Lawyer argues doctors breached their sacred duty to patients with vaccines

by Jo Nova

Decades ago we knew that vaccines carry risks that can’t be tested in a three month trial, or even a two year trial. Just ask Anthony Fauci…

Australia's health practitioners

Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority

Doctors and our Medical agencies should have explained this risk

There may be a legal route for vaccine victims to

We always thought the Doctor-Patient relationship was sacred, and “informed consent” meant that doctors told the whole truth, and gave their honest opinions. In Australia that was blown out of the water when the TGA banned cheap safe drugs and AHPRA  deregistered, suspended or just threatened doctors who spoke their minds. But perhaps there is a legal path open to victims of vaccination.

I’m no legal expert, but at the Covid Inquiry 2.0 on August 17, at least one lawyer argues that all along, Australian doctors were required to observe their code of conduct, no matter what threatening letters their regulatory authority issued (AHPRA). Indeed Jullian Gillespie argues that the AHPRA statement in March 2021 was illegal. That means if doctors failed in their duty to inform patients of the risks, the highly experimental approach or potential adverse outcomes, patients (or their loved ones) might be able to take action against their doctor. Their doctor (sandwiched horribly in the middle) may be able to, in turn, take action against the agencies that intimidated or harassed them. It’s a legal quagmire, but it might slow the trainwreck a bit, and push that accountability button… and someone needs to take responsibility for what were abominable decisions. Though it could potentially include thousands of medical professionals and we can expect the powers that be to protect the billion dollar interests as they have all along. “Say Hello Serf to your new Head of State Mr Pfizer?”

We in the West all thought we understood what our doctors priorities were, and what our Minister of Health was supposed to care about.

Malcolm Roberts has been a very busy man. Great to see Craig Kelly in there too.

Full transcript.

h/t to Tides of Mudgee and David of Cooyal.

Some excerpts from lawyer Jullian Gillespie:

The infamous AHPRA March 2021 statement that threatened and coerced and gagged practitioners under threat of regulatory action had no legal basis nor merit.

It was, in fact, an illegal action on the part of AHPRA and the National Boards to have created and released the statement. Neither AHPRA nor the National Boards were empowered to make the statement under the National Law, particularly as it directly coerced and caused practitioners to fail, to strictly observe their Codes of Conduct. Under the National Law. The Codes of Conduct established for each health profession are in fact deemed subordinate legislation and are more particularly called statutory rules, and as such are binding on each practitioner. As statutory rules, the Codes of Conduct for each health profession always prevailed over the 9 March statement where practitioners were always legally required to observe their Code of Conduct first, and despite the AHPRA statement.

A practitioner who does not, and did not follow their Codes of Conduct to the letter, in respect to the COVID-19 injectables, falls into and fell into, breach of the National Law. Due to the scale of the rollout it now appears tens of thousands of practitioners have repeatedly and grossly breached the National Law.

In a couple of days, a critical legal opinion I have authored with lawyer, Peter Fam, will be released publicly titled, ‘Opinion: Legal ramifications for registered health practitioners and AHPRA public officers.

Every practitioner has to generally observe public health obligations towards disease control. Medical code 7.4. Those obligations must be read along with all other obligations and responsibilities imposed upon them by their Codes of Conduct. Including that they were, at all times required, to be providing accurate evidence based information to patients about COVID-19 vaccination, both before and after the March statement….

Due to the scale of the rollout, it now appears tens of thousands of practitioners have repeatedly performed medical treatments, properly termed, gross medical and or professional negligence. With respect to patients receiving the COVID-19 injectables, where each practitioner has no immunity from government whatsoever. So these practitioners are therefore personally and professionally liable to actions for medical negligence from their patients receiving COVID-19 injectables, particularly those patients who subsequently died or suffered adverse side effects from the COVID-19 injectables.

Should those health practitioners subsequently be sued by their patients, and they have to pay damages to their patients, then those health practitioners may in turn be able to sue the public officers of AHPRA and the National Boards for coercing and threatening them to ignore their Codes of Conduct. Such illegal action, again, would be the tort of misfeasance in public office.


0 out of 10 based on 0 rating

via JoNova

September 6, 2022 at 03:53PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s