TRANSCRIPT:
All right. Okay. I first I got apologize because I don’t believe I’m as eloquent as my two previous senior specialist and that’s why I’m a GP. Okay. I wield the bat, eh?
Okay guys, so First of all, I would like to basically start by saying that I would like to make the point that these views are my own and I they do not necessarily represent the views of any of my professional associations. That’s me, much younger and I appreciate the fact that if you cannot see this, can you see that? "Antipsychotics hit the street" (newspaper headline in photo) Who would have thought that I would be using this slide today, hey?
First of all, I came to Australia 1989. I’m an Australian Citizen and I graduated in 1997 from UK University as an MBBS. I obtain my GP Fellowship in 2003 and I have done all my medical training and clinical practice in Australia. I started practice medicine in Australia in 1998 as an intern at Mater Public hospital, what used to be the Mater Private Hospital and later started my journey in general practice in 2000. I had a number of academical roles within the College of GPs as an examiner, an assessor of overseas trained doctors, GP Registrars and I also been an educator for the GP consortiums in Queensland.
More so than that, is I am a very grateful, I’m a grateful person to for Australia for give me the opportunity to fulfil my academical and professional goals. But I also for allow me to breathe freedom for the first time in 1989. The feeling was at first very difficult to comprehend and yet very exhilarating to experience. As such, through my other life, I have lived by the ethos to reciprocate my gratitude to this beautiful country with my profession.
Life has been good in Australia until COVID hit our shores. But I do not blame covid for this though. It is more complicated and I think that we know what we’re talking about. As such we are living in unpredictable times that few of us thought possible to live it in Australia. Personally, I feel as though I have been taken back to my country of origin where freedom and liberty were remote ideals and easily denied by those in power. In my country, language was weaponized as a powerful tool of control and oppression, promoted by the media and enforced by the authorities. This was a continual source of fear, uncertainty and isolation. It saddens me deeply to say that the last two years have felt the same in Australia.
So, language. How many of you have you heard the word the word "antivaxxer"? Conspiracy theory? Science denial? Misinformation? Social distancing? Fact checkers? Top Doctors? Essential workers? What the hell is an essential worker? I believe an essential worker is anyone who puts food on the table for the family. My job as a doctor is no more important than of a garbage collector. We all have a role in society. And without each of our roles being played properly, society will collapse. We are all essentials. Maybe not politicians.
So let’s go with the power of words. "Safe and effective" - won’t go into that. "Listen to the science." "Two weeks to flatten the curve." That’s a good one. Just a little bit longer. "We are all in this together" - of course we are. "Evidence-based policy", I mean medicine or marketing or whatever. "Because of COVID." How many have we heard about "because of COVID"? What does that mean? The virus, if you want to call it the virus, doesn’t come with policies, doesn’t come with restrictions, doesn’t come with telling you what is essential and non-essential. We’ll go into that.
The last one is a little bit darker because I wanted to hide it there. "Trust me, I’m a doctor." As I say I’m not very smooth at this. (audience laughter) I’ll take that as a compliment.
Each of them were examples I have listed have been used on a daily basis to dictate and inform a norm of acceptance behaviors and a way to react and respond when the narrative is challenged. Without the need to provide other evidence nor understanding of the matter at hand. Just one way to silence those with an inquisitive mind in the drive to search for the truth.
I personally object being called an anti-vaxxer quite frankly, not because of the term itself. I have been name called worse in my life, trust me. I object to it because the majority of people who use it lack a true understanding of what it stands for and its intent in our current society and environment. They just have heard it in the legacy media, or read it in as a part of their daily social media propaganda. A magic word to shut down anyone who questions the narrative, at least that’s my impression. Let me expand on this.
To give you an example - real life example. On my last day of clinical practice at my former place of work of 20 years, I look after a man who had a nasty cut on his leg. He cut himself doing some gardening with old tool. And it was a very busy afternoon and he was just another fit-in. It always happens in general practice. The wound was dirty so it required some debridement. So I proceeded to do that and cleaned the wound and ask him for his vaccine status. And he told me that he didn’t recall when he had it. So I deemed clinically appropriate to administer a tetanus shot which I discussed with him, but he needed to have it and the side effects and so forth and I proceeded to inject him with the tetanus shot. The wound being dirty, I basically asked him that he needed to see some of my colleagues one of my colleagues the next day to make sure that basically it was healing well and there was no need for other treatment. And I said that he couldn’t see me tomorrow. Then he asked me why was that and whether I was going away on holidays? So I said to him that I opposed mandatory injections and I have been mandated out of my clinical post because of my stance. His face turned from one of a happy and grateful person for the care I have provided him even though he was actually a fit-in and he said to me "so are you an anti-vaxxer?" So I had to chuckle in my mind. Because I thought to myself the irony of this is too sublime to ignore it. So I said impolitely "how does it make any sense to call me an anti-vaxer if I just gave your tetanus shot?" (laughter, responds to crowd) I’m also nasty with needles.
