Discover more from Exposing The Darkness
COVID: The Destruction of Medical Ethics and Trust in the Medical Profession
" To stay silent is to be complicit to the greatest breach of our human rights and medical ethics in human history. "
Exposing The Darkness is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
One-time or recurring donations can be made through Ko-Fi:
By Ahmad K Malik May 12, 2023
This is the first of a two-part discussion by a consultant surgeon of the damage done by the government’s irrational Covid policies.
WHEN it comes to the last three years, there is a lot I do not know. What I do know is that I have many questions. Was the ‘pandemic’ a ‘plandemic’? It certainly felt like it. Did the virus escape from a lab? What exactly is a virus? What precisely was the role of the US Department of Defense, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Dr Anthony Fauci in the origins of SARS‑CoV‑2? Why would anyone in their right mind carry out gain of function experiments; isn’t this simply biowarfare by another name? Why did our Government, in lockstep with most other countries, introduce lockdowns, mask mandates and social distancing when there has never been any evidence to show their efficacy? Why were alternative, cheap and easily available therapeutics not considered, instead ridiculed and even banned? Surely in the presence of a lethal pandemic one would explore all options?
I do not understand why the UK introduced lockdown on March 20, 2020, when one day earlier the government had downgraded SARS-CoV-2 as no longer a high consequence infectious disease. I do not understand why certain billionaires and personalities held so much sway over domestic and international politics especially when it comes to health and in particular Covid policies. I do not understand why our governments would self-inflict such tremendous damage on their already weak economies through their Covid policies. And why did questioning the Covid narrative and government result in censorship and de-platforming on all major social media platforms? Why, if the masks worked, did we have to stand six feet apart? If standing six feet apart worked, why the need to wear masks? If both worked, why the need for lockdowns? If all three worked, why the need for a rushed vaccine? And make no mistake, it was rushed. If the vaccines were safe and effective then why the added ‘no liability’ clause? How, finally, can an experimental novel gene therapy can be called a vaccine?
What I do know, as a surgeon who qualified 25 years ago, is quite a lot about medical ethics and informed consent. Medical ethics are the moral principles by which doctors must conduct themselves, that govern the practice of medicine. The four pillars of medical ethics are Non-maleficence (to do no harm), Beneficence (doing good), Autonomy (giving the patient the freedom to choose freely, where they are able) and Justice (ensuring fairness).
Non-maleficence is often described by the Latin phrase Primum non nocere, which means ‘first, do no harm’. Given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good. It prompts vigilance as to the possible harm that any intervention might do. That is why alarm bells rang for me in late spring 2020 when there was much discussion about how vaccines would get us out of the pandemic. Never before had we been able to produce a vaccine for a coronavirus (one of the common cold viruses) due to their high rate of mutation. Drug development is a notoriously long drawn-out affair taking roughly a decade to complete multiple key safety steps, each of which must be passed to progress to the next. First, preclinical drug trials when the drugs are tested using computer models and human cells grown in the laboratory. In these studies researchers determine the following information about the drug: its absorption, biodistribution, metabolisation and excretion. Next, animal trials. Finally come the human clinical trials.
The clinical stage usually has three to four phases. Phase I tests the safety of a new treatment. Phase II tests the new treatment against a placebo or other treatments. Phase III trials involve larger numbers of patients, usually in the hundreds and thousands. Finally Phase IV trials come after a drug has been approved to test its ongoing efficacy and safety.
The Covid vaccines were all rushed through the normal process. Questions remain about which steps were skipped. While I identified three early animal studies: Corbett et al (2020): Evaluation of the mRNA-1273 Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in Nonhuman Primates, New England Journal of Medicine; Vogel et al (2020): A prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike RNA vaccine is highly immunogenic and prevents lung infection in non-human primates, bioRxiv; Vogel et al (2021): BNT162b vaccines protect rhesus macaques from SARS-CoV-2, Nature, none looked at the safety and potential adverse effects of the Covid vaccines.
