Facing QCAT: Exposing Institutional Blindness & Demanding Integrity

Apr 03, 2025

Hi guys,

In what will hopefully be an interesting moment in the ongoing confrontation between medical orthodoxy and those challenging the mainstream COVID-19 narrative, I recently submitted a formal response to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). This response directly addresses the Medical Board of Australia's (MBA) actions and their failure to acknowledge the perspectives of those who have legitimate concerns about the nature of COVID-19 vaccines.

The following letter was sent to Judge Dann, Deputy President of QCAT, and the Medical Board of Australia via the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). I am sharing this letter to demonstrate the irreconcilable differences between the Medical Board’s rigid narrative and the growing global movement questioning the safety and legitimacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

Letter to QCAT and Medical Board of Australia

Dr. David Nixon
P.O. Box 382, Capalaba 4157
nixonlab@proton.me

April 2, 2025

Judge Dann, Deputy President
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT)
GPO Box 1639
Brisbane, Queensland 4001

And

Medical Board of Australia
c/o Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
GPO Box 9958
Brisbane, Queensland 4001

Subject: Response to Amended Directions Request from Lachlan Murdoch, Turks Legal
Case Number: OCR005-25

The Nature of Reality and Irreconcilable Perspectives

This case pivots on the fundamental nature of reality. The perspectives held by the Medical Board of Australia and me are diametrically opposed, with no possibility of meaningful reconciliation within the current framework. I have chosen not to participate in these proceedings because to do so would be to concede that I accept the Board’s version of reality. I do not. Nor do a significant proportion of the population.

The perspective that I hold—specifically, that the COVID-19 vaccinations are bioweapons, as corroborated by experts including Dr. Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989—is not a fringe view, but one shared by countless individuals globally, including medical professionals, researchers, and concerned citizens. It is rapidly becoming a mainstream position.

At what point does the Medical Board’s perspective, if rigidly enforced, represent a gross form of discrimination against a significant minority view? One could argue we are already at that point. There are a lot more people who share my perspective than, for example, the transgender population—a group whose views and identity are rightly recognized and protected under anti-discrimination frameworks.

By refusing to recognize my perspective and the perspectives of those who share it, the Medical Board risks perpetuating a gross injustice. An ethical, unbiased tribunal would acknowledge the existence of this conflict of realities and seek to address it with integrity, not dismiss it outright.

This is the reality, and any legal findings or determinations made without acknowledging this truth are not only unjust but fundamentally corrupt.

Furthermore, I am aware that there is significant public and professional interest in my case. How this matter is handled by the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and QCAT will be closely observed, both within Australia and internationally. The outcome of this process will reflect not only on myself but also on the credibility and integrity of the institutions involved. It is essential that these proceedings are approached with transparency, fairness, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.

My withdrawal from this process should not be misconstrued as an abandonment of my principles or a concession of wrongdoing. Rather, it is a refusal to participate in a process that refuses to acknowledge the broader context of what is happening globally.

Despite my withdrawal, I reserve the right to appeal any adverse finding made in my absence, and I assert my right to continue my work and advocacy in the public interest.

David Nixon,
MB, ChB, FRACGP
April 2, 2025

Analysis and Commentary

This letter addresses what I see as a fundamental problem with the current system: an unwillingness to acknowledge conflicting perspectives as valid. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the position I have taken, it remains undeniable that my viewpoint is shared by many and cannot be dismissed outright without undermining the credibility of the system itself.

As I have stated in the letter, I am not withdrawing from this process out of concession or abandonment of my principles. Instead, I am refusing to participate in a system that refuses to engage with the broader realities I and others are presenting.

This is not a position of retreat. It is a declaration that the truth deserves a fair hearing—a hearing that acknowledges the complexities of the current landscape rather than reducing them to binary conclusions of right or wrong.

The integrity of the legal and regulatory systems will be judged by their willingness to consider these broader perspectives. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

If you believe this fight matters, please share this post and consider supporting my efforts to hold these institutions accountable. Your voice matters.

All the best for the rest of the week,
David Nixon

PS For a more detailed explanation of my position, see my earlier post on Substack. and thanks for the ongoing support!