VICTORY: Dr William Bay wins doctors' right to criticise covid gene-vaccines
AHPRA and the Medical Board of Australia have to pay costs after Supreme Court rules they had no right to silence political criticism
Friday marked the biggest victory yet for doctors against political persecution after the Queensland Supreme Court issued a scorching judgement against Australia’s medical regulators on Friday.
Queensland GP William Anicha Bay celebrated outside court after successfully overturning a politically motivated medical ban put on him for protesting against the covid gene-vaccines on safety grounds.
The Court did not enter into any debate about the safety of the controversial products but ruled only on whether the regulators’ decision or conduct was free from error.
The Medical Board of Australia suspended Dr Bay’s registration on August 17, 2022, less than three weeks after he accosted the Australian Medical Association (AMA) National Conference and asked the delegates to stop forcing the jabs on people in response to an infection where “there is only a 0.27 percent fatality rate”.
Dr Bay apologised for interrupting proceedings before saying the covid “vaccines” were killing people.
There have been 1000 reports of death to the Database of Adverse Event Notifications along with more than 100,000 reports of injuries from the products to Australia’s Database of Adverse Events Notifications, more than all ordinary vaccines in history combined.
The median infection fatality rate of covid was only 0.07 percent for under-70s, unvaccinated.
Despite being correct, Dr Bay was kicked out of the AMA conference by security - but not before he got his message across to everyone in the room, which he livestreamed (watch it here).
In response, AMA Federal Council chair Julian Rait (now AMA Vice President) filed a complaint against him, forming the basis of the Medical Board’s suspension decision.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA) internal database noted:
“The notifier is Associate Professor Julian Rait, Chair of the AMA Federal Council and Chairperson of the recent AMA National Conference. The practitioner is a GP registrar [sic] in Queensland and identifies as the leader of the Queensland Peoples Protest. The notifier states the practitioner aggressively interrupted an AMA National Conference with approximately 400 doctors in attendance on 29 July 2022.”
Professor Rait claimed attendees suffered “minor psychological or emotional harm” and complained to the chair of the Medical Board, Professor Anne Tonkin.
The Court ruled the Medical Board denied procedural fairness to Dr Bay, and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Medical Board and AHPRA tried to refer Dr Bay to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal over five complaints about his social media posts and protests against the covid gene-vaccines.
The Court noted none of the complaints concerned the quality of his clinical services, they were all political.
“None made any allegation that Dr Bay had or was providing any clinical services that failed to meet the applicable professional standards. None could be properly characterised as a “mandatory notification” under the National Law (Qld), despite some being submitted and accepted by the Board as such,” the judgement said.
“The Board’s apparent bias and failure to afford fair process were evident from an examination of the five notifications, the agenda papers for the meeting of the Board committee that made the suspension decision, and the documents recording the outcomes of the meeting.”
The Medical Board then unfairly suspended Dr Bay’s license, claiming his public statements undermined the regulators’ position on covid vaccination, and the position of local, state and federal governments and health authorities.
In the Supreme Court judgement handed down on Friday, Justice Thomas Bradley said the extraordinary measures implemented by the parliaments and executive government during the covid panic had not given the regulators the right to deny Dr Bay procedural fairness, a hearing before an unbiased tribunal or to protect government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.
The Medical Board and AHPRA acted in unison throughout the proceedings and were jointly referred to as “The Board” - and when they lost, the Supreme Court ordered them both to pay Dr Bay’s costs.
They also had to pay the costs of the third respondent, the Queensland Government, which was dragged into proceedings by the uncertain legal references used in The Board’s communications with Dr Bay.
“Those costs could also have been avoided, had the Board and AHPRA acted more appropriately,” the judgement said.
The Medical Boards have 28 days in which to appeal against the decision, but would have to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal to do so.
IMPACT IS FAR-REACHING
This decision is momentous because it was the Medical Boards and AHPRA’s censoring of doctors that did the most damage to Australia’s health system.
In March 2021, AHPRA and the Medical Boards threatened the licenses of any health practitioner if they criticised the covid products on social media.
“There is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional health practice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media, and advertising may be subject to regulatory action,” spokesman Brett Simmonds said in the statement.
This censorship made doctors reluctant to recognise even the possibility of vaccine injuries, as Dr Kerryn Phelps has said.
In turn, this has led to a drastic under-reporting of the problem and a burden of disability and harm being borne by large numbers of people in the community without recognition or support.
It destroyed the principle of informed consent, as doctors parrotted “safe and effective” messaging from government while ignoring the often serious side effects, not mentioning them to patients.
Despite years of medical training, Dr Bay was forced to deliver Uber Eats after he was suspended due to political persecution.
In his victory speech outside court, posted to X, he thanked God he was no longer suspended.
“I have my registration back again. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticise the vaccines freely and as a registered medical practitioner of this country.”
“Let me be very clear now, 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 – and if you don’t like it, too bad. Because doctors like me are going to be speaking out from now on because we have nothing to fear.”
This case sets a precedent to allow doctors the freedom to speak their mind free from political persecution by regulatory agencies.
For more see Dr William Bay’s interview with Doc Malik (who has dubbed him “William the Conquerer”) here on X or on YouTube here.
See the judgement here
See Rebekah Barnett’s story here
See Cafe Locked Out’s interview with Dr Bay here
See Canberra Times story here
So, because the safety wasn't even discussed, and regardless of whether the vaccines are safe & effective, or not, Dr Bay can still say (as he said after his victory)
"I think the vaccines are shit, mate
They are absolute shit, they're killers" ?
He could be sued by Pfizer I suppose, if they wanted to argue the point?
I'm trying to work out how free the doctors/nurses are - how far the AHPRA gag extends.
Hallelujah 🙏