Have doctors blindly become foot soldiers of the global elite?

WHEN the National Health Service was being established after the Second World War, some doctors were uneasy about the likely effect on their relationship with patients. One wrote:

He is servant of his patient

When master of his fate

But master of his patient

When servant to the state

In the 1970s, when I was first working as a medical correspondent, the profession was still admirably self-directing.  Many doctors were fiercely independent – often to the chagrin of their political masters, who were constantly struggling to match limited resources with unlimited demand in a service free at the time of use.

Medics could make politicians quake, and their union, the British Medical Association, was constantly in the headlines for doing just that.  They enjoyed huge public support, partly because lack of commercial pressure in the NHS elicited a genuine spirit of service.

A tiger was at the gates, however, in the form of misuse of the power handed to the bureaucrats who increasingly took control of the nationalised system.  They became an easy target for lobbyists who, 50 years on, have turned the NHS and other taxpayer-funded health systems into a marketing arm for Big Pharma.

Such is the background to medical compliance with the ‘no jab, no job’ drive to force health and care home workers into having an experimental (and now evidently unsafe) injection of genetic material, after two years in which many of those workers had suffered hell through gross mishandling of the pandemic.

An unprecedented assault on doctor-patient relationships and personal freedoms, with expensive, fear-inducing, Big Brother-style propaganda repeatedly imposed to ‘save our NHS’, has actually brought the service to its knees.

Instead of taking an outright – and outraged – stand against the mandate, the BMA said, wetly, that the policy mustn’t cause the NHS to lose any more staff.

The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges took a slightly more proactive stance, saying that ‘while we understand the rationale for mandating NHS staff vaccination’, its view was that in practical terms it was not sensible or necessary, with more than 90 per cent of NHS staff already having had the jab.  The danger, said the academy, was that arguments about it would ‘become a distraction from the core issues of getting as many of the population vaccinated as possible’.

These bodies seem to have been blind to the basic human indecency of forcing staff to take an experimental injection, as well as the science – which I have been following now for more than a year with growing alarm – telling us that the entire Covid vaccine campaign has been a reckless failure.

Only an unprincipled, last-minute U-turn by ministers, who saw a looming mass exodus of staff, caused the jab order to be rescinded.

Will attitudes ever be the same again, now the Orwellian nature of our plight has been revealed?

BBC News, in a welcome break from its previously unrelenting pro-jab messaging, spoke to four midwives ‘whose confidence in their employer has been shattered’, as reporter Jennifer McKiernan put it, and who were warning of an exodus from the NHS regardless of the U-turn.

One said she felt ‘stalked, bullied and harassed’ with letters, emails and text messages telling her she would be sacked. ‘I feel so badly treated that I’m thinking of resigning, because it made me feel worthless and like I was not a human being.’

Another said that in the run-up to the deadline she experienced extreme stress, crying every night and not being able to focus at work because of the threat to her job.  Her relief had turned to anger at being so unsupported.  The NHS, she said, ‘is not a place I want to work for much longer’.

Meanwhile, the intensive care specialist Dr Steve James, who challenged Health Secretary Sajid Javid over compulsory jabs for NHS staff, has done what the BMA should have done – calling for a judicial review of the policy. With seven other medical professionals, he has submitted a 32-page document to the High Court arguing that the decision was ‘unlawful, irrational and disproportionate’.

The NHS, and its dependent unions and professional organisations, have not been alone in their inability to maintain scientific and ethical principles in the face of the Covid crisis.

At least in the UK, medics such as James have been able to speak out without overt retribution, apart from being inaccurately ‘fact-checked’ by the BBC.  The arrival of the independent GB News has also begun a challenge to mainstream media’s monopoly narrative.

In countries such as the US, where massive budgets are also dispensed by powerful bureaucrats, trenchant critics who present a threat to funding may find themselves subject to Soviet-style psychiatric evaluation, as well as having their licence to practice suspended.

That is exactly what happened to Dr Meryl Nass, an American doctor accused of spreading misinformation about hydroxychloroquine, the cheap and long-established anti-malarial drug that was found at an early point in the Covid pandemic to help prevent the development of severe illness.

She demonstrated that in UK and World Health Organisation trials of the drug, it was used in ‘a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose’, given too late in the disease course to determine its value against the virus.

A trial called Recovery, sponsored by the Wellcome Trust, the Gates Foundation and the UK Government, and conducted by researchers at Oxford University, reported an appallingly high death rate of more than 25 per cent among the 1,500 patients enrolled.

In the WHO trial, Nass found that collection of limited safety data ‘serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse effects, including death’.

The ‘frightening’ conclusion to be drawn, she wrote, was that ‘WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development … in so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.’

Nass was also one of the first observers to challenge the high-level cover-up of the laboratory origin of the virus.  Last month we learned that four prominent scientists who played key roles in promoting the theory that it was a natural event received millions of dollars in extra US Government grant money in the subsequent two years.

Most recently, Nass has explained how, despite thousands of deaths and injuries reported informally in the wake of the vaccine rollout, US regulators have been unable to say how many are caused by the jabs – and have continued to insist that most are coincidental.

She writes: ‘If you don’t collect the adverse event data, and you don’t know the side-effect rates, you can keep the data-free experimental vaccinations going.  With no one the wiser.’

Has the threat of mandates and ‘health passports’ gone away? Not according to TCW Defending Freedom contributor Kate Dunlop. She argues that these are preferred tools of an anti-democratic, globalist agenda promoted by the immensely influential Davos group. They have a seductive message, which has attracted many well-intentioned societal leaders, through an appeal to the shared aim of preserving humanity’s future.

But it is taxpayers’ money that backs this agenda, and that will be paying into the indefinite future for the reshaping of society that the globalists want. And when ‘shared values’ replace both individual conscience and common sense, the result is certain disaster.

Will we wake up in time?