence attesting to the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin; despite the ‘officially acknowledged’ right of doctors to prescribe any unrestricted medication on the pharmaceutical schedule here in New Zealand for any condition for which such medication might be useful; despite the backhanded admission by the FDA that their vigorous opposition to Ivermectin was merely a recommendation; despite the fact that in some areas of the world Ivermectin has been made an over-the-counter agent available without prescription – despite all common and ethical sense, the Medical Council persists in a mission of suppression, denigration and control.
If anything this Council and the associated professional colleges such as the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners (RNZCGP) should be rewarding those physicians who have shown fidelity to the core principles of their profession and who have pursued the rational course of helping their patients.
The MCNZ is part of a Mafia, a Mafia run by a capo that goes by the name of the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB). As I have shown elsewhere, and as my colleague Dr. Bruce Dooley has revealed in a compelling interview with New Zealander Liz Gunn, the FSMB appears to be calling the shots. Although it is a private non-governmental entity, it has inveigled its way into a position of exceptional power over the State boards of medicine in the United States and then, after forming the International Association of Medical Regulatory Agencies (IAMRA) in 1994, over medical councils around the world. The Chair-Elect of the IAMRA is none other than the current CEO of the Medical Council of New Zealand. She is, therefore, a paid employee of the FSMB/IAMRA, and I am certain she is not making peanuts. Furthermore, none other than Curtis Walker, the current Chair of the MCNZ, serves on the FSMB Workgroup on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in Medical Regulation and Patient Care.
The FSMB has made it very clear that spreading Covid-19 vaccine ‘misinformation’ would put a practitioner’s license at risk. They find it ‘troubling’ that in the United States legislation has been introduced that would limit state medical boards’ disciplinary authority with respect to the ostensible threat of disinformation and would enhance the availability of Ivermectin.
Journalists and investigators are thankfully now exposing the role of this organisation, whose donors are cloaked in secrecy, and its henchmen: for further information see articles by Suzanne Berdick here and here, Tessa Lena here and here, and Dr. Meryl Nass here.
Out of the twenty thousand doctors on the Medical Council’s register, only a few hundred have joined New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science, who advocate fidelity to the pillars of their profession in the face of a seemingly incomprehensible subversion of ethical medical practice promulgated by a government and its ministries who, from the outset, claimed that the only solution to the so-called pandemic was universal inoculation. And many more doctors who share our concerns – in private – have remained in the shadows out of fear.
If a mere five percent of these twenty thousand had listened to their better senses and opposed the senseless imposition of a gene-altering agent that is maiming and killing people; if this five percent had actively advocated for early treatment and natural immunity and healthy living and not succumbed to fear; if this five percent dared to demonstrate publicly the great harms of locking people down and masking them up … then maybe, just maybe, the Mafia could be run out of town.
Doubtless there are greater forces who are using the FSMB as their tool, but the work of cleaning out criminal rot has to start somewhere.
Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D.
(This is also published in Global Research here.)
Hard-hitting piece Manny. As you know I've watched this "Federation" now for 25 years since attending two of their annual meetings. Their latest "success" of course is pushing through their "Misinformation and Disinformation" policy as a solution to an "issue" actually created by them in June 2021. The foundation of this 12-page monstrosity rests on a legal opinion piece by Carl Coleman (a W.H.O. consultant) which was commissioned by FSMB. It is cited as #3 on page 1 of the document. I suppose they were aghast when he actually writes that it is bad policy to gag doctors:
Here's his seminal statement: "If physicians could not question prevailing standards without risking professional discipline, the result would be a substantial chilling effect on potentially valuable speech. The history of medicine contains numerous examples of once-accepted medical standards that were ultimately shown to be ineffective or harmful."
" As discussed in Part II, critics of physicians who disseminate medical misinformation typically emphasize the potential of medically inaccurate messages to harm public health.
However, from a constitutional perspective, focusing on the harms that could result from the content of physicians’ statements is not a promising strategy. The problem is that, even if
medical misinformation may contribute to risky behavior, disciplinary action is not the only way for states to mitigate this harm.
A basic tenet of First Amendment law is that, rather than imposing penalties on persons who communicate potentially dangerous messages, the appropriate response to misinformation is to
counter it with messages that are accurate—i.e., to engage in
“counterspeech.” Because counterspeech is available as an alternative policy option, courts are unlikely to find that disciplinary action is the least restrictive means of achieving the state’s
public health goals."
NOTE: There has been no counterspeech here in NZ! No debate.
Coleman goes on: "As discussed above, medical misinformation is commonly defined as information that deviates from current medical consensus, but not everything that deviates from professional consensus is indisputably false. For example, a position may lack evidentiary support
but be theoretically plausible, or it may be supported by some evidence but not enough to convince the professional community. While such positions might satisfy the definition of medical
misinformation, the fact that they remain unproven does not necessarily mean they are objectively wrong"
"In fact, many examples of medical misinformation discussed
in Part I of this Article could potentially fall into this epistemological grey area. This is particularly true in areas in which the scientific information is less certain or rapidly evolving. For example, although the medical community now agrees that masking is an effective means to prevent the spread of COVID-19, just a few months before that consensus emerged, public health authorities were actively discouraging masking among the general public. Physicians could point to the recent change in position as a sign that the evidence on masking is still in flux. Similarly, it might be difficult for boards to establish objective falsity when physicians make claims about unproven treatments or products
unless they can point to evidence establishing that those interventions are ineffective or harmful."
And finally he states: "Characterizing physicians’ public speech about medical matters as an aspect of professional practice would also have troubling policy implications. If disciplinary actions based on physicians’ public statements were subject to the more deferential standards applicable to the regulation of professional practice, licensing boards would be free to penalize physicians whenever
they express opinions that conflict with prevailing professional norms, even if those opinions cannot be shown to be objectively false. Physicians who believe that the existing standard of care is misguided would therefore have no way to express their views publicly without exposing themselves to potential disciplinary action.
If physicians could not question prevailing standards without risking professional discipline, the result would be a substantial chilling effect on potentially valuable speech. The history of medicine contains numerous examples of once-accepted medical standards that were ultimately shown to be ineffective or harmful. For example, in the late 1980s, a large study found that a group of drugs that physicians had widely considered essential in the treatment of heart attack patients in fact increased these patients’ risk of dying as compared to a placebo"
A great essay. I am practicing family medicine in the US but I have formal training in psychiatry. I recognize in your article some shades of the independent minded doctors I knew 40 years ago when I was beginning my training. Missing from your essay is the scorn I would heap upon gutless, spineless, mercantilist whores that identify as my colleagues and have bequeathed to the general public the sham profession which is contemporary medicine. The global covid debacle and scam could not have happened without the tacit approval of millions of sheep with MDs.