Still No Answer (Part II): What the Board Won’t Say — and Why That Matters By Dr David Nixon – 13 May 2025
On 12 May, the legal team representing the Medical Board of Australia sent me a letter — the latest in a string of communications that continue to dodge the central issue.
I received it today.
I replied today.
In my letter, I once again reiterated a simple, unambiguous point:
“I will not re-engage with this process until the ethical legitimacy of the framework under which it operates is addressed openly and formally.”
Despite multiple formal communications, the Board has yet to answer a single one of the following:
Does the Board acknowledge the continuing applicability of the Nuremberg Code?
Does it believe that informed consent and patient autonomy remain non-negotiable in Australian medical practice?
Is dissenting clinical judgment — even when ethically grounded — now considered misconduct?
These are not rhetorical questions.
They are ethical baselines.
The Board’s Latest Move: A Letter That Says Nothing
The letter I received today was polite, procedural, and empty. It reiterated that my previous communications had been received. It clarified that the Board’s earlier invitation to revise my statement of facts was not intended to comment on the substance of my position. And it confirmed that their hearing bundle will be submitted in due course.
What it did not do — again — was respond to the questions that matter.
There was no reference to informed consent.
No mention of the Nuremberg Code.
No acknowledgement that ethical concerns have even been raised, let alone addressed.
This silence is no longer administrative. It is institutional bankruptcy in real time.
What’s at Stake
This case has never been about documentation, note-taking, or formatting. It has always been about the collapse of ethical accountability under the weight of institutional self-preservation.
If the Medical Board of Australia — an authority tasked with upholding medical standards — cannot say whether it still believes in informed consent, then this is not a disciplinary process. It is a purge.
Let it be remembered that:
I have harmed no patient.
I have violated no oath.
I have only refused to comply with directives that suppress ethical judgment.
The Public Record Is Now Set
I have now formally raised these ethical questions on three separate occasions:
On 4 April 2025
On 16 April 2025
And again, on 13 May 2025 — the same day I received their latest letter
On each occasion, the Medical Board of Australia has chosen not to respond.
The public record now shows that I asked. And asked. And asked again.
And the Medical Board — when invited repeatedly to defend its ethical foundations — chose silence.
Closing Reflection
This silence is not neutral.
It is not apolitical.
And it is not accidental.
It is the calculated avoidance of a regulatory body that knows it cannot defend what it is doing.
I will continue to make this silence visible — and I will not allow those who remain silent to claim later that they did not know, or that they were not asked.
They were.
And history will judge what they refused to say.
🔗 All documents referenced in this article — including all letters and recipient details — are available here:
https://drdavidnixon.com/1/en/topic/nixon-v-medical-council-of-australia
(For those who missed it the first time.)
In recognition of the profound harms inflicted — and those yet to be acknowledged,
Dr David Nixon
MB, ChB, FRACGP
“I will not re-engage with this process until the ethical legitimacy of the framework under which it operates is addressed openly and formally.”
Of course, your statement deeply resonates globally with the medical-political tyranny of the last 5 years. This strikes at the heart of the globalist lies and propaganda, the wholesale universal inversion of truth since 2020. It was all rooted in orchestrated medical tyranny - bold barefaced lies.
I will not engage with the dystopian infrastructure, whether it be corrupt government, fake media or fascist 'healthcare' services. Either we live openly in truth or we rot away from toxic lies.
As you have asked 3 times, and they have not responded, you have achieved the threshold for silent acquiescence, and the doctrine of acquiescence is well-supported by case law. You may now proceed in equity, on offense, knowing they have agreed with your position.