So let’s look into more into this language business. As a GP, I’m honestly regard myself at the bottom of the medical hierarchy. I know the basic of essentially most fields of in medicine and surgery. I’m expected to deal with clinical conditions in pediatrics and geriatrics, conditions in the fields of internal medicine, surgical and orthopaedics. Men and women alike, organic pathology and mental health matters, and very commonly mixed presentations and undifferentiated conditions. Yes, I am not an expert in any of this fields. As such I have been made aware by the fact of many of senior colleagues who tell me you’re just a GP. I accept that. After all, that is correct. But, I’m in a unique position of being qualified to ask questions, questions that I feel should be answered by those who call themselves the experts and with a greater knowledge than that of a GP. So, here are my qualifications.
Tonight I’m not here to provide you with answers, but I’m going to do what a GP does or should do. But asking the questions that I feel deserve to be answered by those who have unleashed this campaign for the greater good of the community and our safety. So my fair question would be "what makes a vaccine safe and effective?"
So if we look at the Australian Immunization Handbook, the 13th edition, the definition is basically that a vaccine efficacy refers to the estimate of protection under ideal conditions. In other words, the percentage reduction in a person’s risk of a disease if they were vaccinated compared to one that is not. The effectiveness refers to the estimation of the condition. This is usually when using the vaccine in an immunization programs after the vaccine has been registered and basically trying to establish how effective it is at preventing infection, preventing hospitalization, and can be measured as well as how it affects the incidence in the population of the illness. Any questions about that?
So, what is basically vaccine safety? That is just as important because it tells us, according to the handbook, that vaccines are given to many people and most who are healthy. Therefore, they need to have a very high standard and are essential to minimize the risk of harm in otherwise healthy people. So it’s interesting to think about these two concepts. If something is effective, shall we use it if it’s not safe? And if something is safe, but it’s not effective, shall we use it either way? One cannot exist without the other and one should not be measured without the other as well. So if that is the case, I like to ask to my senior colleagues who are the experts in this field: "Has the criteria of safe and effective been met or is it just just a slogan of a catchy campaign?" I cannot give you an answer for that of course.
Next question: Are COVID injectable mandates consistent with the standard of care of informed consent, which is a fundamental aspect of the Australian clinical practice? I certainly cannot answer that question myself without resourcing to the Australian Immunization Handbook which you may say is the the Bible for GPs immunization. From that book it says that the criteria for informed consent has to meet at least those four points, but I like to highlight at least the most important one. It must give be must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. At the same time it can only be given after the potential recent benefit of relevant vaccine, the risk of not having it, and the alternative options have been explained to the person. The person must have the opportunity to seek more details or an explanation of vaccines or its administration.
More so, in addition to this, the AMA code of ethics revised in 2016 states the following: That one has to respect the patient’s right to make their own health care decision including the right to accept or reject advice regarding treatments procedures including life sustaining treatments.
The Queensland government tells us as well that failure to obtain patient consent for healthcare may result in a criminal charge of assault or civil action for battery. That sounds scary. In addition failure to discover material risk to a patient may give rise to civil action for negligence. This is according to Queenstown Health government guides for informed consent, which you can find on the internet.
Once again, as a GP I can only ask some questions on the basis of this. On the basis of the bold statement or findings, our mandate is affecting the ability for doctors to obtain valid informed consent from patients. Can patients provide valid informed consent if mandates appear to be in collision with the criteria to provide valid informed consent? Those providing information to obtain valid informed consent can be misconstrued as promoting vaccine hesitancy.
That brings us to the next topic. What is vaccine hesitancy? Peter already covered some of this, I’m not gonna to bore you too much with this. But essentially this is the letter of APHRA that we were sent on March the 9th of 2021 which has that contradiction of telling us that we had to use our best criteria, but at the same time we cannot promote vaccine hesitancy. So really it’s very difficult to figure out what is meant by the vaccine hesitancy.
Health practitioners are reminded that if it is an offense under national law to advertise or regulate her services, including by social media in a way that is false misleading or deceptive. Advertising that includes false misleading or deceptive ways about covid-19 including anti-vaccination material may result in prosecution by APHRA. So that is something that is a serious concern for someone who has put so much effort to get to the position of being called a doctor.
