ER Editor: Dutch medical practitioner, Dr. Niek Rogger sounds like a very interesting gentleman and the kind you’d want for a personal physician. Here’s an interesting interview with him (browsers will translate) from November 2023 —
Niek Rogger: “ New energy, new creativity is what we need ”
Of note:
Naturopathic physician Niek Rogger (38) was opposed by the health inspectorate in such a way that he moved to Switzerland with his family. There he still experiences the freedom to practice his profession.
Rogger worked as a general practitioner assistant in a general practice in 2020, when the pandemic was declared.
“We came across strange, disturbing syndromes”, he says. “My then employer asked me to make a presentation about the vaccinations. In my research I mainly found pro-information, but I also wanted to know the counter-arguments.”
This brought him to the fore from the Doctors Covid Collectief, which was founded in 2020 by doctors who were critical of government policy. More than 2700 verified medical professionals are now affiliated with this. He later joined Zelfzorgcovid19.nl, which offers alternative treatment methods for patients with covid and with vaccination damage, including ivermectin and HCQ. There are currently 185 doctors associated with Zelfzorgcovid19.nl. His alternative treatments collided with the Healthcare and Youth Inspectorate (IGJ), which had banned the prescription of ivermectin and HCQ. Rogger soon became clear that this was done to legitimize the covid injections.“If there were any other recognized treatment, they would not be able to market the vaccines under an emergency procedure. This, and other completely illogical things in the corona policy, opened my eyes: mainstream medicine is the slave of the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors have to behave the way the pharmaceutical industry wants. Because of this, and because of the very protocol care, I left the general practitioner training.”
…
Rogger currently has three or four lawsuits hanging over his head, plus fines of 6,000 euros together.
“I’m not going to pay for that, because I haven’t done anything wrong. November 28 I have to go back to court in Breda. Fortunately, we have good lawyers who assist us and we can finance all this thanks to crowdfundings.”
Hopefully, Rogger will succeed with the remaining lawsuits.
********
Dutch court cancels fine for writing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine prescriptions to treat covid
RHODA WILSON for THE EXPOSE
The Zeeland-West-Brabant District Court has cancelled a fine of 6,375 euros, imposed by the Health Inspectorate (“IGJ”) on Dutch doctor Niek Rogger. The fine was imposed for prescribing covid treatments, particularly hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
On 25 March 2021, the IGJ announced that the off-label prescription of these medicines for covid would incur fines. As the mass covid injection campaign was in full swing in the summer of 2021, the Dutch Minister for Health Welfare and Sport, Hugo de Jonge, wanted the IGJ to track down and fine general practitioners (“GPs”) who prescribed hydroxychloroquine to coronavirus patients.
As noted by Daniel van der Tuin in a Substack article, an email dated 20 August 2021 showed that De Jonge was not at all satisfied with the IGJ at that time. The Minister wrote: “I want an appointment, I want to know what the inspection does and whether the entire set of instruments is being used to maximum effect.”
De Jonge pointed out that some doctors were undermining the vaccination campaign and putting it at risk. He advocated for the use of all resources when tackling GPs.
A raid on a pharmacist in Venlo in southern Netherlands followed in December 2021; almost 1,000 prescriptions were seized from 17 doctors. In total an amount of more than 90,000 euros worth of fines were issued.
One of the doctors, Niek Rogger, wrote a total of 67 prescriptions and received a penalty notice from the IGJ in August 2022. Despite his submitted opinion, he was fined 6,375 euros in October 2022.
Rogger objected to this fine, but his objection was set aside by de Jonge in February 2023.
The doctor then went to court to appeal against the Minister’s decision. The judge heard Rogger’s appeal in November 2023 and in February 2024 ruled that the appeal was well-founded, the Minister’s decision to impose a fine was revoked and the IGJ had to pay an amount of 2,998 euros in legal costs to the doctor.
The court ruled that the Minister is not authorised to impose such fines on doctors for violation of Section 68 of the Medicines Act, which deals with the off-label prescription of medicines.
It was not the first time that de Jonge had been caught acting inappropriately and outside of his authority.
De Jonge is now Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, but during the covid pandemic when he was Minister of Health, he “actively interfered” in a case against a GP who prescribed unproven drugs to his patients, the Central Disciplinary Tribunal for Health Care said. This interference by de Jonge made the board decide to impose a more lenient punishment on the GP.
GP Rob Elens initially received a reprimand for advising people to use ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic.
In addition, the GP was accused of making people sign a statement before receiving a covid vaccination. The Central Disciplinary Court ruled that this fell outside his competence as a general practitioner, but decided to convert the reprimand into a warning, given de Jonge’s interference.
In the verdict of the appeal case, the Board stated that de Jonge was personally involved in the case by urging the Inspectorate to take “disciplinary” action against the GP. He is also said to have asked why the GP “is still allowed to practice, given his behaviour.”
The disciplinary committee wrote:
The Central Disciplinary Tribunal also takes into account that on the basis of a procedure under the Open Government Act (Woo) it has been established that the then Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) actively interfered with the policy of the Inspectorate in this case, among other things by urging the Inspectorate to take “disciplinary” action against the GP and by asking the question why the general practitioner ‘may still practise at all, in view of all expressions’.
During the treatment, the Inspectorate was unable to dispel the impression that the then Minister’s wish to discipline the GP had at least contributed to the fact that the Inspectorate acted very decisively against the GP. However, disciplining – in the eyes of a Minister of Health, Welfare and Sport – difficult doctors is not an objective of disciplinary law.
Source
************
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply