Thank you for all your work during the past 6 years.
I can relate to not being heard. Being a veterinary surgeon did not help much trying to convince people we were completely on the wrong track. The only thing I could do was speak (eyes often glazed over) and write.
It has changed me fundamentally as a person and I look at humankind in a different way.
I hope at some stage the full truth will out and we get to a position of ‘never again’!
We know that the existing pandemic preparedness plans were quickly overruled in 2020, and that most of the coercive controls that followed were based on slim or contrary evidence. Your account here is persuasive about the shifting sands below these decisions. Thank you.
Thanks so much for all the work you are doing Clare & thanks to you too Laura. Here's hoping that the truth will expose all the tyrants and the light will shine again. Much love and Happy Christmas to you and your families from two Brits, fighting against the tyrants in NZ, where they have just passed a bill to allow more gene tech meddling. The CCP & Gates & Blackrock/WEF have a grip on too many business bods and MP's here (and ex politicians). We will not give in. Exposing the funders and the corruption is the key. Thanks again for being shiners of the light!
Coming from a registered doctor, this is not neutral commentary. It functions as anti-vaccination advocacy in effect, undermining public trust in vaccination more broadly and carrying foreseeable public-health risk. That is a materially different position from critiquing overconfidence, coercive policy, or communication failures.
The publication of a book aimed at the general public represents deliberate repetition and amplification of these claims, not a one-off expression of opinion. From a professional-regulation perspective, that is significant. It is reasonable for the GMC to reopen consideration of fitness to practise where conduct is ongoing, escalated, and framed using medical authority, particularly where earlier concerns appear not to have been remediated.
Criticism of institutions is not the issue here; misrepresentation of evidence and the promotion of a narrative that vaccines were deceptive, defective, or “never worked” is. Doctors are entitled to debate, but they are also obliged to communicate proportionately, accurately, and with regard to foreseeable harm. On that standard, this material falls short.
Hello Helen. Would you like me to send you a copy so you can read the evidence? Which evidence do you think I have misrepresented and how can you know without reading the book?
If there was a vaccine that failed, how would saying that undermine “vaccination more broadly”. Surely not saying that is what does that?
I have published a book so that the evidence is set out clearly in one place. In so doing I am fulfilling my GMC duty to “take appropriate action to raise and act on concerns about patient care, dignity and safety if they believe patients may be at risk.” The GMC also recognises whistleblowing about organisational or systemic failures.
Importantly I am not “using medical authority” to make my case. That is precisely what got us here but I am using raw evidence only to make the case. People are free to make up their own minds.
Not only are “doctors entitled to debate” it is the ONLY way we can protect patients and improve care. The GMC are clear on this. Having a minority view is not a reason for GMC concern even though it seems many wish it were.
"Spiked" in military parlance means sabotaged, rendered useless, and in the practice of doing so, having deadly consequences...
I did not know that! Thank you.
My interest in the military...Good luck with the book, and all your future projects,,,
Happy Christmas to you and your family Clare. Thanks so much for all that you are doing. Much love & respect.
Thank you for all your work during the past 6 years.
I can relate to not being heard. Being a veterinary surgeon did not help much trying to convince people we were completely on the wrong track. The only thing I could do was speak (eyes often glazed over) and write.
It has changed me fundamentally as a person and I look at humankind in a different way.
I hope at some stage the full truth will out and we get to a position of ‘never again’!
We know that the existing pandemic preparedness plans were quickly overruled in 2020, and that most of the coercive controls that followed were based on slim or contrary evidence. Your account here is persuasive about the shifting sands below these decisions. Thank you.
Thank you for your stand.
Thank you, Dr Clare, for your courage and clarity.
Hang in there!
Thanks so much for all the work you are doing Clare & thanks to you too Laura. Here's hoping that the truth will expose all the tyrants and the light will shine again. Much love and Happy Christmas to you and your families from two Brits, fighting against the tyrants in NZ, where they have just passed a bill to allow more gene tech meddling. The CCP & Gates & Blackrock/WEF have a grip on too many business bods and MP's here (and ex politicians). We will not give in. Exposing the funders and the corruption is the key. Thanks again for being shiners of the light!
And have you actually read the book? Or are you just going to stick with the narrative... come hell or high water?
That looks live a great but painful read. I am not sure our scars will heal.
Thank you for your hard work. Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Coming from a registered doctor, this is not neutral commentary. It functions as anti-vaccination advocacy in effect, undermining public trust in vaccination more broadly and carrying foreseeable public-health risk. That is a materially different position from critiquing overconfidence, coercive policy, or communication failures.
The publication of a book aimed at the general public represents deliberate repetition and amplification of these claims, not a one-off expression of opinion. From a professional-regulation perspective, that is significant. It is reasonable for the GMC to reopen consideration of fitness to practise where conduct is ongoing, escalated, and framed using medical authority, particularly where earlier concerns appear not to have been remediated.
Criticism of institutions is not the issue here; misrepresentation of evidence and the promotion of a narrative that vaccines were deceptive, defective, or “never worked” is. Doctors are entitled to debate, but they are also obliged to communicate proportionately, accurately, and with regard to foreseeable harm. On that standard, this material falls short.
Hello Helen. Would you like me to send you a copy so you can read the evidence? Which evidence do you think I have misrepresented and how can you know without reading the book?
If there was a vaccine that failed, how would saying that undermine “vaccination more broadly”. Surely not saying that is what does that?
I have published a book so that the evidence is set out clearly in one place. In so doing I am fulfilling my GMC duty to “take appropriate action to raise and act on concerns about patient care, dignity and safety if they believe patients may be at risk.” The GMC also recognises whistleblowing about organisational or systemic failures.
Importantly I am not “using medical authority” to make my case. That is precisely what got us here but I am using raw evidence only to make the case. People are free to make up their own minds.
Not only are “doctors entitled to debate” it is the ONLY way we can protect patients and improve care. The GMC are clear on this. Having a minority view is not a reason for GMC concern even though it seems many wish it were.
I think you are rather proving the point being made.
Do you practice medicine in the UK,Helen, I see you say you are a doctor?