Brownstone » Brownstone Journal » The AMA is Wrong About Julie Sladden
The AMA is Wrong About Julie Sladden - Brownstone Institute

The AMA is Wrong About Julie Sladden

SHARE | PRINT | EMAIL

[This article was co-authored by Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, Treasurer of the Australian Medical Professionals Society, and Dr Duncan Syme, Vice President of the Australian Medical professionals Society]

Last week, the AMA publicly called for the disendorsement of Tasmanian Liberal candidate Dr Julie Sladden, accusing her of having anti-vaccine opinions that are dangerous and misleading. Liberal leader Jeremy Rockliff rejected these unfounded claims. The Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) is delighted to see him demonstrate his strong commitment to intellectual freedom, political communication, the scientific method, and medical ethics.

The Tasmanian AMA should publicly apologise to Dr Sladden and the Liberal party of Tasmania for using their political clout to intimidate or attempt to influence a person’s election conduct, in which they have potentially breached the Tasmanian Electoral Act 2004 s189(1).

Dr Julie Sladden, a member of the AMPS, the alternative peak body representing Australian doctors, is a courageous, ethical, and knowledgeable doctor who has risked a great deal to adhere to her oath and code of conduct. In speaking up for the Australian people she has faced severe threats to her registration to practise from AHPRA and the Medical Board, who claim any questioning of the government public health messaging equates to serious professional misconduct.

There is mounting evidence that the government’s response to Covid was flawed, the Qld Supreme Court has deemed mandates unlawful and true leaders like Dr Sladden refused to be coerced into silence. She is a leader worth endorsing, and we commend the Tasmania Premier for his stance. People have suffered psychological and physical harm from politically-motivated, rather than evidence-based, policies.

As a general practitioner, Dr Sladden analysed data, read the TGA assessment reports, evaluated scientific evidence, and then used her clinical experience to conclude, like AMPS, that the government’s response carried more risk than benefit and that provisionally-approved novel gene-based vaccines are neither safe nor effective. 

Adhering to the international code of ethics, Dr Sladden could not stay silent at a time when it seems medicine and science are being used to violate human rights and civil liberties. Julie appears to support the belief that doctors have a duty to patients and the public to speak up and say in good faith what they believe to be true.

From the beginning the government data indicated that these injections were never tested for transmission of the virus from person to person, yet politicians, medical authorities, and AMA representatives assured Australians otherwise. Efficacy and long-term safety data were unknown, and while no testing for genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity was conducted, the AMA assured Australians that these experimental vaccines were safe and effective, should be mandated for all health care staff, and were the only pathway to more normal life

Is it ethical for the AMA to tell the Australian people that these injections are “safe” based on hopeful expectations when there was no conclusive data? Is it ethical for the AMA to tell unvaccinated people that they ‘should notify their nearest and dearest and ensure there’s an advanced care directive that says, If I am diagnosed with this disease caused by a virus that I don’t believe exists, I will not disturb the public hospital system, and I’ll let nature run its course’ and that ‘It’s understood there is a suppression of rights, but this is imperative in a war-like emergency, and never undertaken lightly‘ when it was known the risk to the majority of Australians was extremely low?

These statements could be considered discriminatory medical negligence. The AMA would better serve the medical profession and the public by engaging in a conversation with their colleagues who have stood up for medical ethics and robust scientific debate, rather than wading into politics to try to silence a fellow medical practitioner. This labelling of a colleague who is politically active in defence of patients and public health instead of engaging in a courteous debate demonstrates far more than intellectual laziness.

The claim by AMA Tasmania Vice President Dr Annette Barratt that Covid vaccines have saved lives is highly contentious, especially as Australia continues to experience a continuous excess mortality rate, the start of which was coincident with the vaccine rollout in the second quarter of 2021. AMPS conducted an inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths, published in a book titled Too Many Dead: An Inquiry into Australia’s Excess Mortality. There is constantly emerging evidence that there are concerning levels of DNA contamination in the essentially untested Process-2-manufactured mRNA vaccines rolled out to the global population. There is the likely presence of endotoxins; there are unknown risks associated with frameshifting, the inclusion of the SV40 promoter, and the unknown immune consequences of repeated boosted doses.

It is known that these injection products do not stay in the arm but go throughout the body, accumulating in the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, and ovaries and cross the blood-brain and placental barriers. They are distributed through breast milk, and according to published government figures in many countries they are responsible for the greatest number of reported adverse reactions of any drug in history. Perhaps the AMA might like to reconsider the statement that these drugs are “safe and effective and have saved lives.” 

Dr Barratt is correct; doctors do have a higher standing in the community. Dr Julie Sladden is ethical and moral, and, after reviewing the best available evidence and using her clinical experience, she spoke up at great personal cost, to protect the public when authorities ignored her calls for a review. The Tasmanian people can decide who they wish to lead them; they do not need the AMA bullying doctors, silencing scientific debate and interfering in democracy.



Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

Author

Donate Today

Your financial backing of Brownstone Institute goes to support writers, lawyers, scientists, economists, and other people of courage who have been professionally purged and displaced during the upheaval of our times. You can help get the truth out through their ongoing work.

Subscribe to Brownstone for More News

Stay Informed with Brownstone Institute