Informed Consent, Ethical Breaches, and the Continuing Farce of ‘Agreed Facts’

Hi guys,

Today, I received the Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts related to my case. As expected, the legal team representing the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) persists in pursuing their case as if my core concerns about their version of reality were never raised.

Despite my explicit opposition to this process—rooted in fundamental ethical objections regarding the lack of informed consent surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines—the correspondence reveals a deliberate avoidance of engaging with these concerns. This is not simply a disagreement over facts. It is a matter of foundational ethical principles, particularly those enshrined in frameworks such as the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code was established in the aftermath of the atrocities committed during World War II to safeguard humanity from unethical medical experimentation. During the COVID-19 rollout, Greg Hunt, the Australian Health Minister at the time, allegedly described the vaccination campaign as the “world’s largest clinical trial.” Whether his words have been accurately documented or deliberately suppressed, the sentiment reflects a broader truth: experimental medical interventions were rapidly deployed under emergency conditions, often without adequate informed consent or recognition of individual autonomy.

It is difficult to argue that there was sufficient scientific justification to warrant the measures employed during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. The enforcement of these measures through coercion, censorship, and bureaucratic compliance represented a clear departure from ethical standards. By these metrics, the rollout was not only a scientific failure but an ethical catastrophe.

The Ten Principles of the Nuremberg Code:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

2. The experiment should yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other means.

3. The experiment should be designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study.

4. The experiment should avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved.

7. Proper preparation and adequate facilities should be provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.

9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if they have reached the physical or mental state where continuation seems impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if they have probable cause to believe that a continuation is likely to result in injury, disability, or death.

The medical interventions undertaken during the COVID-19 rollout violated almost every one of these principles. Instead of acknowledging these breaches, the MBA continues to operate as if their process is legitimate, despite its glaring ethical deficiencies.

While the facts presented in the MBA’s document, whether agreed upon or disputed, remain irrelevant within this ethical conflict, the tribunal's proceedings continue to operate under the assumption that their version of reality is the only valid one. This narrow approach disregards the broader ethical issues surrounding health, wellness, and safety—issues that are not confined to bureaucratic definitions but are rooted in universal human rights.

A Request for Clarity

Therefore, I respectfully request that the tribunal and the MBA clearly define their position regarding informed consent and their recognition of conflicting realities. I ask that by April 17, 2025, they provide clarity on whether they are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views on health—especially those grounded in ethical principles of medical freedom and informed consent.

This is not a trivial request. It is a call for transparency, accountability, and respect for diverse perspectives that should be included in any ethical debate. If further engagement is required, it will be contingent upon the acknowledgment that my perspective, and the perspectives of others who challenge the prevailing narrative, are valid and deserving of consideration.

As always, I reserve the right to appeal any findings made in my absence.

👉 You can view the legal documents related to this case and my previous responses here.

Thank you for your continued support.

— David Nixon, MB, ChB, FRACGP

P.S. If you’d like to buy me a coffee ☕ just click on the cup below,
or join one of our weekly meetings by signing up as a paid subscriber.

www.drdavidnixon.com