The Art of the Fake Reversal: RFK’s Pregnancy Vaccine Pivot, the CDC’s Shell Game, and My Withheld Evidence

Something strange is happening in both Washington and Queensland. In the U.S., Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared that COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children had been removed from the CDC schedule. But the CDC disagreed. In fact, their updated guidance issued just days later reaffirmed the shots — strongly recommending them for all pregnant women and preserving “shared decision-making” as a Trojan horse to push injections onto “healthy” children. It was never a reversal. It was a reframe.

Meanwhile, in Queensland, I sent a formal letter to the Medical Board and QCAT requesting the immediate retraction of misleading public health claims about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy — particularly given that I had been penalized for raising concerns about exactly this issue.

The reply? A dismissive email, no acknowledgment of the retraction request, and — most notably — no copy of the bundle of evidence that the case against me is supposedly based on. The very documents that should be available to me as a respondent have been withheld. Why?

This echo is no accident. It’s the same system, wearing different robes — silencing dissent in courtrooms as it does in journals, recasting reversal as policy, and substituting process for principle.

Like Galileo before the Inquisition, truth today is punished not for being false — but for refusing to be silent.

Due Process Denied: When Silence Becomes Strategy
Despite the procedural formality of the QCAT process and the obligations of the Medical Board under administrative law, I have now sent multiple formal letters which have gone unacknowledged. I have received no confirmation that my correspondence has been considered, tabled, or passed to the relevant parties. Most notably, the evidentiary bundle — which forms the core of the complaint against me — has not been provided. This is not a clerical oversight; it is an act of procedural asymmetry. Natural justice requires the right to view, inspect, and respond to evidence. This procedural silence is not just evasive — it is legally and ethically indefensible.

Moreover, by directing responses solely through informal email — rather than acknowledging or addressing the substance of my registered legal communications — the Board reveals its preferred tactic: In the age of managed perception, plausible deniability thrives on silence. In any truly just process, such silence would be unacceptable. It remains to be seen whether QCAT will recognize and rectify this imbalance or tacitly endorse it. Either way, the record is now established.

To withhold that evidence while the Board proceeds with determinations violates both principle and precedent. A full archive of my formal legal correspondence is available on my website www.drdavidnixon.com for public review — because silence should not erase the record.

Mirroring the Machine
When I say “mirroring,” I mean it quite precisely. What is happening to me is a small corner reflection — but it is still a fractal of the larger pattern. Just as the CDC pretends RFK Jr.'s statement never happened, just as the FDA plows forward with its eugenics-by-policy agenda, so too does the Medical Board ignore the letters I send and the evidence they withhold. The scale may differ, but the structure is the same.

A harbinger in the cradle. This engineered crystal, taken from a vaccine administered to newborns, reveals embedded microstructures under magnification. What are we really injecting — and why are we not allowed to ask?

Meanwhile, two of the most incisive analysts in this space — Karen Kingston and Sasha Latypova — have pulled back the veil on the illusion that anything meaningful has changed in U.S. vaccine policy. Karen's latest analysis exposes the CDC’s new guidance as a calculated sleight of hand: while RFK Jr. declared the removal of COVID-19 shots from the pregnancy and childhood schedules, the actual CDC update entrenches their recommendation — especially for pregnant women — and expands a murky system of “shared clinical decision-making” that leaves room for coercion while denying parental authority by default.

Sasha’s response goes even deeper, piercing the psyop with surgical precision. She calls it what it is: eugenics rebranded as policy, with the CDC and FDA now targeting exactly those groups who were excluded from the original trials — pregnant women, infants, the immunocompromised — under the pretext of care. Her breakdown shows how “shared decision-making” is a trap that redefines healthcare providers as vaccinators and normal children as immunocompromised by suggestion. It’s a pipeline — not to health, but to profitable dependency and population control.

Both Karen and Sasha affirm what many of us sense intuitively: this was never about health. The system runs on plausible deniability and regulatory theatre. And just like here in Australia, public announcements mask operational continuity. The schedule stands. The poisons remain. And as I now experience firsthand — often, that dissent is procedurally erased.

Thank you to all my subscribers. I am grateful for support in whatever form it comes!

I hope your weekend goes well.

David

www.drdavidnixon.com