AMPS - Australian Medical Professionals' Society

05/06/2026

We were told the US-WHO relationship was over. We were lied to.

Universities. Regulators. Public health agencies. They're all connected through a hidden WHO network operating behind the scenes.

05/06/2026

The National Health Practitioner Ombudsman has reported an increase in complaints about AHPRA's own handling of notifications.

Practitioners and complainants alike are reporting dissatisfaction with timeliness and communication. AHPRA has published revised principles for managing complaints about its own conduct.

The National Health Practitioner Ombudsman has detailed concerns about how vexatious notifications are handled as their numbers spike.

05/06/2026

AHPRA's CEO told Senate Estimates that Dr Andrew Amos and Dr Jillian Spencer were sanctioned for "discrimination or hateful conduct."

Then he refused to explain what that conduct was. Dr Amos's response: "AHPRA has never provided me with any argument linking my actions to those outcomes."

You don't get to smear someone's professional reputation in a public forum and then hide behind confidentiality.

That's not accountability. That's weaponised ambiguity. AMPS stands with Dr Amos and Dr Spencer. AHPRA owes them both a public apology.

https://hubs.la/Q04kdgC00

Australia’s peak medical regulator has been accused of a “deeply disturbing abuse of regulatory power”, after its CEO denied his organisation takes action against medical professionals for raising concerns about gender-affirming treatment of children, claiming action is only taken in instances...

05/06/2026

The word "vaccine" just changed and most Australians didn't notice.

In a pre-Easter legislative blitz, Federal Parliament quietly amended the National Health Act to broaden the legal definition of 'vaccine' to include products that confer 'passive immunity'. Only five senators voted against it.

This is not a technical footnote. It means monoclonal antibody products, which supply pre-formed laboratory antibodies rather than training the immune system, can now sit under the National Immunisation Program alongside traditional vaccines. First in line: Beyfortus (nirsevimab), a monoclonal antibody injection for RSV in newborns.

AMPS members will want to note several things:

Beyfortus is not a vaccine in any conventional immunological sense. Post-marketing surveillance has flagged a markedly higher rate of seizures in infants receiving nirsevimab. Clinical trial data have raised questions about infant mortality in treatment groups versus controls.

These are not fringe concerns — they are the basis of legitimate scientific scrutiny.

Senator Malcolm Roberts moved an amendment requiring any product admitted under this framework be tested against an inert saline placebo to international standard. It was voted down 43 to 5.

If the definitional change were truly unremarkable, why was a basic safety standard rejected so decisively? Australia's senior immunologist Professor Robert Clancy has been direct: "Changing the definition to allow use of monoclonals for RSV etc is simply ridiculous."

Medical professionals deserve transparent, honest frameworks — not definitions engineered to accommodate products seeking taxpayer-funded national rollout. AMPS will continue to ask the questions some in the Senate will not.

Read the full analysis by Dr Julie Sladden: https://hubs.la/Q04kdknr0

When Federal Parliament moved to amend the National Health Act and broaden the legal definition of 'vaccine', only five senators voted against it. Hidden inside this amendment is a significant shift in Australia's immunisation framework, one that paves the way for an entirely new class of pharmaceut...

30/05/2026

An interview by Dr John Campbell and Australian immunology Professor Robert Clancy AM he refers to a Japanese study of about 22 million noting increased mortality in the mRNA vaccinated and not the unvaccinated.

29/05/2026

$10.6 billion of taxpayer money. Mass promotion. But where was the robust evidence?

New analysis on Paxlovid is raising serious questions about whether governments moved faster than the science. Frontline clinicians deserve transparency, accountability, and evidence-based policy — not billion-dollar gambles.

Patients and taxpayers pay the price when politics outruns data.

Paxlovid and Tamiflu and how history doesn't repeat itself, but rhymes

29/05/2026

NHMRC Interim Report on Puberty Blockers Expected Mid-2026 NATIONAL

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is conducting a formal review of healthcare for trans and gender-diverse children, with an interim report specifically examining puberty blockers expected to be released mid-2026.

