Why I Refused to Re-engage: A Further Letter to the Medical Board
Hi Guys,
On April 16, I delivered a formal response to the Medical Board of Australia’s lawyer regarding their request for a revised submission to the Tribunal. I received an email today, 24hrs before a deadline I had set — not for procedural compliance, but for ethical clarity. What follows is the letter I sent in reply, and why I will not be stepping back into a framework I believe is both ethically indefensible and structurally corrupt.
The Context
On April 4, I submitted a letter to both the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Medical Board, clearly stating my refusal to respond to their “Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts” on their terms. I did so because their terms — like the broader COVID-19 regulatory apparatus — rest on a denial of patient autonomy, the erosion of informed consent, and the silent abandonment of the Nuremberg Code.
Rather than respond to that challenge, the Board’s lawyer attempted to bring me back into the procedural loop, asking that I go line by line through their statement and confirm or deny each factual claim.
This was not about facts. This was about control — control of narrative, of ethics, of legitimacy.
My Response to the Board
Below is the letter I sent in reply:
Dr David Nixon
P.O. Box 382, Capalaba 4157
nixonlab@proton.me
16 April 2025
To:
Lachlan Manton
Lawyer, Medical Board of Australia
c/o AHPRA
GPO Box 9958
Brisbane QLD 4001
Re: Request for Revised Response to Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts
Dear Mr. Manton,
Thank you for your correspondence regarding my response to the draft Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts.
As outlined in my letter dated 4 April 2025, my position remains that the proceedings in question are ethically compromised and structurally incompatible with foundational medical and legal principles, including:
The primacy of informed consent.
The unqualified right to patient autonomy; and
The enduring application of international ethical frameworks, including the Nuremberg Code.
To request that I restructure my response to conform with a framework that systematically denies these principles is to ask me to participate in the dismantling of the very ethics I am defending. I decline to do so. If the Medical Board is asserting that:
The Nuremberg Code no longer applies.
That informed consent is now subordinate to vaccine mandates; and
That discrimination against dissenting medical professionals is justified, even where those views are shared by an increasingly substantial portion of the population—
—then I invite the Board to state this position publicly and unambiguously, so that the ethical framework under which these proceedings operate can be properly understood and reviewed.
Let it be noted that the continued suspension of my registration—absent any harm, complaint, or patient injury—serves only to reinforce the truth of my position: namely, that my dissent from biomedical orthodoxy is the sole basis for the punitive measures taken against me. I regard my suspension as an acknowledgement of this fact.
For the sake of procedural clarity, I reiterate that my 4 April 2025 letter stands as my response to the draft Statement of Facts, and that I do not intend to submit a revised paragraph-by-paragraph version. Any attempt to proceed without addressing the larger ethical violations at stake will only further underscore the legitimacy of my position.
Finally, I note the urgency of your request just days before the April 17 date by which I requested clarity from the Tribunal regarding its ethical position. The timing is noted.
Yours sincerely,
Dr David Nixon, MB, ChB, FRACGP
Why I Will Not Participate in Their Charade
What is happening here is not due process. It is not good faith. It is an institutional effort to enforce ideological conformity under the guise of professionalism.
Let’s be clear: this is not about recordkeeping, nor about patient care, nor even about the ATAGI guidelines — guidelines which, I remind the reader, explicitly state that they do not override clinical judgment.
This is about punishing dissent. And I will not play along.
What’s at Stake
The real question is not whether I complied with a bureaucratic checklist. The question is whether a doctor still has the right to:
Make clinical decisions based on patient context.
Refuse to comply with coercive, unproven mandates.
Speak publicly about documented vaccine harms.
And hold fast to the principle that no one — under any circumstance — should be injected with a substance without fully informed consent.
If those rights are now disqualifying, then let the record show: my suspension is not a punishment for misconduct, but a badge of ethical fidelity.
Closing Reflection
This letter is not the end of the conversation. It is the beginning of something deeper — a reassertion of medical ethics in an era where they have been systemically abandoned.
The Board may continue their proceedings. The Tribunal may continue to pretend that this is a matter of form and procedure.
But I will continue to say, again and again: there can be no legitimate medicine without informed consent.
The moment you demand obedience at the expense of ethics; you have already lost.
David
Good on you for standing for the truth & helping so many others along the way.
I'd say, at this point in time, all so-called "professional" organisations, world-wide are compromised. Over 25 years ago I refused & ended my membership of a supposedly professional body because of the egregious disregard of the whole "purpose" of the institution as regards the clients of that service by "qualified" professionals. I maintained other professional qualifications longer than that but finally resigned everything by 2020. I see the whole rotten pattern too often, in too many instances to think it accidental. Fighting in the pig's pen is never going to achieve anything. Walk away, turn your back, become selectively deaf, do what ever it is you feel appropriate.