Were any biodistribution studies carried out? Was the safety profile of the lipid nanoparticles, their biodistribution and toxicity levels ever tested? Were animal tests done specifically looking at this? These questions have not been answered, suggesting either that none were or they were never published – both equally reprehensible.
It is safe to say the world had never seen vaccines like these before. Both the use of lipid nanoparticles and mRNA are novel and experimental. Yet at the time the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Pfizer emergency use authorisation, the company ended their trial prematurely. This was when they gave the vaccine to the placebo arm (the trial comparison group), thereby removing the possibility of critical long-term comparative safety and efficacy data. Pfizer claimed it was unethical to withhold the vaccine from the placebo group as it was safe and effective, though it was scientifically impossible to assert this at that early juncture. It was certainly unethical to end the study and deprive us of critical long-term safety data.
It was also unethical to claim, as they did, that their experimental vaccine had 95 per cent efficacy. This piece of statistical conmanship was premised on a deeply misleading relative risk reduction percentage calculation when what actually matters is the absolute risk reduction. Absolute risk reduction gives the actual difference in risk between one group and another. This is important since the absolute risk reduction in this case was less than 1 per cent – information which if known might well have changed people’s opinions as to the vaccine’s value to them, or to society for that matter. It leads us straight to question of informed consent, the critical second pillar of medical ethics. I will discuss this in Part 2.
This is the second part of a discussion by a consultant surgeon of the damage done by the government’s irrational Covid policies.
IT ISN’T enough to get permission from a patient before you carry out an intervention. For consent to be valid it has to hold up to certain preconditions. Patients must be properly informed of all their options, including not having any treatment. They must be warned of the pros and cons of each choice. It has to be voluntary with no coercion, no intimidation and no threats. Patients should be allowed to ask questions. For example, what is in the vaccine? What are my individual risks of having it? (From Pfizer’s own data, serious adverse events were later reported at 1 in 800.) What is my absolute risk reduction from the intervention?
Other valid questions have remained the province of alternative media, raised only when they escaped censorship. Were aborted foetal cells used? Why was the spike protein (supposedly the most lethal part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) produced for the vaccine? How much spike protein would be made? Would there be any risk to the body by its introduction?
At the time of the vaccine rollout we had been living under nine months of severe government restrictions, lockdowns, social distancing, mask mandates and bans on travel and even visits to a pub or restaurant. Sage’s SPI-B (Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours) and the ‘nudge unit’ had done a fantastic job along with the rest of Government and the MSM in scaring us, while dangling the freedom carrot on a vaccine stick. This was nothing if not coercive. Were the population clearly told that they would be receiving an experimental, novel, unproven gene therapy with no long-term safety data? No. They were told with a repetitive singularity that it was ‘safe and effective’ and anyone asking legitimate questions was labelled dangerous, a misogynist, a racist, an idiot, reckless and a danger to society. A ‘granny killer’. Against all the principles of medical ethics, a combination of fear, isolation, restriction of freedom, propaganda and information suppression was used to ‘persuade’ the population into signing up to being part of a mass experiment. Almost everyone I knew told me they had the vaccine only so that they could travel to see loved ones or go on holiday. If not coercion, it was certainly bribery. For the unvaccinated and unmasked it was difficult to access medical treatment. In some parts of the world a medical apartheid existed.
A further blow to medical ethics came with vaccine mandates, first for care home workers and then for all NHS and private healthcare workers, the latter rescinded only at the 11th hour. Mandates are anathema to medical ethics. They fly against the third pillar – the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and personal choice. Forty thousand care home workers lost their jobs in the UK for asserting this right and have never been compensated. Many, many more in the US lost their livelihoods or were coerced into mandatory vaccination.
Despite this systematic crushing of medical ethics, the vast majority of the 280,000 UK doctors stood silent. The Royal Colleges of physicians, surgeons, nurses etc went along with the Government narrative. The General Medical Council, which issues guidance to doctors on what it means to be a Good Medical Doctor, remained silent.
The few doctors who were bold enough to question the narrative and did raise concerns were investigated and suspended by the GMC. Doctors who were pro-narrative and stated incorrect facts were left unsanctioned by the GMC. The double standards were clear to see and set a warning to any dissidents of what lay in store if they questioned the narrative.
