Written by Kathy Clubb
Late last year, Augusto Zimmerman and Aramis DeBarros wrote a comprehensive and rather chilling overview of the part played by medical professionals in Hitler’s genocidal regime. Entitled, ‘The New ‘Good Germans’ and Totalitarian Technocracy’, the article traced the rise of the Nazi health programme which eventually included euthanasia, racial purification, and forced medical experimentation.
In it, Zimmerman and DeBarros stated that medical professionals “as a group, outnumbered all other professionals in Nazi Party membership”, explaining how dissenting doctors were persecuted and banished from the medical fraternity. They claimed that by 1939, almost three thousand doctors had been forced to resign because of their dissension against government policies.
A not too dissimilar scenario is seen today in Australia as dozens of doctors who disagree with the prevailing narrative surrounding SARS-CoV-2 are being silenced by the authorities. The institution largely responsible for taking action against the dissenters is the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which oversees fifteen national health Boards. AHPRA has been targeting a range of activities, the most common of which have been exemptions written for COVID ‘vaccines’. One doctor was suspended for merely sharing alternative early treatments for COVID-19 on social media. There appears to be no tolerance for any health professional who questions the public health advice in any way.
The highest profile case is that of Catholic Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, well-known in pro-life circles for his strong stance against abortion. He is one of the directors of the Covid Medical Network, which represents a number of Australian medical doctors and other health professionals who are concerned about the government’s response to the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2
Following months of persecution by health authorities, Dr Hobart was suspended by APHRA in November last year. He was subjected to a series of outrages which suggested that the government’s priority was not the well-being of either doctors or patients. After his clinic closed down and was raided, with several patient files confiscated, Dr. Hobart took legal action against the Victorian Health Department in an attempt to have his patient records kept confidential. His case was urgently heard in the Supreme Court on November 16th, but less than an hour before the hearing, the respondent presented to the judge a lengthy affidavit for which his legal team was unprepared.
In a statement made at the time via his lawyers, Dr. Hobart claimed that he was “set up”, and that the affidavit included an anonymous complaint about which Dr. Hobart and his legal team had no prior knowledge. The Supreme Court case was unsuccessful and Dr. Hobart’s registration was suspended two days later.
According to Dr. Hobart, AHPRA has the power to suspend a doctor it deems to be a ‘danger to the public’, only as an interim measure, until a tribunal can be established to fully investigate the matter. However, neither Dr. Hobart nor any of the other doctors who have been suspended on COVID-related grounds have been notified of any ongoing investigation by AHPRA. They have simply been suspended without recourse.
Dr. Hobart applied to the Supreme Court in December for a judicial review, in the hope that AHPRA will be directed to further investigate his case, but as yet, no date has been set down by the Court.
The raid on Dr. Hobart’s clinic was caught on video by independent journalist, Morgan Jonas, to whom the doctor reported that patient confidentiality “has gone out the window.” Dr. Hobart was told by the officials that there is “no such thing” as patient-doctor confidentiality under the new laws, referring to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act of 2008. He also stated that patient records can be taken without consent under the AHPRA regulations. When asked how mainstream media would respond to the raid, Dr. Hobart said that he expected he would be made to “look like a crazy anti-vaxxer.”
As Dr. Hobart predicted, mainstream media has not been entirely objective when reporting on his harassment by the authorities. Media reports have accused the GP of issuing “fake” COVID vaccination exemptions for patients who fail to meet Health Department guidelines, with some referring to his patients as “anti-vaxxers.”
Other GPs have been receiving similar treatment in recent months, and AHPRA has made it clear that the only option for medical practitioners is to abide by the official pro-vaccination messaging, which it claims is based on ‘evidence’ and ‘health advice.’
In another example, police were called to a doctor’s clinic in suburban Melbourne during a lockdown, after numerous cars were noticed in the car park. The Colac clinic was then closed to the public on the basis that the doctor had been handing out ‘vaccine’ exemptions to those who may not have qualified for them. Speaking after the Colac police intervention, an AHPRA spokesman said:
“Public protection is our number one priority. When providing care, advice or sharing information online, registered health practitioners have a professional obligation to provide information that is evidence-based, in line with the best available health advice, and is consistent with public health messaging. Advising against vaccination unless there are evidence-based medical reasons undermines the national immunisation campaign and is not supported by the board.”
AHPRA’s policy, which makes no allowance for a conflict between a practitioner’s conscience and public health messaging, can be contrasted with the philosophy of the Australian Catholic Medical Association, as found in its statement on Conscience and Vaccine Mandates:
“The dignity of conscience also requires that one is free to follow its dictates. This demands that society respects and makes room for rational and sincere judgments of conscience. One should not be restricted from enacting the dictates of conscience through unjust laws, or forced or coerced to act contrary to conscience.”
However, for doctors whose conscience tells them that COVID ‘vaccines’ are not necessary or are harmful, or that they should be avoided due to their reliance on abortion, there is no freedom of conscience.
When there is no room for disagreement or discussion, it is not science that prevails, but ideology. When Augusto Zimmerman and Aramis DeBarros tell us that there were 350 qualified doctors taking part in human experimentation in concentration camps, we must stop and remind ourselves that those doctors were not soldiers. They were medical professionals: men and women who had formerly been relied upon by thousands of Germans to care for the health of themselves and their families. They had been trusted experts, respected professionals, and pillars of society but became the ruthless inflictors of unimaginable torment.
There is no doubt that today’s medical professionals are suffering from unrelenting coercion to comply with the COVID regime and to ignore the harm being caused by the experimental inoculations. They, too, are victims of the coordinated propaganda campaign that has exploited our fear of death in order to subject us all to soft totalitarianism. But doctors like Mark Hobart show that it is possible, and indeed, an obligation for health workers to speak out and uphold their rights and those of their patients. Although this may come at great cost, the alternative is too grim to contemplate.
For as Zimmerman and DeBarros point out, the ‘new normal’ instigated by Hitler and his bevy of compliant doctors allowed the entire population to eventually tolerate the atrocities which, in the twentieth century, became a new benchmark for horror. History is being repeated as our once-respected doctors are enlisted as apparatchiks of the New World Order, and those brave souls willing to confront the narrative appear to be very much in the minority.