Efforts to control the pandemic narrative began with a systematic suppression of any suggestion that it might have originated in a research lab of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, then moved on to denigrate, silence and smear critics of lockdowns, masks and vaccine efficacy and mandates.
A bill up for debate in the Queensland parliament on October 11th takes censorship to another level. If successful, it will fundamentally reshape the relationship between doctors, patients and health regulators.
The Australian Medical Network says under the new law “health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients”, and health regulators will be given “the power to sanction doctors for expressing their professional opinion based on their assessment of the best available science”.
California’s legislature has just passed a similar law empowering the state’s medical board to revoke the licence of physicians who expresses opinions “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus to the standard of care”.
So now it’s official. They have outlawed opinions.
Having overturned 100 years of settled science and policy orthodoxy on pandemic management with Covid, we are on the cusp of revolutionising the everyday practice of medicine by subordinating the professional judgement of doctors on the best treatment options for their patients to the directives of bureaucrats and health regulators.
As per an existing intergovernmental agreement, the Queensland change could be replicated in cascading legislative amendments in other states and territories to ensure a uniform national law (although passage by other legislative bodies is not guaranteed).
If not paused and stopped, this will affect every Australian, to the detriment of public health.
Let’s look at the practical implications of this in relation to the vexed issue of vaccines for young people. Denmark and Norway have banned Covid vaccines for healthy under-50s and under-65s respectively. On September 30th, Sweden announced an end to vaccine recommendations for 12 to 17-year-olds from November 1st. All three have excellent public health infrastructure and aggressively promote best-practice public health measures.
Yet our own Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved vaccines for children aged six months to five years. The four countries cannot all be ‘following the science’. NSW Health data back the Scandinavians’ conclusion that the Covid risk to children is minuscule. In the past four months (May 22nd to September 24th), just 0.1% of the 2,201 Covid deaths were aged 0 to 19. Almost all would have had serious underlying conditions. An article in Vaccine suggests that, for Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, added risks of serious adverse events are, respectively, 2.4 and 4.4 times higher than the reduced risk of hospitalisation. In a follow-up note, two of the authors note that the manufacturers’ clinical trials showed 125 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinated people, while preventing between 22 to 63 hospitalisations.
Another study in preprint by U.S., Canadian and British scientists estimates that to prevent one Covid hospitalisation in 18 to 29-year-olds, 22,000 to 30,000 of them must be boosted. But for every one hospitalisation prevented, there are 18 to 98 serious adverse events: a net expected harm.
Another new study of almost 900,000 children aged five to 11 in North Carolina, in the New England Journal of Medicine, adds to concerns that vaccines don’t just rapidly lose effectiveness; they might also be destroying natural immunity against reinfection.
Among children who had been infected by the Delta variant and didn’t get vaccinated, protection against reinfection fell from 95% in September last year to 53% at the end of May this year. In infected children who were also vaccinated, effectiveness had fallen to zero by May. The likely, albeit not definitive, explanation is that the vaccines themselves are damaging natural immunity.
Aseem Malhotra is a British cardiologist who initially promoted the Covid vaccines on TV to help overcome public hesitancy. When his fit and healthy 73-year-old dad died of a sudden heart attack six months after a second Pfizer dose, he spent six months analysing the data around vaccines. He now describes this as “perhaps the greatest miscarriage of medical science we will witness in our lifetime”.
He notes that Pfizer’s own trial showed slightly more deaths in the treatment than in the placebo arm and no statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality.