Dr. Zbigniew Martyka was 1 of those doctors who during the alleged Covid-19 pandemic did not halt treating people. Under the regulation of the Law and Law and Justice, harassed and humiliated, under the regulation of the Law and Justice – convicted. Below we print Dr. Martyka's message after the ultimate Medical Court issued a final judgment.
* * Oh, * *
My case ended before the appeal court.
The Chief Medical Court has issued a final judgement in my case. The suspension of the right to practice the profession for 1 year was AULATED by the territory Medical Court in Krakow. The court has declared reprimand.
What does that mean to me? Nothing at the moment. Theoretically, the punishment of reprimand prevents me from holding managerial positions – but I do not hold specified positions and I will not. I've been retired for any time. I can inactive receive patients, so I proceed to meet you at the Tarnów clinic “Triad”.
During the hearing, the lawyer representing me, Katarzyna Tarnawa-Gwóźdź, stressed that the opinion of the fresh expert, appointed specifically for the appeal hearing, was opposed to more than 700 technological studies that we presented to confirm the veracity of my words. Moreover, she has only based her opinion on observational studies and mathematical models – which stand the lowest in the ranking of reliability. She did not mention to any of the highest quality research, the RCT, which we presented as evidence. In addition, the expert did not answer any of the questions asked by the defence in writing, limited only to answering the questions of the court, going beyond the indictment.
As Mr Tarnawa-Gwóźd correctly pointed out, the fact that individual is an authority in his field and has advanced functions, as appointed by the court as an expert, Prof. Dr. hab. n. med. and n. about Dr. Iwon Paradowska-Stankiewicz, does not change the fact that it should not origin any problem to find another individual with akin competences, but not a individual who issues recommendations (as a associate of the Medical Council) and then gives them opinions (as an expert).
A spokesperson for professional responsibility, a drug. Joanna Sheląg, in her position requested that the judgement of the court of first instance be maintained. She rather rightly pointed out that medicine is simply a discipline based on research. That ended with a reasonable message from the Ombudsman. She further stated that during this hard time of the pandemic, my statements caused concern for patients and society. This indicates that the Ombudsman has not taken note of my statements, as I have stressed at all step that I am resisting the sowing of panic and my aim is to calm the public. I have achieved this goal in many dimensions. In the further part of the speech, the Ombudsman stated that doctors do not choose the kind of procedure that you like more (whatever that means), but are based on... RECOMMENDATIONS. Then it became clear what was going on in the pages of punishing me and another doctors. Opposition to Recommendations. No treatment against RCT studies, no harm to patients. Proceedings Against Recommendations. And I was just criticizing these recommendations.
Next, the Ombudsman stated that both masks and vaccines and social distance are documented remedies. surely according to the RECOMMENDATIONS, due to the fact that surely not the results of the RCT investigation that I presented to the court and which the court rejected. The Ombudsman had no uncertainty that the measures in question were effective (although there was no evidence of the effectiveness of the RCT), and since I had denied specified a sentence, I deserve to keep the judgement of the court of first instance.
Such claims could not be addressed by the patron Catherine Tarnawa-Stock. It reminded the Court of First Instance and the Ombudsman that the only "proof" of my responsibility was the opinion of the current expert, obtained in a manner contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure applicable in the present case, and the only evidence based on the RCT I provided. I'll remind you that the court wasn't interested. More crucial to the court were the RECOMMENDATIONS. On the another hand, evidence of effectiveness can be drawn to the opinion that "everyone knows that masks work". No, not everyone. In particular, scientists working on RCTs who have come to completely other conclusions.
The Court of First Instance stressed that the allegations of deficiency of evidence were wrong, since there were copies of my statements in the file. Counselor Tarnawa-Star explained immediately that what else is proving that something happened (and I do not deny my statements) and what another proof is that it is contrary to medical knowledge.
This is where the interesting thing happened. Well, the court revealed that the individual who reported me to the territory medicine Chamber, or Mr. Michał Biedziuk, had requested that he be appointed as a reinforcement prosecutor. The court left his motion undisclosed.
The court besides dismissed our request to revoke the expert opinion. In the opinion of the Court, it was clear and correct. The court ignored the defence’s allegations that the opinion was based only on the lowest quality observational investigation and mathematical models and did not answer 1 question of the organization responsible. The defence officer made it clear to the Court that specified proceedings were manifestly obstructing the defence.
The Court of First Instance ruled that my statements caused considerable social unrest (sic!). all doctor has the right to express his doubts, but we request to consider where we are discussing it. In his oral justification, the court pointed out that as an infectious doctor I was negating canons of medicine (masks, distance). It is hard to argue with specified arbitrary appointment of canons in medicine, since the court did not thin over the RCT, the very heart of evidence-based medicine.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most crucial point of this case is that my right to prosecute a profession is not and has never been suspended. I can take patients, and I'll keep doing that. However, there is no uncertainty in my head that the case was carried out with complete disregard for the law and my rights of defence. I'm waiting for a reason. I haven't yet decided whether I'm going to file a motion for the ultimate Court to quash my sentence.
I can promise you 1 thing. All information you will find on my pages or receive from me personally will always be based on evidence-based medicine. Not on "authorities" opinions, not on recommendations, not on general conviction. On circumstantial studies, including RCT, or canon of medicine.
Dr. Zbigniew Martyka
Source: FB Author
