Breaking the Silence About Covid – Dr. Dave CartlandFri 11:28 am Europe/London, 11 Feb 2022 1
GPs have been warned that criticising the Covid vaccine or other pandemic measures via social media could leave them ‘vulnerable’ to GMC investigation, The Pulse reported in November 2021.
Dr. Dave Cartland, an NHS doctor, tweeted the article above on Wednesday morning, commenting: “And that right there is why no one speaks out – the veiled threats. Must say though, looking forward to seeing all the safety data presented to me at the GMC to explain away my ‘propaganda’. All that defending of ethics too!! And valid consent!! I fear they will throw away the key.”
The Pulse article was referring to the case of Dr. Sam White who, at the time, was appealing against interim conditions imposed on his registration with the General Medical Council (“GMC”) following complaints about a video he posted to Instagram and Twitter in June. Dr. White had been accused of spreading ‘misinformation’.
A little over a week earlier to his tweet above, Dr. Cartland tweeted a copy of his resignation letter saying: “Thanks @nhs100k for sharing anonymously, but I’m ok to explain to anyone with questions.”
“I have attempted in so many ways and occasions to raise my concerns about vaccine efficacy, requirement and safety particularly regarding children and healthy adults … I have been astounded by the lack of engagement by colleagues … Issues around NHS mandate for staff and unnecessary vaccinating of children are closest to my heart,” his resignation letter stated.
Dr. Cartland has also written a 16-page open letter called ‘Breaking the Silence’. His full letter is well worth the read and any attempt to publish extracts cannot do it justice, but below are a few excerpts hopefully to encourage you to take the time to read it in full:
“I became a doctor to help my patients, to be their advocate, to help them in their biology, psychology and social circumstances … I will always remember exactly the moment of my graduation when we recited the Hippocratic oath. Part of this powerful oath is a vow. A vow to ‘Primum non nocere’‐ first do no harm … To not recognise, notify or publicise concerns of harm would be contrary to mine and my colleague’s oath taken at qualification. I am writing this as a commentary and as a personal reflective piece.
“I took my first Pfizer jab on 13/1/21 in complete good faith of the science and public health underpinning its roll out, trusting as all patients do the integrity and reassurance of the government and its scientific advisors.”
Later in the letter, he explains that “the time came for Jab 2 with the ‘friendly warning’ that mandate was coming for NHS staff and after careful consideration and using evidence‐based approach myself and my wife reluctantly agreed on 26/5/21,” and he lists the many questions he had at this time about the vaccines that needed answering. But these weren’t the only unanswered questions or concerns he had.
“Something that struck me from the very beginning was that (thank God) death and seriously unwell patients at least in my capacity as a GP (and am aware that I don’t see that particular tip of the iceberg), for me never hit the heights of what I was expecting or that was being projected … ITU’s and A+Es were full of covid‐related morbidity and mortality, however as time went on slowly but surely some things started to seem odd and not make sense to my pre‐pandemic experience of medical practices…”
Dr. Cartland then goes on to describe how death certification was changed; irregularities around testing and the early use of statistics; what makes a case; and, how pandemics become endemic.
“My discomfort with current policy … came about after I was asked to consider the booster … A tri‐6 monthly jab with speculation of even more……. flu Jabs annually, Hep B jab lifelong, the ten yearly tetanus et al…, something didn’t feel right,” Dr. Cartland writes.
“I took a short look at the data from my own surgery (admittedly low numbers to try to spot a trend) … I counted 102 ’cases’ of positives in the first two weeks results and traced their vaccine status… positive… treble vaccinated… positive treble vaccinated… positive treble vaccinated. A pattern was apparent… Long story short in that 2 weeks 94.1 percent of the patients n= 96 of 102 were treble or double jabbed (mostly treble) and just the 2% n=2 unvaccinated. I decided to repeat this the next week and this time 100% of the 38 patients were double or treble jabbed zero unvaccinated.
“At this time, I committed time to fully researching whether the risks of a jab were proportionate to the risk of the disease. Networking with other medical professionals constrained by fear to not report observations or whistle blow, the sharing of papers, research data and individuals’ clinical concerns and anecdotal observations were forming a clear pattern and hypothesis. Study after study, data set after data set seemed to come to the conclusion that the vaccinated group seemed to be at higher risks of catching covid despite full vaccination status and in the above data higher admission rates and death…”
Alongside the phenomenon above, Dr. Cartland was starting to see “flickers of signals of harm” from “vaccines.”
We were hearing from the government that the vaccine was “absolutely safe” in children and pregnant women under the guise of adverts with the headline “the best way to protect yourself from Omicron is to be treble vaccinated,” he explained.
“This didn’t seem true to me,” wrote Dr. Cartland and explained the “propaganda and misinformation on TV” compared to medical knowledge of viruses.
“We all know as clinicians that prescribing in pregnancy is riddled with lack of safety data and manufacturers often sit on the fence with recommendations of erring on the side of caution and avoid unless benefits far outweigh risks … and we were jabbing people with a treatment they simply DO NOT NEED or at very least offering negligible benefit as you went up through the age groups.”
The initial “flicker of harm signal” subsequently became a flame – “and most recently a fire!” Dr. Cartland wrote. “My individual experience of seeing very odd post‐vaccination reactions came ironically around the time of my second jab.” He then goes on to describe some of what he was witnessing, for example:
“In just one week, I saw a terrible case of a very fit gentleman who was suddenly unable to move, his hands and feet and became swollen, a reactive arthritis, coming inexplicably on without any prior rheumatological history, 2 days after his vaccine …
“I eventually wrote a post asking for people to contact me personally on social media and joined a telegram group ‘They say it’s rare’ (they also have a website). Scary amounts of people stepping forward with a full range of alleged reactions in proximity of a jab. In the last 48h I have personally had over 200 DMs with personal stories of post‐vaccine injury reaction and even deaths and the aforementioned group is just constantly posting these stories.”
Dr Cartland then wrote about “censorship gone crazy,” whether to “jab or not to jab” and ends his letter with some closing remarks which began:
“It is human nature to not want to admit you are wrong. It is human nature to not get too proactively involved in something that doesn’t directly involve you. It is human nature to trust the government and scientists that stand before us.
“But science changes, this pandemic changes. As scientists’, medics and the general public we hope as best we can to keep updated. But to censor, close down, refuse debate or critically appraise the data around evolving harm benefit profiling it’s just not science, is just not ethics or good medical practice.”
The date the letter was penned is not clear but below is a copy of Dr. Cartland’s letter as shared by World Doctors Alliance on their Telegram channel on 9 February 2022 including the comment:
A great one to email or print and deliver to your GP, MP, police, School, asleep friends and family, etc.
“Dr Cartland shares his vast medical and scientific experience in his interpretation of events of the last two years and his anecdotal analyses confirm what we have been reporting for a very long time from the big data”.
This name rings a bell; I think it may be the doctor whom Brian Gerrish mentioned interviewing, whom Brian travelled some distance to meet?