Preamble
My brother Garth and I have been attempting to get a meeting with Dr. Morrison, PEI’s Chief Health Officer since before Christmas. After receiving a response to a question concerning the Cycle Threshold (CT) being used in the PCR test from Dr. Morrison on December 4, 2020, we decided to ask for a meeting to discuss a number of COVID-19 related concerns, including what we had learned from her about the flawed testing protocol PEI was using, a test certain to generate false positives.
Dr. Anthony Fauci had clarified in a 60 Minutes interview last October that any PCR positive test using a CT above 35 CT was completely unreliable and therefore useless. We wanted an explanation why PEI is using a test known to be useless.
Whether PEI is still using a CT of 37.9 is one of the questions sent to Dr. Morrison.
We had first requested a meeting in a December 22, 2020 email:
We had not received a response by January 14, 2021, so we decided to send a reminder email, and received the following response the very same day:
We’ve been picking away at doing research and putting together our concerns in an organized way since receiving that invitation. This was the email we sent to Dr. Morrison with an accompanying letter last week.
That’s really all that needs to be said by way of an introduction. The information in the letter speaks for itself, and we believe, clearly articulates the concerns that we and many other people – most importantly leading world scientists in virology, immunology, epidemiology, etc., have identified – and we are looking forward to Dr. Morrison’s and her team’s responses.
Will we get any response? If we do, will it adequately address all these key issues and concerns by honest and forthright answers to the questions we’ve posed?
Dr. Morrison said she and her team “will do our best to respond to you,” so we have to take her at her word.
It’s not an encouraging sign that she has yet to acknowledge receipt of our letter as we requested, nor has she indicated when we might expect to hear back from her and her team with responses to our questions, so we’re in a “wait and see” mode.
I’ll provide an update if and when we do get a response.
As you are likely aware, the Guardian, CBC and Eastern Graphic are not asking any of the above questions, nor even mentioning that there are concerns, so please share this information with as many Islanders as possible.
This is journalism worth paying for.
Thank you! Donations are very much appreciated.
This makes me laugh, you’re way ahead of the other media outlets, ask pointed and objective questions? Number One, They don’t know anything about it, Number two, They might offend someone.
Good questions, Kevin.
The origin of the Nuremberg Code began in pre–World War II German politics, particularly during the 1930s and 1940s. The pre-war German Medical Association was considered to be a progressive yet democratic association with great concerns for public health, one example being the legislation of compulsory health insurance for German workers[citation needed]. However, starting in the mid-1920s, German physicians, usually proponents of racial hygiene, were accused by the public and the medical society of unethical medical practices. The use of racial hygiene was supported by the German government in order to create an Aryan “master race”, and to exterminate those who did not fit into their criteria. Racial hygiene extremists merged with National Socialism to promote the use of biology to accomplish their goals of racial purity, a core concept in the Nazi ideology. Physicians were attracted to the scientific ideology and aided in the establishment of National Socialist Physicians’ League in 1929 to “purify the German medical community of ‘Jewish Bolshevism’.” Criticism was becoming prevalent; Alfons Stauder, member of the Reich Health Office, claimed that the “dubious experiments have no therapeutic purpose”, and Fredrich von Muller, physician and the president of the Deutsche Akademie, joined the criticism.[1]
In response to the criticism of unethical human experimentation, the Reich government issued “Guidelines for New Therapy and Human Experimentation” in Weimar, Germany. The guidelines were based on beneficence and non-maleficence, but also stressed legal doctrine of informed consent. The guidelines clearly distinguished the difference between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research. For therapeutic purposes, the guidelines allowed administration without consent only in dire situations, but for non-therapeutic purposes any administration without consent was strictly forbidden. However, the guidelines from Weimar were negated by Adolf Hitler. By 1942, the Nazi party included more than 38,000 German physicians, who helped carry out medical programs such as the Sterilization Law.[2]
After World War II, a series of trials were held to hold members of the Nazi party responsible for a multitude of war crimes. The trials were approved by President Harry Truman on May 2, 1945 and were led by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. They began on November 20, 1945 in Nuremberg, Germany, in what became known as the Nuremberg trials. In one of the trials, which became known as the “Doctors’ Trial”, German physicians responsible for conducting unethical medical procedures on humans during the war were tried. They focused on physicians who conducted inhumane and unethical human experiments in concentration camps, in addition to those who were involved in over 3,500,000 sterilizations of German citizens.[3][4]
Several of the accused argued that their experiments differed little from those used before the war, and that there was no law that differentiated between legal and illegal experiments. This worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, who worked with the prosecution during the trial. In April 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes outlining six points for legitimate medical research.[5]
The Nuremberg code, which stated explicit voluntary consent from patients are required for human experimentation was drafted on August 9, 1947.[6] On August 20, 1947, the judges delivered their verdict against Karl Brandt and 22 others.[7] The verdict reiterated the memorandum’s points and, in response to expert medical advisers for the prosecution, revised the original six points to ten. The ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code”, which includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.[8]
This is unfolding in the worlds population with the untested synthetic pathogen MRNA JAB.
RAY
I’m not sure if you are aware of Telagram? This is one of the fastest growing apps that does not censor. I believe it would be a asset to your cause as islanders are joining this social media site.