The review comes as international jurisdictions including the UK (Cass Review), Sweden, Finland, and Norway have significantly tightened clinical governance in this area.

Critics, including researchers published in peer-reviewed literature, note that Australia's current standards received just 19 out of 100 for rigour of development in the Cass Review's assessment.

To summarize the key recommendations of England’s independent inquiry into gender identity services for children and young people (the Cass Review) and to evaluate their relevance to Australian health policy. The Cass Review’s findings and ...

28/05/2026

The Australian Human Rights Commission has argued that a biological male who identifies as a woman could be a victim of pregnancy discrimination - on the basis of "potential pregnancy."

The S*x Discrimination Commissioner conceded in the same breath that biological males cannot get pregnant.

Let that sit for a moment.

AMPS has no interest in culture war. But we have a very significant interest in what happens when the officials responsible for interpreting and applying law to the medical profession operate from a framework that is biologically incoherent.

Because it doesn't stop at discrimination law.

If the regulatory and legal apparatus governing healthcare — the same apparatus that oversees AHPRA, practitioner conduct, and patient care standards — is prepared to formally decouple biological reality from legal definitions, medical practitioners need to be asking hard questions.

What does informed consent look like when legal definitions diverge from clinical ones?

What does evidence-based practice look like when the evidentiary standard in law is "what the employer assumed"?

What does scope of practice mean when the bodies defining protected characteristics reject the biological foundations that medicine is built on?

We are not asking these questions to score political points. We are asking them because our members operate at the intersection of science, law, and patient care, and they deserve a regulatory environment that doesn't require them to choose between the two.

Parliament needs to act. The law needs clarity. And science cannot be optional.

Australia’s human rights watchdog has come under fire for declaring biological men who identify as women could be discriminated against on the grounds of their “potential pregnancy”, as women’s rights advocates slam the statement as “crazy” and “deeply frustrating”.

28/05/2026

Worth reading.

The Right to Health Sovereignty — published March 2026 by the International Health Reform Project, co-chaired by former WHO scientist Dr David Bell and former UN Assistant Secretary-General Ramesh Thakur — makes the case that genuine health progress requires returning to the foundations: informed consent, national sovereignty, subsidiarity, and the Hippocratic principle of first, do no harm.

It critiques the drift of global health institutions toward centralised emergency powers, donor-driven agendas, and the erosion of individual and state agency. It proposes either deep WHO reform or the creation of a new decentralised International Health Organisation built on transparency, accountability, and genuine cooperation — not coercion.

These aren't fringe concerns. They're the concerns of practitioners who watched clinical ethics get sidelined during the pandemic response — and who are determined it doesn't happen again.

Available now through Brownstone Institute and Amazon.

In a world where global health institutions have drifted from their founding principles, offers a bold, principled vision for the future of international public health cooperation. This groundbreaking policy report from the International Health Reform Project (IHRP)—a panel of independent expe...

28/05/2026

A newly published case report documents detectable vaccine-derived mRNA, spike protein, and plasmid DNA fragments more than 3.5 years post-COVID-19 vaccination — confirmed across multiple independent laboratories, in blood, exosomes, and skin tissue.

It's a single case. But it asks a question Australia is now structurally unable to answer.

The QoVAX trial — a Queensland study tracking vaccine safety and efficacy across more than 10,000 participants — was defunded in 2023 with no explanation. Metro North Health confirmed all biospecimens would be destroyed and data archived.

This is the only study that could have provided real-world, long-term Australian data on exactly these questions. Professor Kerryn Phelps described it as "extremely valuable." Queensland's own records retention policy requires research data to be preserved for 15 years. It's being destroyed.

At the same time, Queensland is investing hundreds of millions in new mRNA research and pharmaceutical partnerships.

Evidence suggests ongoing issues and harms exist. Medical professionals and their patients deserve better than having research destroyed.