"The practitioners were acting as 'agents of the state'. They should have been questioning this, but they had been ruled by AHPRA."
Elizabeth Hart talking with Victorian MP Russell Broadbent
Please see below my recent chat with Victorian MP Russell Broadbent, when we discussed the extraordinary power of AHPRA, the medical practitioners’ regulator in Australia, which basically conscripted practitioners to support the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out, to make practitioners ‘agents of the state’ in imposing these vaccine products upon the population.
We must turn the spotlight on AHPRA, which interfered with ‘a doctor’s duty of care’ when it effectively coerced the practitioners to collaborate with governments’ COVID-19 vaccination mandates, when people were told by governments to come to the practitioners to get injected.
Our discussion is also accessible via this YouTube link, please see transcript below, including some pertinent hyperlinks:
TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION HELD ON 22 JANUARY 2025
Russell Broadbent: Hi everybody we're here with Elizabeth Hart again. It's great to have you back Elizabeth to talk to Australia the way you have, so forthrightly talked to Australia…
I like this word called ‘a duty of care’, from the organisations that we see as protecting our health and well-being across this nation - the doctors, the specialists, the allied health professionals.
All the people around us that look after us, they have I believe… ‘a duty of care’ to the people of Australia, especially to their patients.
What happened during Covid?
Elizabeth Hart: Well I think the practitioners just lost the sight of what they're supposed to be doing with their patients.
And they were actually dealing with people who weren't patients.
They were dealing with people who had been told by governments to come to the practitioners to get injected, in vaccination hubs or in clinics.
Why were they doing that? The practitioners were acting as ‘agents of the state’.
They should have been questioning this, but they had been ruled by AHPRA.
AHPRA put out a Position Statement about the COVID-19 roll-out, which basically conscripted the practitioners to support that roll-out.
And it was made clear in the Position Statement that they are not allowed to question what was going on, that they would be at risk of being accused of being anti-vaccination and suspended.
Russell Broadbent: What say to you that the ABC, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, weren’t they coerced in exactly the same way?
Elizabeth Hart: They were, but it's the practitioner who sticks the needle in the arm. it basically comes down to their responsibility. Why are they doing this?
And so many people, almost the entire population, have been swept away by this idea of this ‘killer virus’, like something out of a movie.
We didn't seem to have critical thinking people within the establishment, questioning this…
I was following this all the way through, because I've been working in this area for years. And in 2020, in March 2020, I had a rapid response published on The British British Medical Journal (The BMJ) website, questioning what was going on, questioning Neil Ferguson and what have you.
And why weren’t there so many other people within the establishment questioning this?
Why was there this response to a supposed threat that wasn't a threat to most people?
It was a failure of the medical profession to question this, and because they were being silenced by the regulator.
We've got to turn the spotlight on the regulator. We've had that recent case with William Bay, where he has won his case. And that wasn't about Covid, that was about the process of persecuting doctors who question things. Basically, that's what that was about.
We've got to use that now as an opportunity to put the spotlight on AHPRA, and why practitioners are not questioning things.
Like we were talking about RSV vaccines a while ago, and I had a doctor bring that to my attention, but would she be able to question that in public?
Doctors are not at liberty to question vaccines in public because they will be under threat.
Russell Broadbent: I need my doctor to be able to question, because if we haven't got doctors to look after our children and families, especially children and older people, what have we got?
Elizabeth Hart: Well that's right, and people are scared about challenging their doctor, because when they're in trouble, and they're going to a doctor, they're relying, they really need that doctor to help them.
But if you've got that doctor telling you, ‘you've got to have this vaccine, it's for the good of everybody else’ and what have you, and they're not in a position to critically question things themselves…
We've got to bring this to the fore. We've got to let the public know about this, that the medical profession is in dire straits, and because it's got connections now with the Immunisation Coalition, which is funded by industry.
The vaccine industry has….infiltrated policy.
We've got conflicts of interest in policy.
And so we've just got to get this examined… And we need the ABC to be looking at this, but it's been a massive failure. We must have this examined now.
Russell Broadbent: Thank you Elizabeth Hart for being with us today, it's been great again. I know everybody looks forward to every time you come on, thanks very much.
Elizabeth Hart: Thanks Russell.
Before being sacked in 2021 I worked with 8 GP’s. All of them bed wetting cowards. I raised questions with all of them regarding ivermectin, the safety of the injections, why are we wearing masks, why are we not seeing patients etc etc. No one wanted to engage in conversation with me, the senior dr lied, I know that they knew but chose to sacrifice their patients for their own interests. I hate them all.
The medical profession faces a critical choice that will determine its future. Doctors must decide whether they are going to fight to regain their professional autonomy, or are happy to become agents of the state. If the latter, the public had better watch out. Because a doctor who puts the demands of the state before the medical needs of the patient is not only unethical but also dangerous. Doctors have been saying they could not risk the right to practice - earned after many long years of arduous and costly training - by defying government orders. They should ask themselves whether in reality they are in danger of losing something much more precious - their integrity and their good name.
My grandfather - an independent doctor of the old school, who practised from a surgery at the side of his house - would have been off to Canberra and knocking on the Prime Minister's door in a trice, had government bureaucrats started telling him how to advise or treat his patients. He would have been furious. It is interesting that, in the history of the medical profession, the registration of doctors by governments is a relatively recent development, dating in the UK from 1859 (a few years earlier, as it happened, in the Australian colonies). Registration gave the government the legal ability to prevent an unqualified doctor practising, but so long as the doctor was legally qualified he would be registered automatically.