Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

'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.

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.

Infectious Disease ping - Dr. Bray reinstated by Queensland Supreme Court (Australia)
"Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed "

(From the article):" '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 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."(Emphasis Mine)
...

"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."

It would not surprise me if Dr. Bay/Bray?, had some other help in Australia. Several years ago a study was performed in Turkey which proved that the original Dr. Zelenko formula of Zinc, HCQ, Azithromycin was a safe and effective treatment for vulnerable populations with Covid, even at a later stage of illness. This study added 1,000 IU of Vitamin D3, and half the subjects also received 25 grams of IV Vitamin C for several 24 hour periods. The addition of the IV C shortened their hospital stays by 3 weeks compared to the other half not receiving the experimental addition of IV c. When pre study lab results were compared with the subject results in this study they were surprised to discover that None of the subjects had healthy levels of Vitamin D. About half were insufficient in D, and the others were deficient in D. THe only dead subject among almost 250 subjects had extremely low Vitamin D levels as well as cancer. Most of the others in addition to advanced age had one or more comorbidities like, obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart conditions, and the like.

I saw that this study was done in cooperation with some group in Australia where I got the impression that they would also try this treatment in Australia. Thus I think it is quite possible that group would have been in communication with this Dr.

The other significant study is a small one, which definitely should be repeated with a much larger subject population. It showed that after several Covid shots, the IgG 1 through 4 immune components were severely deranged over time when tested at intervals twice after each shot. The reporting says the shots caused a class switch with increasing changes after each shot. One of the 4 which was the most effective in fighting illness almost completely disappeared after the second Vax. Another which was less than 1% of the total IgG components increased to almost 20% of the total IgG mix a while after the second Covid shot. However, in about 1/5th the study group their level of this component was in the neighborhood of 50% and these were the subjects that actually caught Covid. In other words the Vax did not stop Covid at all. In allergy studies it had been found that this component which increased in quantity with repeated allergy shots, learned to ignore the allergen so that symptoms ceased to occur. Apparently what happened with the Covid shots is that this component learned to ignore the virus, and thus allowed the illness to strike.

Perhaps this study has also finally been discovered in Australia. I certainly hope that RFK Jr will see it and urge that it be retested with a large number of subjects (who WANT to take the Covid shots) or who have recently taken them. This should be done in comparison with those who have never taken the shots, and for the various kinds of Covid vaccines now available. This study was ONLY done with Pfizer and Moderna. No info on J&J or any of the others.

People who have had multiple shots and then suffered a cancer relapse or new cancer or other serious condition should also have their IgG sub set factors tested. Other important immune factors like the T Cells should also be tested this way. It would be good to do this with other vaccines that normally are given multiple years apart like tetanus, shingles, polio, pneumonia. I have never had a bad reaction from those, and those are really serious and often fatal illnesses. I plan to NOT take Flu Vax this year, and definitely NO Covid. I do plan to have my Vitamin D levels tested soon and continue to take my other supplements, as well as Quercetin and Zinc regularly when I am going to be around other people.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.