A victory? The AHPRA Position Statement disappears.
In March of 2021, the medical board that regulates Doctor’s registrations in Australia, AHPRA, put out a position statement on vaccination that threatened Doctors with deregistration if they cast doubt on the efficacy of vaccination.
The pdf is still available, although the page that linked to it has disappeared, and the pdf now says “Superseded”:
This is convenient for them, as the only people now who would know what the link is to find this document, is those who saved it earlier, as the AHPRA webpage linking to it has disappeared from the internet.
Position statement violated the Nuremberg code, patient/doctor confidentiality, and the right to informed consent
This position statement was a blatant intrusion on Doctor/ Patient confidentiality, a massive violation of the right to informed consent, as well as the right of a Doctor to decide the appropriate treatment for their patients (even if its off-label) and, in fact, considering the experimental nature of all the Covid-19 vaccines, it was also a violation of the Nuremberg Code.
Even for a protein based vaccine such as the Astra Zeneca, the time line should include in vitro trials, animal trials, and human trials, which should be conducted consecutively and not simultaneously as is the sloppy habit of many Big Pharma trials today, and should have taken at least six or seven years. For something as experimental as the mRNA vaccines, the time-line ought to be twelve years1; and now, considering the many things they are finding out about the mRNA Covid vaccines, that they were experimental2 is becoming more and more abundantly clear. (The mRNA transcription process skips over the Methyl-1-Psuedouridine and creates random proteins3, a process that could create harmful prions, the agents of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. There were fragments of DNA in the RNA in the injection and these fragments included SV-40, a cancer-causing agent4. To say nothing of the ineffectiveness of these medications in battling Covid2.)
At the time I remember saying, “Trusting these scientists to fiddle around with the mRNA transcription process is like trusting a toddler to take a sledgehammer to a car engine.” Thankfully toddlers are generally not strong enough to do much damage. Or thinking about it, perhaps it’s more like trusting a two-year old with a blowtorch in the innards of your computer. These scientists know a lot, but they really know next to nothing really about the inner workings of the cell - it’s still a very experimental field. It was only in 2015 that they worked out the 3d structure of DNA in the cell nucleus; which is quite amazing actually:
They were throwing darts at a dart board blindfolded when they put the Methyl1Pseudouridine into the mRNA sequence instead of the uracil, it was all a big guessing game, only it was people’s lives they were playing around with, and AHPRA enabled it with this position statement.
Where is the apology? Where are the reparations?
Many think AHPRA needs to issue a public apology and the board members need to be investigated. Many of the board members are Doctors...
AMPS recommends sending a complaint to AHPRA
AMPS has sent out a letter asking members to file complaints with AHPRA. This is from that circular:
We've been daily sending your stories to medical regulatory and political authorities, and we’ll persist in this. The moment has now arrived to use your story and knowledge in science and medical ethics to file complaints with AHPRA or the OHO. We’re asking you to tell them, in good faith, why their enforcement of the gag order constituted a serious threat to public health protection. There’s more about this below.
We need you to click on the complaint links below and follow the complaint process directions.
NSW, VIC, ACT, TAS, SA, WA
https://ahpra.my.salesforce-sites.com/notification
Queensland
https://portal.oho.qld.gov.au/healthcomplaintform/
Here are the names of the members of the Medical Board.
Members of the Medical Board
Dr Anne Tonkin AO - Medical board Chair
Associate Professor Stephen Adelstein
Mr Mark Bodycoat
Dr Kerrie Bradbury
Dr Samuel Goodwin
Dr Daniel Heredia
Ms Eileen Jerga AM
Dr Andrew Mulcahy
Dr Debra O'Brien
Dr Susan O'Dwyer
We’re asking you to choose one or several or all of these names and make a complaint.
They suggest a series of points to include in the complaint, including that
The integrity of public health relies on informed consent,
that the 9 March 2021 position statement prevented practitioners from using the best available scientific evidence along with their clinical judgment, and
that intellectual freedom is essential for the operation of science and public debate regarding medical ethics,
they used poor quality pharmaceutical company data (they are referring here to the dreadful TGA approval process on the basis of a Pfizer document that still had track changes enabled and where the text did not match the graphs),
testing methods were inaccurate,
enforced mandates were unscientific and unjustified,
the government purveyed misinformation on safety and efficacy of provisionally-approved vaccines,
data collection was poor,
pharmacovigilance was “possibly sub-standard”
without decision-making transparency, suppressed information would have influenced a person’s or guardian’s decision to give or withhold consent as a result of the “chilling effect of AHPRA/Medical Board censorship through the COVID-19 position statement.”
AMPS says that “denying people valid informed consent should result in the doctors of the Medical Board being accountable for breaching their code of conduct requirements.”
Links
This (above) is the page now:
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/News/COVID-19/Vaccination-information.aspx
This was the page in 2021:
Here is the link to the COVID-19 vaccination position statement, which is now stamped with “Superseded”:
Registered health practitioners and students and COVID-19 vaccination
COVID-19 vaccination position statement (90 KB, PDF)
Here is the original:
Ahpra Position Statement Covid 19 Vaccination Position Statement
89.6KB ∙ PDF file
Corrections:
I did a bit of a Kamala Harris in this sentence: it is abundantly clear, now, considering the many things they are finding out about the mRNA Covid vaccines, that they were experimental is becoming more and more abundantly clear.
Removed the first abundantly clear.
Also removed the incomplete end of the quote and replaced it with dot points about the whole thing.
Some old articles of mine about this subject:
Patricia R Robuck, PhD, MPH , John I Wurzelmann, MD, MPH, Understanding the Drug Development Process, Inflammatory Bowel
Diseases, Volume 11, Issue suppl_1, 1 November 2005, Pages S13–
S16, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MIB.0000184851.46440.a3 https://academic.oup.com/ibdjournal/article/11/suppl_1/S13/4685962 see figure 1 https://academic.oup.com/view-large/figure/107353036/3FF1.jpg
Nabin K Shrestha and others, Effectiveness of the
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Bivalent Vaccine, Open Forum
Infectious Diseases, 2023;, ofad209, https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofad209 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ ofad209/7131292
They can remove it but so many of us have kept hard copy.
I have just spent half an hour on the phone to AHPRA trying to understand what the 9/3/2021 position statement was superseded by. It may have been something worse. Ultimately, I was directed to this page where a series of FAQs are supposed to clarify the NEW position:
https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/COVID-19/Vaccination-immunisation-information.aspx