Breaking the silence (part 3): a ‘how to’ guide

Share this Article

So far, we’ve looked at the case for the suspension of Covid injections and how vested interests contributed to the silence of Australia’s medical profession.

In this third and final part we finish by exploring strategies to break through the wall of silence regarding vaccine harms and restore freedom of scientific speech.

This list is by no means exhaustive or easy to execute.

First, we need an honest conversation regarding the censorship of free speech during the pandemic. From the censoring of international experts by government and social media to regulators  threatening health professionals with disciplinary action, and pharmaceutical regulators suppressing data revealing deaths due to the injections. It is well-acknowledged the censorship is real.

For the time being, our professional organisations, regulatory bodies, and the government seem reluctant to acknowledge such a conversation needs to be had, let alone facilitate it. So, it is incumbent upon us, the people, to continue to call for it. Loudly and persistently.

Next, we address the pharma-sized elephant in the room.

‘We need to expose the system as it is. And it is the result of visible and invisible unchecked power. In this case, Big Pharma,’ says Dr Aseem Malhotra. It is time for a complete overhaul of the system to dethrone the influence Big Pharma has on drug development and regulation. Just how do we do this? Malhotra suggests three ways:

‘The drug industry … should no longer be allowed to test (drugs) and then hold onto the raw data – there needs to be independent analysis; drug regulators like the TGA, the MHRA (in the UK), and the FDA, should not be taking any money from Pharma; and politicians should not be taking any money from Pharma either for lobbying; those three things alone would make a MASSIVE difference to the future of healthcare.’

I agree.

The raw data from the Pfizer trial was only released under court orderIndependent analysis reveals alarming rates of serious adverse events in the treatment group and, in some cases, death. Information that never made it to doctors and their patients.

Australia’s drug regulator, the TGA, should not be getting 96 per cent of its funding from the industry it is regulating. This is called regulatory capture. Nine out of every ten new drugs brought before the TGA are approved. That is not to suggest that the approvals are in any way incorrect, only that, as pointed out by previous reports, it is not an ideal situation despite the TGA firmly insisting that their reviews are independent. Former editor of New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Marcia Angell surmises ‘the real battle in healthcare is one of truth versus money’.

Pharma should not be allowed to fund any regulatory or government bodies – directly or indirectly – or make political donations. Period. Professional organisations, specialist colleges, training bodies, and universities should be required to clearly disclose all pharmaceutical funding.

If ‘a lot of what is published is incorrect’ then the scientific literature needs an overhaul too. Big Pharma often fund both research and the scientific journal the research is published in. Journals are known and esteemed for their ‘impact factor’ – the amount of impact they have within the scientific community. Unfortunately, those same journals have editors receiving large payments from the industry.

An argument could be made for introducing a journal ‘integrity index’ the value of which would be inversely proportional to the amount of funding received from the pharmaceutical industry. There should also be a maximum limit to how much funding a journal, or its editors, can receive (either directly or indirectly) from the industry.

The pharmaceutical-scientific-research-industrial-complex is important but pales to insignificance beside the catastrophic silencing of doctors’ freedom of speech regarding the Covid injections. So, let’s now turn our attention to the medical regulator: AHPRA.

The role of the regulator is ‘to ensure that Australia’s registered health practitioners are suitably trained, qualified and safe to practise’. They are not meant to be ‘speech police’ and certainly should not be engaging in ‘suppression of scientific discourse’.

If public safety is truly AHPRA’s priority then any attempt to direct, coerce, or suppress intellectual freedom and scientific discussion by medical professionals should be seen as placing the health and wellbeing of the Australian public at risk, a view supported by High Court of Australia’s recent precedent on intellectual freedom.

AHPRA’s position statement – threatening possible regulatory action – appears to conflict with the Code of Conduct which demands doctors make the care of patients their first concern.

Let’s now turn our attention to ‘Politics and Medicine’.

The biosecurity and public health acts saw unelected health officials elevated to positions of unchecked power. In a recent interview, Professor Jay Bhattacharya pointed out the problem with this model saying, ‘We (medical professionals) are really good at science and really good at medicine. We’re much less good at political science and sociology and terrible at economics. We have been living under a technocracy, a biosecurity state, and I don’t think that kind of society is compatible with liberal democracy.’

Most worryingly, the emergency powers suspended the democratic process, providing the population with no recourse to address the ‘directions’ given by these unelected bureaucrats. Whoever thought that was a good idea?! There needs to be a complete review of each State’s emergency and public health legislation including the Federal Biosecurity Act 2015.

Last, but by no means least, we come to the medical profession.

How different would things be in this country if we, as a profession, had united and stood to protect free speech and medical ethics? It is here that we have most let ourselves and the public down. To ‘do no harm’ does not only mean to refrain from actively causing harm (non-maleficence), it also means standing up in the face of harm, to do good (beneficence). This is ethics 101 and what we each swore an oath to do on graduation.

Many doctors I have spoken with are aware of the catastrophe of medical ethics that unfolded around us, but simply felt they had no other choice. One colleague surmised: ‘The vaccine is very effective … for keeping one’s job.’

So, where to from here?

‘Firstly, (the injection) needs to be suspended. We need to move forward constructively, identify how we got it wrong, why we got it wrong, and the solutions moving forward,’ says Malhotra.

‘The solutions to this crisis come back to the basic principles of ethical, evidence-based medicine. That means making decisions with patients based upon clinical experience and intuition, best available evidence (independent of industry), and taking into consideration patient preferences and values. If we do that, we win.’

All Australians have a role to play in breaking the silence. And we need to, the stakes are high.

We must be a voice for the injured. If you know someone who has suffered harm due to the Covid injection or have been injured yourself, please know you are not alone. The vaccine injuries are real and this is supported by data from around the world. It is not in your head. There are health professionals sympathetic to your experience and organisations forming to fill the gap in support left by vastly inadequate government agencies. Upcoming legal cases for the injured need funding, publicity, and support.

As a community, we need to relentlessly pursue and call out the truth to our health professionals and politicians. We need to demand accountability and justice, remembering the standard we walk past now is the standard we accept for our children and grandchildren.

A final word to my colleagues. We have fallen asleep at the wheel. We have failed to look at the signs and educate ourselves first-hand with the evidence. We failed to protect our patients. We did not advocate to protect their autonomy and the foundational principle of informed consent, knowing many did not want the injection. This should have incensed us and spurred us into action as a united profession.

It did not.

That was our moment and we missed it. But it’s not too late. Steady your shaking knees, find your voice, and come join us. We’ve been waiting for you.

This article is a republication of an article originally published here by the Spectator Australia.

Further information:

Australians for Science and Freedom: Twitter: @aus4science

Australian Medical Professionals’ Society:

Legal Action:

Help for Injuries: and

Share this article

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


  • Dr Julie Sladden

    Julie Sladden is a doctor and writer with over 25 years clinical experience across multiple disciplines in Australia and the UK. She is a passionate advocate for professionalism, ethics and transparency in healthcare.

    View all posts
Follow Us

Join our Newsletter