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
COVID-19
CDC Vaccine Safety Director May Have Destroyed Records, Says Sen. Ron Johnson

Dr. Shimabukuro implicated in concealing an 82% miscarriage rate among COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women in NEJM study — records reportedly “remain lost.”
The New York Post has just reported:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in charge of monitoring reports of adverse COVID-19 vaccine reactions has been accused by a Republican senator of mishandling and possibly deleting key records.
Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) struggled to find records belonging to Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, while trying to comply with a subpoena from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) for vaccine safety data.
“HHS officials recently informed me that Dr. Shimabukuro’s records remain lost and, potentially, removed from HHS’s email system altogether,” Johnson wrote in a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and acting HHS watchdog Juliet Hodgkins.
“Any attempt to obstruct or interfere with my investigatory efforts would be grounds for contempt of Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday.
Contempt of Congress is punishable by up to a six-figure fine and 12 months in prison.
Under the Federal Records Act, government officials are required to preserve materials “made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”
Johnson is calling upon the FBI, DOJ and HHS Inspector General’s Office to probe whether Shimabukuro and other federal health officials “deleted or destroyed official agency records.”
Dr. Shimabukuro is the first author on fraudulent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine paper titled, Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons:
A study by Thorp et al comprehensively exposes how Shimabukuro et al manipulated the data to make the mRNA shots appear safe for pregnant women. Re-analysis of the data revealed an astonishing 82% spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) rate in COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women:
The most blatant example of data-doctoring, eerily similar to the fraudulent Pfizer study conducted during the same time frame, was published by NEJM in June, 2021 [85]. In a study intended to evaluate vaccine safety during pregnancy, Shimabukuro et al. followed outcomes in 3958 vaccinated pregnant women between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.
During the two and-a-half-month period 827 women completed their pregnancy of which 712 (86.1%) were live births and 115 (13.9%) pregnancy losses. Of the pregnancy losses, 104 were spontaneous abortions the vast majority of which (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.
Upon review of the data, however, 700 (84.6%) of women weren’t vaccinated until the third trimester, long after the spontaneous abortions would have occurred. Nonetheless, authors included these 700 third-trimester vaccinations in the denominator when they calculated the spontaneous abortion rate.
Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks.
And yet Shimabukuro et al. concluded there were no obvious safety concerns. This is disinformation plain and simple and cannot be written off as accident. There were 21 named authors on the study, 8 of whom were physicians, including 3 Ob-Gyn specialists, and others with expertise in public health and epidemiology. It is inconceivable that an error of this magnitude could escape the scrutiny of such a stellar cast. And how could it have been overlooked by the NEJM editorial staff and reviewers unless by intention?
Provocatively, all 21 authors report affiliations with either CDC or the FDA. And NEJM, the flagship journal of the medical-industrial complex, has taken a strong pro-vax stance that can hardly be called objective. Shimabukuro’s thinly-veiled attempt to downplay the risks of COVID-19 vaccines and mitigate vaccine hesitancy is yet another research scandal laden with conflicts of interest and intent to deceive.
This may explain why Dr. Shimabukuro would seek to obscure or delete records. His potential involvement in the deliberate manipulation of critical safety data on COVID-19 mRNA injections during pregnancy carries grave implications—resulting in immeasurable harm to mothers and their unborn children worldwide.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Subscribe to FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse).
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
COVID-19
Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states

From LifeSiteNews
The filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
On April 8, 2025, the Vires Law Group, in collaboration with the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, submitted formal criminal referral requests to the Attorneys General of Arizona and Pennsylvania. These filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent public health and government officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The referrals are based on detailed evidence—including the stories of over 80 victims and families—and allege that policies such as lethal hospital protocols, the denial of life-saving treatments, and systemic medical coercion led to widespread injury and death.
Similar filings have been submitted on behalf of constituents in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, marking a coordinated nationwide effort to pursue justice through state and local authorities:
Individuals Named in the Referral Requests:
- Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
- Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
- Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
- Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
- Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
- Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA (Arizona only)
- Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Arizona only)
- Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
- Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
- Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
- Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
- Administrators and healthcare providers at various hospital systems and care facilities in Arizona and Pennsylvania
Combined List of Alleged Crimes Across Both States:
- Murder
- Involuntary Manslaughter
- Negligent Homicide
- Assault / Aggravated Assault / Simple Assault
- Recklessly Endangering Another Person
- Vulnerable Adult Abuse / Emotional Abuse
- Neglect and Abuse of a Care-Dependent Person
- Kidnapping
- Trafficking of Persons for Forced Labor or Services
- Criminal Coercion to Restrict Another’s Freedom
- Operating a Corrupt Organization
- Violations of State Anti-Racketeering Laws
- Terrorism
At the time of the release, two county-level criminal investigations are reportedly already underway in other states. The legal teams and victims involved assert that accountability must come through state or local prosecution, given the lack of federal action. These filings represent a significant national effort to seek justice on behalf of families who lost loved ones and were denied proper care during the pandemic.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Researchers Link China’s Intelligence and Elite Influence Arms to B.C. Government, Liberal Party, and Trudeau-Appointed Senator
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
RCMP memo warns of Chinese interference on Canadian university campuses to affect election
-
Justice2 days ago
Canadian government sued for forcing women to share spaces with ‘transgender’ male prisoners
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta takes big step towards shorter wait times and higher quality health care
-
Energy2 days ago
Trump signs four executive orders promoting coal industry
-
COVID-1922 hours ago
Fauci, top COVID officials have criminal referral requests filed against them in 7 states
-
MAiD2 days ago
Disability rights panel calls out Canada, US states pushing euthanasia on sick patients
-
Bjorn Lomborg1 day ago
The stupidity of Net Zero | Bjorn Lomborg on how climate alarmism leads to economic crisis