There are just over 21,000 doctors registered with the Irish Medical Council to practise medicine in Ireland. These, in the main, are General Practitioners and hospital doctors. Of these, 5 have had the courage to raise some questions regarding the efficacy and safety of a certain pharmaceutical intervention currently being pushed as a public health measure, namely Covid Vaccinations. Of those raising questions, 4 are general Practitioners and one a hospital consultant.
Or in other words, here we have some 21,000 registered medical practitioners silent on the question of Covid vaccination – its efficacy and safety. The reason for this resounding silence is usually given as fear of Medical Council’s reaction to any criticism of this the Holy Grail of public health. But this, as an excuse for the silence, is only a copout and a lie for the following reasons:
- The Medical Council does not have any jurisprudence on how doctors advise their patients. If doctors believe that certain treatments are not in their patient’s best interest, then they are free to so advise without Medical Council’s interference.
- The 5 doctors who have spoken out against vaccination have taken legal advice on this such that the Medical Council has been forced to back off and a state of stalemate currently applies. Threats of disciplinary action from the Medical Council therefore are no longer an excuse for doctor’s silence on this critical issue.
- There are 25 members on the medical council. Twelve of them are doctors elected by their colleagues, 13 of them are lay people appointed by the government. Surely, where this mishmash of mediocrity to be pitted against 21,000 medical professionals, then there would be little dispute were it to come to deciding what was and was not ethical behaviour by doctors. All the doctors need is to be organised.
But they are not organised. For example, the Irish Medical Organisation is silent on the matter and the Irish College of General Practitioners is hostile to any member who dares raise their heads above the parapet. I know this from personal experience.
Recently, in the medical literature, scientific evidence is emerging that Covid vaccine is ineffective and carries with it many serious side-effects including death. Over 21,000 doctors know about this yet seem cowed into silence by the Medical Council’s non-existent threats. In withholding this vital information from their patients and from the public they are, in my view, doing harm and failing in their first duty towards society.
One can but conclude that the medical profession is populated by some 21,000 craven cowards afraid of what no one knows. Medical ethics seems to have been turned on its head and, in the process, everyone is the poorer.
Dr Andrew Rynne. Retired General Practitioner. Human rights activist.
www.medicalwritinginput.com
Fake Sovereignty
In countries where monarchs claim to be the sole sovereign thus implying that the people are not sovereign but are merely subjects or slaves a ceremony of permission from the monarch must be conducted to give parliament and the judiciary permission to function.
The Monarch clothed in robes of false sovereignty claiming to be the supreme authority asserts this claim by ceremonially presiding over the State Opening of Parliament.
- The true sovereign had to be supreme, meaning no authority was above him.
- He had to be absolute in the sense that no tribunal could undermine this authority.
- His power needed to be indivisible, that is, he holds ultimate decision-making in matters of law, warfare and the appointment of administrators and magistrates.
- Sovereignty was in essence a state of being above and beyond all forms of political jurisdiction.
- None of that of course could exist in the absence of people and based on that criterion alone the people are the source of sovereignty. Therefore they must be sovereign.
Symbolic Significance
This is a ceremony loaded with historical ritual and symbolic significance where the monarch authorises all three branches of government to function. This demonstrates the source of authority for governance.
In the Netherlands such ceremony is held on the third Tuesday in September, which they call Prinsjesdag. In Norway, the King presides over the opening of the Storting after it had been declared to be legally constituted by the president of the Storting. In Sweden a similar ceremony was held until 1974. After its abolition the opening is now held in the Riksdag in the presence of the monarch as is still the King who officially opens the parliament. Each year European monarchs mark the official opening of the new Parliament year. This ceremony is often called the State Opening of Parliament. There ceremonies are symbolically performed ceremonies of possession – which have historically served to attempt to claim and legitimise sovereignty over a people, a nation or an area of land.
The Emperor has no clothes
A monarch is a person who claims the hereditary right to be the sole sovereign and consequently claims the right to reigns over a people, a kingdom or an empire. Such hereditary rights always had a genesis of despotic force and deception.
One of the best ways to subvert true sovereignty is to create a symbol of sovereignty and create a myth around it such as the Stone of Scone. This is said to be an ancient symbol of Scottish sovereignty. Mythology says it was Jacob’s pillow when he dreamed of a ladder reaching to heaven. He then brought to Scotland by way of Egypt, Spain and Ireland. Known in Ireland as the Stone of Destiny it was used at Tara as a coronation stone and was used afterwards for centuries in Scotland’s coronation ceremonies.
Edwards Theft
Kings by nature are greedy robbing thieves and England’s King Edward I was no exception. In 1296 King Edward seized the Stone of Scone, Scotland’s coronation stone and brought it to London. There he had it fitted into the base of the wooden Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. English and later British monarchs have been crowned there ever since. Rumours persist in Scotland, however, that what King Edward I took was a replica and that the monks at Scone Abbey hid the true stone in a river or buried it for safekeeping.
Aboriginal Sovereignty
The call in Australia for indigenous sovereignty generated multiple campaigns over the last fifty years that challenges Federal and State governments for cultural acknowledgement. As political scholar Raia Prokhovnik notes, Aboriginal sovereignty has several meanings, including:
- firstly, and perhaps most importantly, an overturning of the legal ruling of terra nullius and the recognition of indigenous peoples as traditional custodians of the land;
- secondly, the notion that the First Nations never surrendered to British occupation;
- thirdly, the necessity to acknowledge sovereign identity through enshrinement in a treaty;
- fourthly, that Aboriginal culture with its distinctive ceremonies and rituals is itself a form of inalienable sovereignty.
- Finally, sovereignty asserts the claim for equal inclusion in the Australian political economy free from discrimination and violence.
Eighteenth-century French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau said regarding sovereignty in his The Social Contract (1782) “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau was vehemently opposed to the notion of political masters. Instead, Rousseau’s central idea in The Social Contract was the concept of a “general will”; the collective opinion of the citizenry.
The social contract was a process whereby each individual bequeathed their original sovereignty to the state for the purpose of the common good. The general will always tended towards equality because it had the collectivity of its members rather than a ruling elite, in mind. In giving himself to no authority embodied in a single person, the individual citizen instead gave himself to the citizenry as a whole.
“By becoming part of the general will,” Rousseau wrote, “the citizen is like a small sovereign. Each is an ‘indivisible part’ of the general will.” In this way, each member of the citizenry would share in the power of sovereignty. “It is solely by this common interest that every society should be governed,” Rousseau proclaimed.
All power is inherent in the people. All power come from the people.