The GMC and disciplinary processes in hospitals were weaponised to create medical censorship, though the fightback is gaining strength.
When I published a video on Twitter questioning the safety of the Covid mRNA gene therapy shots, I was contacted by the national medical directors of two private hospital groups I work out of. They told me anonymous complaints had been made and I was to stop posting on Twitter and to take down my video, under threat of possible future action including review of my practising privileges. I argued that as a doctor it was my duty of care to speak up especially regarding patient safety issues. I was also following GMC guidance items 23 and 24 in the Good Medical Practice guide.
Guidance 23 states that to help keep patients safe you must: contribute to confidential inquiries, adverse event recognition, report adverse incidents involving medical devices that put or have the potential to put the safety of a patient, or another person, at risk, and report suspected adverse drug reactions and respond to requests from organisations monitoring public health, while always respecting patients’ confidentiality.
Guidance 24 says you must promote and encourage a culture that allows all staff to raise concerns openly and safely.
I haven’t stopped my social media posts and I will continue to raise awareness of the harms that I am seeing from these ‘therapies’. Referring to GMC guidance, other doctors should perhaps be braver about standing up to such attempted censorship.
Informed consent is not bound by one moment in time. Patients need to be made aware of new information that might affect their choice and future decisions, for example the emerging evidence that the shots do not remain in our arms only; that the lipid nanoparticles travel across the blood-brain barrier and throughout the body including reproductive organs. We were told the mRNA could not be written into our DNA, but a 2022 study shows that this can happen within six hours of taking the shot. Pfizer themselves produced a document listing hundreds of potential complications. Such risks are referred to by the MHRA but consistently downplayed or dismissed. Yet their Yellow Card reports show nearly 500,000 people impacted by adverse events, the majority seriously, despite which the MHRA repeats and insists on its ‘safe and effective’ mantra. Have patients being offered boosters been made aware of any of this?
It is hard to understand the MSM culture of silence and avoidance of anything that seems like a critique of either the mRNA ‘vaccines’ or of the government health agencies, who refuse to review the collateral health damage even though informed consent and patient safety are at stake. The bodies that are meant to defend the patient and stand up for medical ethics remain quiet. The journalists, media outlets, celebrities, influencers and activists who speak out on ‘climate emergency’ or the UK getting there first on the vaccine remain deadly quiet when it comes to the greatest medical experiment inflicted on humankind.
Every week doctors tell me in whispered conspiratorial tones that they agree with me, that they support what I am doing, and that they won’t have any more shots. But when I ask them why they don’t go public, they shake their heads and look down at the ground. They are scared of losing their jobs and livelihood, of course. A neurologist mentioned to me how he had never been so busy; that he was seeing bizarre and rare conditions on an ever more frequent basis. When I asked what was driving this, he answered under his breath ‘the vaccines’, even though we were the only two in the room. I asked if he would go public, and he shook his head and walked away.
As a member of a private closed Facebook group for doctors numbering in the thousands, I witnessed the virtue signalling, professional hubris and groupthink and how they ridiculed colleagues and patients who chose not to have the vaccine. What I didn’t see was compassion, empathy and respect for people’s choices.
The fact that doctors, of all people, couldn’t see the hypocrisy and lies underlying the fear-mongering, manipulation and censorship is cause for grief.
Doctors have let their patients down badly. They have blindly followed the government narrative. They have abandoned any pretence at medical ethics. They now refuse or are reluctant to admit that there are mRNA gene injuries or see them for what they are, and help address them. This is medical gaslighting at its finest.
The public are not blind to this. Every day I get messages informing me that trust in the medical profession is dead, that it will never be regained.
If we, the medical profession, hope to regain that coveted position of most trusted profession, we need to first acknowledge a mistake was made (duty of candour), apologise, prevent it from happening again and seek to remedy and put to right the wrongs.
To stay silent is to be complicit to the greatest breach of our human rights and medical ethics in human history.