Discover more from A Better Way to Health with Dr Tess Lawrie
Are our regulatory bodies becoming ‘cartels of faux trust’?
Plus, tune in to an eye-opening conversation with Professor Dolores Cahill
There is a lot of criticism levelled at medical doctors for their unquestioning compliance with public health edicts. But consider those doctors continuing to exercise discernment and attempting to walk the razor’s edge between treating and informing their patients as they see fit, without going so against their regulatory body that they are suspended and then unable to treat patients at all.
This has become an almost impossible task in most countries – and completely impossible in some. As I mentioned previously, my dear friend and ally Dr Mark Trozzi was effectively forced out of his job as an excellent ER physician because he could not comply with measures that he knew would do his patients harm. I know many doctors currently under investigation by their regulatory bodies for doing the right thing: whether this be voicing their concerns about risks of Covid-19 vaccinations, or administering off-label treatments such as Ivermectin because they considered it the best treatment for their patient.
Some doctors are managing to continue their work by speaking out while remaining anonymous. One such is a UK GP who writes a blog called The Covid Physician. This offers a first-hand account of what it’s like to be a doctor in the midst of a pandemic when all around you are compliant and you are quietly rebelling. A recent post in particular struck me. In it, he writes about the latest attack on UK doctors’ rights to practice and even speak as they see fit. The UK’s regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC), is proposing revisions to its Good Medical Practice Guide that should be of grave concern to everyone.
These suggested revisions state:
‘Patients must be able to trust medical professionals with their lives and health, and medical professionals must be able to trust each other.’
They go on to state that when communicating publicly, medical professionals must ‘be honest and trustworthy’, and ‘make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is not misleading.’ That doesn’t sound too bad at first glance, but here’s what The Covid Physician points out:
The doctor’s impossible task of “Maintaining trust with ‘the public’ by being honest and not misleading” is rife with subjectivity and unresolved internal tension. The GMC’s provisions risk further undermining public trust by encouraging doctors to conspire in a cartel on faux trust and by stifling free speech.
The ‘public’ deserves and should reasonably expect frank, diverse and honest medical debate, and scientific discourse. It is unfortunate for democracy that a quasi-judicial medical practitioners tribunal panel variably constituted of three people decides how the whole public is minded.
The GMC, its executive doctors, Ofcom and media doctor government mouthpieces have been more or as guilty as anyone else in dishonestly spreading misinformation and disinformation (let us just call it opinion) on social media or elsewhere, but the difference is theirs are establishment opinions the state wants propagated.
It has long been the case that anyone or anything detracting from the profit of Pharma was denied an equal forum in mainstream scientific journals which are either owned by conflicting investment interests and/or reliant on Pharma advertising revenue. So, where does a doctor voice serious concern? Where does it leave the honest, caring doctor’s counter-establishment ideas, opinion or belief? The answer of the last two years is nowhere. You will be ignored, vilified by and snuffed out from the system. Have these bodies not realised the genesis of all unreasonable prejudice and ‘-isms’ is oppressing and censoring those whom one believes are unworthy of expression?
You can read the rest of his excellent blog here. To his observations I would add that this pressure is being exerted in other professions beyond medicine. Most recently, it has come to my attention that lawyers representing doctors suspended for speaking out, are in turn being investigated by their regulatory bodies. It is bad enough that doctors are being whipped into compliance by the threat of losing their licence to practice – but if lawyers can’t then defend those doctors who speak out, who will?
Update: the same day that I drafted this blog, the BMJ published its own article titled ‘The GMC has lost the profession’s trust and respect’. Worth a read.
I too have been subject to intimidatory correspondence by the General Medical Council for a scientific lecture I gave in September 2021 at the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institution, demonstrating a clear effort to stifle debate around the suppression of early Covid-19 treatment and sky-rocketing vaccine side effects. Let me know if you are interested in hearing this lecture and I will consider posting it in an upcoming Substack article.
We turn to the law when all other avenues have failed, and we rely on good lawyers to represent our case so that our rights may be upheld and protected. However, I am learning that we do not need to rely on others when we are empowered with the knowledge of our inalienable rights and the law.
Speaking of the law… please join me this Sunday for Tess Talks with Professor Dolores Cahill
I am thrilled to have had the chance to spend time with Professor Dolores Cahill, who has been at the forefront of fighting for medical freedom and sovereignty from the very beginning. Dolores speaks so eloquently about the law, and how our legal system is not, in fact, lawful. What really struck me from our conversation was how we are led to believe the law is horribly complicated, but it’s actually beautifully simple. I spoke of the basic tenet of the law in last week’s Substack article – that of ‘Act in honour, do no harm.’
If you’re wondering how it’s even possible that the legal system can be unlawful, then you need to listen to Dolores. Listening to her drove home to me that understanding the law in its glorious simplicity is the key to our personal and collective freedom.
The conversation will be posted here on Sunday morning, so stay tuned.