Dear Doctors: You Are the Scion of Nazis

Dear doctors,

There’s been much discussion about why the public lost confidence in the medical establishment, but the answer is obvious: you chose to carry on the mantle of Nazism in the present day.

Just as the intellectuals of Germany embraced Nazism at a rate higher than the German public, those within the medical establishment donned their swastikas and proudly violated Nuremberg with glee and enthusiasm. You have failed the moral test of our time – and the public’s distrust of you is merited.

History will remember you as monsters.

Yours Truly,

Z. Michael Gehlke


This whitepaper critically examines the ethical and legal implications of forced medical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the context of vaccine mandates and institutional coercion. It explores how the medical establishment, under governmental and institutional pressure, contributed to violations of informed consent through censorship, suppression of adverse event reporting, and coercive enforcement of mandates. Using a study that links COVID-19 vaccines to adverse cardiovascular outcomes as a case study, this paper argues that these actions represent a breach of medical ethics and patient autonomy. Furthermore, it evaluates whether such actions could constitute legal “poisoning” when harm results.

1. Introduction

Informed consent—the principle that patients must voluntarily agree to medical treatment after being fully informed of risks, benefits, and alternatives—is a foundational tenet of ethical medical practice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this principle was systematically violated by coercive public health policies and institutional mandates that prioritized compliance over patient rights. This paper explores these violations, their consequences, and their implications for the ethical and legal responsibilities of the medical community.

A pivotal study associating COVID-19 vaccines with adverse cardiovascular outcomes serves as a focal point for evaluating whether such actions could be classified as reckless disregard for patient safety, and whether they meet the legal threshold for “poisoning” when harm is inflicted without consent.

2. Background

Informed consent requires that patients have the freedom to decline treatment, particularly when they perceive the risks as unacceptable. During the pandemic, this principle was often ignored, replaced by a paternalistic approach that dismissed patient concerns as “misinformation.” These dismissals were compounded by:

  • Censorship of dissenting voices, including doctors and researchers raising concerns about vaccine safety.
  • Suppression of adverse event data, with victims reporting difficulty in having their experiences acknowledged by medical authorities.
  • Deliberate misrepresentation of risks and benefits, including withholding information about known side effects to ensure compliance.

2.2 Vaccine Mandates and Institutional Coercion

Vaccine mandates were imposed globally by governments, employers, and educational institutions, using coercion to force compliance. Healthcare providers became instruments of these policies, often in violation of their ethical obligation to respect patient autonomy. Coercive tactics included:

  • Threatening employment or education access to force vaccination.
  • Disregarding patient objections, even when grounded in valid concerns about safety.
  • Complicity with censorship, contributing to a systematic suppression of vaccine-related harms.

2.3 Study Linking Vaccines to Adverse Outcomes

The referenced study identifies a correlation between COVID-19 vaccination and increased risk of severe cardiovascular events, particularly in individuals with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. This challenges the prevailing narrative of universal vaccine safety and raises serious questions about the ethicality of forcing such treatments on unwilling patients.

3. Key Issues Explored

3.1 Patient Refusal and Ethical Violations

Patients who refused vaccination cited legitimate concerns about safety, supported by emerging evidence of adverse effects. The medical establishment’s response—dismissing these concerns and coercing compliance—represents a direct violation of patient rights. Ethical violations included:

  • Ignoring patient objections, undermining their autonomy.
  • Dismissing adverse event reports as anecdotal, despite mounting evidence.
  • Prioritizing compliance over individualized risk assessments.

3.2 Reckless Disregard for Patient Safety

Reckless disregard occurs when healthcare providers act without sufficient consideration for the risks to patients, particularly when evidence suggests potential harm. In this context:

  • Mandates forced healthcare providers to administer treatments against patient objections, disregarding emerging safety concerns.
  • Patients who suffered harm, as documented in the referenced study, were treated as acceptable collateral damage in pursuit of compliance.
  • Suppressing adverse event reporting further exacerbated harm by preventing proper risk assessment.

The legal concept of poisoning involves introducing a harmful substance into another’s body, either maliciously or recklessly. In this case:

  • Forced administration of a harmful substance, without patient consent and with evidence of harm, could meet this definition in a broader ethical and legal sense.
  • The suppression of adverse event data constitutes negligence, as it deprived patients of the information necessary for informed decision-making.
  • Coercive enforcement of mandates violates basic human rights and ethical medical standards.

4. Broader Implications

4.1 Erosion of Public Trust

The systematic violation of informed consent during the pandemic has profoundly damaged trust in healthcare systems. The complicity of medical professionals in enforcing coercive measures has created a credibility crisis that will take years to repair.

4.2 Accountability for Excess Deaths

The study highlights a disturbing trend of vaccine-related complications contributing to excess deaths. This undermines the justification for mandates, particularly when individual risk factors were ignored.

4.3 Responsibility of Medical Professionals

Doctors who complied with mandates under institutional pressure must confront the ethical implications of their actions. Upholding patient autonomy should have taken precedence over compliance with coercive policies.

5. Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a troubling willingness within the medical establishment to violate informed consent in the name of public health. Mandates that prioritized compliance over patient autonomy, coupled with censorship and suppression of adverse event reporting, represent profound ethical and legal failures. When harm occurs under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to classify these actions as reckless or even criminal.

Restoring trust in medicine requires accountability, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to respecting patient rights.

6. Recommendations

Mandates must never override the right of patients to refuse treatment, particularly when evidence of harm exists.

6.2 Ensure Transparency and Accountability

Healthcare institutions must commit to transparency in adverse event reporting and take responsibility for past failures.

6.3 Protect Ethical Whistleblowers

Doctors and researchers raising valid concerns must be protected from retaliation and censorship.

6.4 Reform Institutional Practices

Institutions must prioritize ethical standards over political or economic pressures, ensuring that patient safety and autonomy are never compromised.