The general practitioner and the vaccine: agree or disagree

We were contacted by a general practitioner who, in the course of his work, had to place one of his patients in a nursing home. He agreed to testify about the specific procedure he must follow as part of the nursing home vaccination policy. A practice that inspires him those of « totalitarian regimes ».

 » Yesterday I had to stop by to see a patient that I had to place in a nursing home. I adapted the treatment for my patient and, before leaving, the nurse gave me a sheet to indicate whether my patient should take the « Covid vaccine » or not.

I’ve read strange, similar documents before, where they wash their hands of the medical liability assumption, behind words like « Standard Operating Procedure », military terms to say that the armored car is going its way, without much regard to who is driving, and who is covered by medical professional liability insurance in this case. I do not believe that our professional medical liability insurance covers us for the experimental gene therapy administration campaign that is being carried out with Pfizer and Moderna products. We have no hindsight, therefore, although the government and the EMA (European Medicines Agency) are fully behind this massive experimentation campaign on the population.

But the document that this nurse gave me last night, I had to reread because it seemed too absurd. The document asked me to inform my patient or her family about the vaccination, and then to note whether I had obtained my patient’s consent on the paper. If I didn’t, he immediately considered my answer to be positive.

Only, underneath, there was only one box to fill in: a box to say, in a general way, that I gaves my agreement for the SARS-CoV‑2 vaccination of my patients. I felt like I was being offered a choice under a totalitarian regime, where there was only one way to vote.  »

When confronted with this request sheet for authorization to give the experimental injectable product to his patient, the attending physician indicated on it: 

 » [Que cela soit bien clair]I, the undersigned, Dr. XXX XXX , [N’]« authorizes »« NOT » (where the « Let it be clear », « N’  » and « NOT » had to be added between added between the words in the sentence) that the COVID-19 vaccination be performed for my patients. Concerns patient XXXXX « .

Dismayed, the attending physician also indicated on the sheet provided for authorization of the vaccination: 

 » Where is the box to say that obviously my patient is not a candidate for this experimentation?  »

To ensure that his indication not to vaccinate her was followed by the home team, the doctor again put,  » She’s already had Covid-19, giving her this product is very dangerous!  »

 » It is especially this last sentence that caused discussion and concern among the nurses who had seen the message, because in this Home of Rest and Care we vaccinated people who had had the Coronavirus as much as those who had not. There is in fact very little experimental evidence to say whether patients who had already received the Covid-19 were more at risk or not of developing side effects: what we can reasonably say is that the benefit/risk ratio is much less in favor of vaccinating these people (because they already have a natural immunity), and that there is more risk of creating a painful state of iatrogenic inflammation(1) in people who have recently had the disease.

The danger is to give gene therapies presented as vaccines against a Coronavirus, to elderly people, knowing that these techniques have not yet passed preclinical tests on animals. This is a risk we cannot afford. The reality is that this virus is especially dangerous because of the inflammatory reaction it can cause in certain people at risk: this must be treated on a case-by-case basis, with the right treatments that exist. The solution is not to « make war against this virus », by developing in a record time experimental vaccines against a Coronavirus with little immunity, knowing, in veterinary medicine, that we have already suffered 30 years of bitter failures, and that the tests on animals to develop vaccines against SARS-Coronavirus have given much worse reactions of inflammation, when the animals were exposed to new SARS-virus after their « vaccinations ». This is a matter of Hippocratic medical common sense, which unfortunately is lost in our universities nowadays.

In any case, the coordinating doctor of the home was so outraged by my remarks on the « authorization to vaccinate » sheet, that he picked up his phone immediately and loudly expressed his exasperation against me, the recalcitrant attending doctor, using unconfessional adjectives and expressing his intention to bring this « unscientific » attitude before the Order of Physicians… »

An anonymous doctor

Notes et références
  1. NDLR Provoqué par un médicament, par un traitement médical
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Log in