The Silence of Ethics

The Silence of Ethics
by Dr David Nixon

Hello, ethics.
We thought you’d speak.
When the noise was deafening,
we waited for your still small voice.

You taught us once—
about autonomy,
about risk and benefit,
about the weight of a single informed decision.

You showed us how to think
when thinking was hard.
To slow down
when the world was speeding up.

But when the storm came,
you stepped back.
The lights stayed on,
but no one was home.

We searched the journals.
We searched the panels.
We waited for the calm questions
that never came.

You were too busy, we were told.
Or trapped in institutions
that speak in drafts,
but never in declarations.

And so the silence spread—
from seminar rooms to courtrooms,
from classrooms to morgues.
Ethics became paperwork.
And the question of evil
became impolite.

But still—
we have not forgotten your voice.
Measured.
Unafraid.
Human.

Speak again.
Not louder. Just truly.
We don’t need heroes.
We need those who will not be quiet
next time.

---

2273 Pages to Silence a Scientist: Why I Reject the Medical Board’s Position

I have now reviewed the entire 2273-page dossier filed against me by the Medical Board of Australia in the ongoing Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal proceedings. It has become abundantly clear that this is not a genuine inquiry into ethics, science, or professional standards. It is an attempt to bury dissent beneath a mountain of paper.

Let me be clear: I reject the Medical Board's position in its entirety.

My position has been public, transparent, and meticulously evidenced. I was also prepared to provide the public with full access to the Board's documents, but I was prevented from doing so on the grounds that the material had not been sufficiently redacted for public release. My published papers document in full the structural phenomena observed in vaccines, blood, anaesthetics, and other pharmaceutical agents. These observations, conducted openly and in the public interest, have never been substantively challenged by the Board.

Instead, the Board has chosen to drown the truth in 2273 pages of procedural theatre, while steadfastly refusing to address the most fundamental ethical question:

What is their position on informed consent and the Nuremberg Code?

Their silence on this point is the only real concession I need. It confirms that this is not about science or ethics—it is about obedience.

I will not participate further in a process designed to wear me down rather than address the facts. My research, my observations, and my public commentary stand as my complete and transparent response. They belong to the public record and the historical record.

If this is how institutions treat those who question power, then their legitimacy is already in collapse.

Dr David Nixon
July 2025

PS: Next time, I hope the Board considers filing their submissions in 100-page sections — it would certainly make AI-assisted analysis a lot easier! Thank you to all who have assisted in navigating this process.