Australian doctors face losing their right to practice medicine for speaking out about the Covid vaxxes and associated injuries, ands deaths. The regulatory bodies are enforcing this total control over doctor’s speech, even if doctors believe that scientific evidence supports their claims. To fight back, the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), as a lobby group to defend the very basic liberties of doctors, has formed, and has issued a statement reproduced below. I recognise that many GPs are happy to go along with the Big Pharma narrative, but not all, if only a minority. But, it takes minority voices to get a movement of resistance going, which is what is dearly needed now at this late hour as the Covid toll mounts.
“Freedom of speech /n/: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. In its definition of the term, Britannica adds that any restrictions on speech are legitimate “only if the speech in question poses a ‘clear and present danger’ – i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, Americans can exercise this right (although questionable infringements are not unheard of). But people in other countries haven’t always been so fortunate. Indeed, a 2021 decree from an Australian government agency posed a sobering warning to any Australian health care providers who dare to question the mainstream COVID narrative.
Doctors in Australia at risk of losing the right to practice medicine for discussing their opinions, concerns about COVID shots
Over the past couple of years, the world watched with incredulity as Australians faced intense lockdowns handed down by government officials attempting to exert an unprecedented level of control over their citizens. Many now fear that this egregious power grab has also encroached into medicine.
Just consider a joint directive released last March by the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA). In a “position statement” directed at registered health practitioners and students, the Board and AHPRA warned doctors not to question government public health directives and other information related to COVID-19 shots – “effectively gagging them,” says the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) in a response article published by Spectator Australia.
Indeed, says AMPS, many health care professionals in Australia have already been disciplined or suspended for questioning or challenging public health messaging – “even if they believed that they had scientific evidence to support their professional view.”
In discussing this joint directive, the AMPS – described as a newly formed alternative to the Australian Medical Association that is “standing up for medical transparency, to protect our patients, and ensure open scientific debate” – adds that “never before have government bodies demanded compliance with domestic law that we believe breaches our codes and oaths to ‘first, do no harm’ and ‘I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat’.”
So, what exactly does the directive say?
Writes the APHRA: “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
The directive features additional warnings for health care practitioners, such as making sure that doctors comply with the government’s guidelines for social media use and do not “discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination” even if the doctors themselves choose not to get injected due to conscientious objection.
APHRA further warns that anyone who shares “false, misleading or deceptive” information about COVID-19, “including anti-vaccination material,” may face persecution.
Doctors ask: what exactly “counts” as “anti-vax” material and “misinformation,” anyway?
These governmental attempts to stifle medical professionals are not unheard of, even here in the United States.
In February 2022, for example, California Democratic Assemblyman Evan Low introduced Assembly Bill 2098 that would punish doctors for “unprofessional conduct” should they disseminate what the California Medical board deems “misinformation” about COVID-19 – including “misinformation” about vaxxes and early treatment with off-label drugs. (As of this writing, CA AB 2098 has passed the Senate and is now in the full Assembly.)
You’ll notice, of course, that terms like “anti-vax material” and “misinformation” are actually quite vague – and can change over time as more evidence is collected about safety and efficacy concerns over these drugs.
Think about it: an increased risk of myocarditis in young vaxxed males was once considered misinformation. Shot-induced menstrual changes were once considered misinformation. Pointing out that the COVID shots do not effectively stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was once considered misleading. All of these points have since proven true … but not after first being painted as a “clear and present danger” to public health and safety.
Do these government officials truly expect that doctors will feel safe to practice medicine to their best ability knowing that if they express any legitimate concerns about COVID-19 shots – even if those concerns are based on new scientific evidence – they may face disciplinary action?
In their Spectator Australia article, the Australian Medical Professionals Society sums it up well: “The pressure on medical professionals to hide their true opinions should be rescinded and doctors allowed to openly debate all Covid measures and be able to have all tools at their disposal to treat patients.”
Here is what the Australian Medical Professionals Society, had to say in an aricle entitled, “The End of Medicine”:
https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/the-end-of-medicine/
“The newly formed Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS), operating as an alternative to the Australian Medical Association (AMA), is standing up for medical transparency, to protect our patients, and ensure open scientific debate.
Our AMPS members are refusing to be silent, even under threats to our registrations. We are fighting for law reform to provide our patients with evidence-based care rather than uncritical politically driven health practice.