So what happens when a patient asks? Sorry. My apologies, I must say I am not very smooth at this. So what happens when a patient asks as part of their informed consent if there is a risk of myocarditis post covid injections? If I advise no, am I actively just protecting the national immunization campaign? Or am I exerting my professional judgment or best available evidence in practice? If I say yes, can this be misconstrued as an anti vaccination campaignant statement and therefore in breech of the national board expected conduct, and risk prosecution by APHRA? prosecution I guess I can always say "maybe". (audience laughter)
So let’s say that I said "maybe" and the patient takes my "maybe" in good faith and unfortunately develops myocarditis, and now comes asking if they should have a booster. A very common situation most of my colleague have seen. After all, they had been advised by the emergency department medical officer that their case is mild and they will make a good recovery. More so, it could have been worse if it would have been because of covid. So, the question government once again released on a statement to help us in this difficult situation: what do we do with these patients?
So they give us the guideline that the advice should be that a person who has had (a condition) can receive the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine, but that they should be sought from a GP, like myself I guess, Immunization specialist - they’re not that many, cardiologists I know plenty. But can they provide the best timing for the vaccination where additional precautions are recommended?
Let’s picture this for a second. If you’re a public, if you’re a person who cannot afford to see a private cardiologist and I make a referral to the Cardiology Department of the public system requesting advice about whether you should have your second covid shot because you just have myocarditis, the waiting time is at least six months. Does that give you enough time? If you go and see a cardiologist, he will take you about a month - a private cardiologist, he will take about a month. And I’m not sure if there will be able to answer that question because they will say to you that they are not immunologists, that they are not a vaccinologist, that that is the job of the GP. So it goes back to me again, and I’m just a GP, so I’m confused.
But but the advice basically suggests that aside from suggesting the caution and advise of my top doctor is necessary to actually delay the jab, ultimately tells you delay and do it later, still give the jab. However, just recently, unfortunate that the MJA which is the Medical Journal of Australia published the largest single Children Hospital mRNA injections associated myocarditis studies, and this was done in Victoria by Dr. Surak Parma. Now, this is a this is a this is basically the name of the the journal, the name of the article, "Myocarditis after covid-19 mRNA vaccination in Australia", very specific study. It is regarded as the largest study in a single pediatric hospital.
And these are the findings: I’m not sure if you can read it very well, unfortunately. But essentially the study concluded, that study included 33 adolescence who presented to the emergency department with symptoms suggestive of heart problems after a vaccine after an injection for covid. 33 adolescents were actually admitted on between the first of August until the 31st of December 2021. Of this 69% were confirmed cases and 31% probable cases as per case definition criteria.
And please also note that there is a note about the dates for the provisional days of the jabs, which I will read to you there. For the 12 to 16 year old the other adolescents with Comirnaty (Pfizer) and Spikevax (Moderna), that was approved between the 22nd of July 2021 and the third of September for 2021 for the later. And the study was done pretty much soon afterwards. Which makes me think, possibly, they were suspecting that something was going to happen. At the same time one of the things that they found is basically that boys tend to be more affected than girls. And only one of the participants had a history of prior, had a history of prior covid infection. So the background immunities (are) unlikely to have influenced the adverse event profile, for those who wonder that question.
So the conclusion of the study was that the covid-19 mRNA vaccines associated myocarditis has a mild self-resolving clinical course. In contrast to the reported complications and long-term sequelae associated with covid-19 such a multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and other forms of myocarditis. So he’s suggesting that, despite of this, is better to have the vaccine. However they think that data is rather more compelling is that the fact that the long-term consequences of myocarditis injury with vaccine associated myocarditis warrants further investigation. In other words. "we don’t know"
So if we don’t know, what’s going to happen in the future for these kids? Will they be able to live a normal life for the rest of the life? Will they be able to live to their maximum current potential? Will this cardiac insult have an impact in the years of life loss in Australians? Does this finding support the "safe and effective" slogan? As a humble GP I can only ask the question because I’m not an expert once again. I’m not a pediatric cardiologist, I’m not an immunization specialist, I’m not a top doctor, but a GP of 20 years. I strongly believe in the precautionary principle and it essentially tells us that there is a social responsibility to protect the public exposure to such harm when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk due to the lack of extensive scientific knowledge on this matter. It emphasizes the caution, pausing and review before leaping into new innovation that may prove disastrous.
Lastly, let’s look at this famous word "antivaxxer". As I said before I object to be called this. Yes as much as our object to be called a Mexican just because I was born south of the Gringos border. I’m funny aren’t I? A quick Google search came up to with some definitions.
Let’s look at them: "a person who opposes the vaccinations typically a parent who doesn’t wish vaccination for their children." That’s the Oxford dictionary. "A person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccinations," that’s the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. And the Cambridge Dictionary says that is "someone who doesn’t agree with vaccinating people, giving them injections in other words to prevent disease, and spread and encourages opinions against vaccines." Very extensive. The best one comes from The Australian. The best working definition of an anti-vaxxer is "someone who, by fair means or foul, seeks to persuade others not to get vaccinated." Typical Aussie.
Not satisfied with these definition because I thought there were a little bit dodgy, I linked into the journals and I came across the British Medical Journal with the study incidentally done in Australia in 2019, specifically addressing the understanding of non-vaccinating parents. And the study pretty much concluded that the term of such as an "anti-vaxxer" is very unhelpful in clinical encounters and in public discussions.
Most parents in this study did not identify as anti-vaxxers in fact, but rather us non-vaccinating parents. The study also noted that language is a powerful tool in creating exclusion, reinforcing judgment, even encouraging people with similar beliefs or behaviors to band together and in at times against each other. The study found that several participants expressed some frustration with the organizations or groups identify as anti-vaccination activists. While others did not express those concerns.
So it’s a very heterogeneous situation here. In brief the study suggests that the label anti-vaxxer is best avoided and I agree with that. And perhaps we should go back to when we used to refer to conscientious objectors, and I had no problems with that. Yet after all discussions we still haven’t covered a very crucial question. What is a vaccine? Okay, that’s a look at that.
I decided to look into a reliable source of information. So I went to the WHO. (audience laughter) No one can argue with that one. It’s a widely cited source of reliable information by politicians, policy health bureaucrats, and medical association. So it has to be reliable and trusted.
Fact check. A vaccination is simple, (according to the WHO, (safe and effective, right?) way of protecting you against harmful disease before you come in contact with them. It uses your body natural defenses to build resistance to a specific infection and makes you immune system stronger. The vaccine is supposed to train you by containing only killed or weakened forms of the germs like viruses or bacteria. They do not cause the disease or put you at risk of its complications of the disease of course.
Now the ingredients of a vaccine is basically the antigen which is the killed or weakened form of a virus or a bacteria. The adjuvants is the part that is used to boost immune system, so it gives you a very strong response. The preservatives, well anyway that’s something else, and the stabilizers so they stay in the solution for a long time. I could carry on with the information that I can find in the WHO website which I’m sure that you always check up. But the important point here is that the antigen is the part of the vaccine that trains our bodies to recognize and fight the disease in the future.
Somehow I find it difficult to see where covid mRNA and viral vector injections fit into the non category as an antigen.
And the antigens as you can see are meant to be alive attenuated virus such as the measles mumps and rubella, a killed or inactive virus such as a bacterial virus such as in typhoid and Hepatitis A, a toxoid which is part of the infecting agent such as in tetanus and cholera, or a protein base of units such as the pneumovox in hepatitis B.
So quickly, so this is basically the start of injection in which it shows that basically there is a viral vector like a AZ in the mRNA, but they actually carry a blueprint of DNA or mRNA that is supposed to teach us how to produce those protein. That hardly fits into the definition of an antigen as far as I can see. Perhaps you could actually say about the Novavax, which is a protein base of unit. You may argue that. But even that, after the Novavax was released, the FDA reported some cases of myocarditis and pericarditis and the European medical and agency has recommended that the Novavax carry a warning of the possibility it may cause myocarditis and pericarditis.
So leaves us with the question: what are they?
And to finish I just like to say, well, who is the DAM? And the DAM is basically is a group of doctors in Queensland who individually and in our own time arrived to the same conclusion about the management of the pandemic. Individually, I believe that we try to debate our concerns and raise awareness among our colleagues. This was very frustrating isolating affair. We started having meetings to discuss the science and the evidence about the facts, and as a group we started to rally politicians to show up the scientific evidence in challenging the narrative with the hope of making a difference.
We have worked together with other like-minded medical groups in organizations such as the CMN and AMN and you will know Robert Brendan in this regard and AMPS as well. Some of the DAM group members have actually taken part in covid inquiries organized by Senator Malcolm Roberts. Despite of all these we soon realize that our actions like that were not achieving much. So during a group meeting early in this year. We concluded that only the way to bring some light into this darkness was to take our scientific argument to court. So was the Doctors Against Mandates born. As an independent group of doctors. We had taken the burden of this legal challenge on our shoulders and out of our own accord. We feel we have a duty of care to stolen children’s in the community.
This is a medical matter that we as doctor who stand by the Hippocratic oath must deal with. We have accepted the challenge and the burden it carries, but this is a costly plan and we need your help. So to summarize it: You ask for doctors to stand for you and we are here, with you and amongst you, and we ask that you stand with us. And if you want to wear a mask, we’re one that you’re proud of.
Lastly I would just I was just talking before this presentation, just 30 seconds, with some people when I was home, at dinner. And I was confused that one of the things that I have found frustrating about these campaign that we started is that this part of our efforts as doctors and hearing the cry for help and the fact that we acknowledge that someone has to stand, we have only had had about 669 people helping us. With that many number in comparison to the population of Queensland, I guess we don’t have many with us to stand. And this is when I say if we’re standing for you, are you standing for us? Thank you very much.
