COVID-19
Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed
From LifeSiteNews
By David James
‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.
A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.
The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.
Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”
Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”
Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.
The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.
This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.
Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.
READ: More scientists are supporting a swift recall of the dangerous COVID jabs
It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.
The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.
During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.
The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.
READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll
From LifeSiteNews
A Shoppers Drug Mart in Mississauga, Ontario, has to pay a woman $10,000 after it banned her from the store for lowering her COVID mask when asking for her asthma prescription.
A Canadian woman with breathing difficulties who was refused service at a pharmacy because she lowered her mask while asking for a prescription has been vindicated with a large payout after a human rights tribunal found the drugstore was in the wrong.
In a December 5, 2024, decision, adjudicator Karen Mason of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled that a Shoppers Drug Mart pharmacy in Mississauga, Ontario, had violated the rights of a woman named Kimberly Clarke in September 2021, awarding her $10,000 in compensation. The incident unfolded when Clarke, who has asthma, had lowered her mask while asking for her prescription for a Ventolin inhaler because she was having difficulty breathing.
Customers complained about Clarke’s half-wearing of her mask, which led to store staff confronting Clarke. There was a heated exchange, with Clarke claiming she was not being treated fairly. Ultimately, she was kicked out of the store and banned from ever coming back.
Mason found that the drug store staff did not properly accommodate Clarke’s needs, which was a form of discrimination that violated Ontario’s Human Rights Code. She also referenced similar cases in making her decision.
The pharmacy has been ordered to pay Clarke within 30 days of the ruling.
While Clarke was successful in getting compensation for being discriminated against, others have not been successful.
In August, LifeSiteNews reported about a Canadian man who was not allowed to board a flight to go to a medical appointment because he was not masked despite having a doctor’s note saying he could not wear a face covering. Even with the note, the man was denied compensation for damages.
From LifeSiteNews
Biden Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of Joe Biden’s departure from the White House, and Donald Trump’s administration may be unable to reverse it.
U.S. Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra has signed an extension of COVID-19 related liability shields until 2029, ahead of President Joe Biden’s departure from the White House.
Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID outbreak, the first Trump administration invoked the federal Public Readiness & Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 to declare the virus a “public health emergency.”
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Under this “sweeping” immunity, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those “countermeasures” are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from them, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”
The protection has faced criticism for preventing Big Pharma and various medical institutions from being held accountable for measures that did more harm than good. But on December 11, Becerra issued an amendment to “extend the time period of PREP Act coverage through December 31, 2029. COVID-19 continues to present a credible risk of a future public health emergency,” he claimed.
The amendment “includes extending the time period for PREP Act coverage for licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified technicians, which allows for continued access by the recipient Population to Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines and COVID-19 tests.”
“As qualified persons, these licensed pharmacists, pharmacy interns, and qualified pharmacy technicians will be afforded liability protections in accordance with the PREP Act and the terms of this amended Declaration,” the statement adds. “To the extent that any State law would otherwise prohibit these healthcare professionals who are a ‘qualified person’ from prescribing, dispensing, or administering Covered Countermeasures that are COVID-19 vaccines, seasonal influenza vaccines or COVID-19 tests, such law is preempted.”
The Daily Mail notes that the move means pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna would be shielded from lawsuits over the harm of their mRNA-based COVID shots for another five years.
More significantly, the incoming Trump administration might be powerless to rescind the extension, according to attorney Ray Flores: “The Pfizer and Moderna [COVID shot] contracts guarantee that these manufacturers are protected by the PREP Act. If the emergency ends, then vaccines already in distribution, if administered, could trigger manufacturer liability.”
A large body of evidence identifies serious risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.
An analysis of 99 million people across eight countries published February in the journal Vaccine “observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following the first, second and third doses” of mRNA-based COVID shots, as well as signs of increased risk of “pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,” and other “potential safety signals that require further investigation.” In April, the CDC was forced to release by court order 780,000 previously undisclosed reports of serious adverse reactions, and a study out of Japan found “statistically significant increases” in cancer deaths after third doses of mRNA-based COVID-19 jabs, and offered several theories for a causal link.
In Florida, an ongoing grand jury investigation into the shots’ manufacturers is slated to release a report on the safety and effectiveness of the COVID injections, and a lawsuit by the state of Kansas has been filed accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.” The findings of both efforts are highly anticipated.
All eyes are currently on returning President Donald Trump and his health team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for Secretary of Health & Human Services. They have given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which Trump has long taken credit, and he has nominated both critics and defenders of establishment COVID measures for a number of administration roles.
You wouldn’t believe how complicated distributing public money can get
Trudeau’s four-day trip to Europe racks up $71,000 food bill
Trump’s proposed EV subsidy cuts and tariffs could upend BC’s electric vehicle goals
Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 reroute facing challenge in Wisconsin
-
National1 day agoPaul Wells: Perhaps Freeland isn’t the victim here. Perhaps it’s Freeland who set Trudeau up
-
National1 day agoFreeland Resignation Reaction: Pierre Poilievre Speaks to Reporters in Ottawa
-
Business1 day agoTrudeau BLOWS through his deficit guardrail
-
illegal immigration22 hours agoDelusional Rumour Driving Some Migrants in Mexico to Reach US Border
-
Business20 hours ago‘There Are No Sacred Cows’: Charles Payne Predicts DOGE Will Take Bite Out Of Military Industrial Complex
-
Health2 days agoUS plastic surgeons’ group challenges leftist ‘consensus’ on ‘gender transitions’ for minors
-
Business1 day agoMassive growth in federal workforce contributes to Ottawa’s red ink
-
National2 days agoFinance Minister Chrystia Freeland resigns from Trudeau Cabinet