Does the Australian public know that the government regulator, AHPRA, has warned health professionals, including doctors and nurses, not to publicly question government public health directives, including those related to Covid – effectively gagging them? This is done by threatening their registration.
Many have been disciplined or suspended for challenging the public health messaging even if they believed that they had scientific evidence to support their professional view.
The directive states:
‘Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.’
Brett Simmonds, Pharmacy Board Chair and co-chair of the Forum of NRAS Chairs, said of Covid vaccination programs:
‘National Boards support the vaccination program and encourage all registered health practitioners to get vaccinated unless medically contraindicated.
‘The codes of conduct for each of the registered health professions explain the public health obligations of registered health practitioners, including participating in efforts to promote the health of the community and meeting obligations on disease prevention.
‘There is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media, and advertising may be subject to regulatory action.
‘If you’re a registered health practitioner or student, the best thing to do is to read our joint statement. It explains the National Boards’ expectations of registered health practitioners about receiving, administering, and sharing information about Covid vaccination. It’s important you understand these expectations so that patients and communities are best protected against the novel coronavirus that causes Covid.’
AHPRA chief Martin Fletcher rejected the claim, saying:
‘In essence, AHPRA and National Boards expect health practitioners to use their professional judgment and the best available evidence in practice. This includes when providing information to the public about public health issues such as Covid and vaccination.
‘Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards.
‘It may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.’
It is a statement that appears to confirm, not deny, the complaints of medical professionals.
Never before have government bodies demanded compliance with domestic law that we believe breaches our codes and oaths to ‘first, do no harm’ and ‘I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat’.
Is it widely known among practitioners and the public that the government changed laws to give manufacturers 6 years to provide comprehensive clinical data on safety and efficacy for provisionally approved Covid treatments?
The comparative lack of vital long-term data (present for other vaccines and medical treatments) is lacking in Covid vaccines – making it difficult to justify statements such as proven safe and effective. ‘Assumed to the best of our knowledge’ would be more accurate.
This problem is highlighted by changing promises related to Covid vaccines, which began as ‘you won’t get sick and it will stop transmission’ but now manufacturers and medical bodies have had to admit, due to overwhelming physical evidence in patients, that Covid vaccines do not stop transmission and many people still get sick and die. These revelations call into question the validity of extraordinary measures placed on people for over two years.
In Australia, we have a serious problem. Government excesses of power created through emergency legislation have been allowed to violate our freedoms and liberties. They were justified by largely unscientific and refutable claims. Fear was wrongly employed by political leaders, who also took steps to keep health advice secret from the public by the re-classifying of National Cabinet after Freedom of Information requests were approved by the court.
Public Health Laws gave Chief Health Officers (CHO) unprecedented powers to do almost anything they thought was reasonable during a pandemic – which can be declared on opinion, not evidence – without having to justify their decisions. They are no better than the authorities in Galileo’s time.
Queensland Doctors are taking the Qld CHO to court to gain access to the scientific evidence used to justify mandates that contradict historical experience and scientific consensus. Public confidence should never be coerced through government-mandated compliance to political directives.
We believe our code of conduct requirements demand we exercise our right to political communication to respectfully debate scientific evidence, risk/benefit analysis of therapeutics, and provide informed consent. But to do so we risk losing everything.
If we are forbidden by the government to adhere to our codes and make our patients our primary concern, then this is the end of medicine and the death of science.
AMPS cannot allow such government intrusion to stand. We are fighting back against new laws recommended by the Queensland government that allow public naming and shaming of doctors under investigation.
‘New legislation introduced in Queensland, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, will greatly enhance the government regulator’s powers for censoring doctors in Queensland,’ said Steven Andrews MP for Marani QLD.
Even the AMA described these new laws as ‘incoherent zealotry’. The cost for patient advocacy will be public humiliation and potentially career-ending reputational damage. With this unchecked power of AHPRA, fear-based compliance to public health directives will become the primary concern of practitioners.
AMPS has been calling for a Royal Commission into the government response to Covid, while advocating strongly for law reform needed now to allow practitioners to advocate for their patients as their primary concern. Click here for more information. We cannot stay silent while adherence to public health messaging becomes the new accepted standard of good medical practice. Our patients, not politicians, are who we serve, no matter the personal cost.
Galileo said, ‘Two truths cannot contradict one another.’ The pressure on medical professionals to hide their true opinions should be rescinded and doctors allowed to openly debate all Covid measures and be able to have all tools at their disposal to treat patients.”