AMPS - Australian Medical Professionals' Society

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.

27/05/2026

Healthcare professionals should never be afraid to ask questions.

Open scientific discussion, informed consent, transparency, and ethical policy matter - especially when decisions impact careers, patients, and public trust.

“The Vaccination Conversation 2026” brings together experienced researchers and regulatory experts to examine vaccine policy, mandates, accountability, and the importance of protecting scientific debate in Australia.

This is not about slogans or division. It is about evidence, ethics, and ensuring healthcare professionals and the public can engage in respectful, informed discussion without fear.

📍 Canberra
📅 Thursday 28 May 2026
⏰ 6:45pm
📌 Awaken Church, Kambah ACT

Featuring:
• Dr Phillip Altman
• Dr Judy Wilyman
• Wendy Daniel

AMPS supports the right of health professionals to ask questions, examine evidence, and advocate for ethical healthcare policy without intimidation.

Strong systems do not silence debate. They welcome scrutiny.

Get ready for some hard questions......

25/05/2026

There was a time when healthcare workers were called heroes.

Some were destroyed for acting like one.

Dr Denes Borsos is facing deregistration — years after the fact, when the cameras have gone and the public has moved on.

Whatever your view of that era, this much is clear: no clinician should face professional destruction for exercising clinical judgement, upholding informed consent, or refusing to be silent when their patients needed an advocate.

Fear is not a regulatory framework. Intimidation is not patient safety.

When doctors and nurses cannot speak — when dissent becomes a career-ending offence — we don't protect the public. We leave them with a health system that answers to power, not people.

AMPS stands for every practitioner who has ever been made to choose between their registration and their conscience.

Cafe Locked Out

21/05/2026

Purdue Pharma has been sentenced to pay over $5 billion in criminal penalties for its role in fuelling the opioid epidemic — fraud, kickbacks, and deliberate deception of regulators and the public, spanning decades.
Profits over patients. It's a pattern the medical profession knows too well.

Our members work inside systems shaped by pharmaceutical influence — on prescribing guidelines, clinical education, and regulatory decisions. When that influence operates without transparency or accountability, practitioners and patients both pay the price.

The Purdue sentence is long overdue. It should also be a warning: corporate accountability in healthcare cannot be the exception. It has to be the standard.

Purdue Pharma’s Latest Fine: A Mere Slap on the Wrist for Corporate Mass Harm, While Governments Fail to Confront Even Greater Catastrophes-The mRNA Vaccines

21/05/2026

Australia's health ministers have formally directed AHPRA to immediately improve the timeliness and quality of its investigation processes. Not eventually. Now.

AMPS has been calling for this for years. Our members have carried the psychological and professional burden of investigations that drag on with no transparency and no end in sight.

The reforms include a Complaints Navigator Service, action on vexatious complaints, and a Ministerial Statement of Expectations issued to the AHPRA Board every two years. Potentially Meaningful — if enforced.

Words in a communiqué are not reform. Reform is a practitioner who gets a fair, timely, transparent process. AMPS will be watching the implementation closely.

Australia’s health ministers have endorsed a broad package of reforms to the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, with Ahpra directed to ‘immediately improve timeliness and quality of investigation processes and decision making’.

19/05/2026

A national regulator cannot survive on authority alone. It needs trust.

Health Services Daily has put into words what so many of our members already feel: AHPRA's public defence of its position this week answered the public's questions. It didn't answer the profession's.

When clinicians start to believe that raising a difficult clinical question — even a well-reasoned, evidence-based one — could expose them to regulatory risk, they go silent. And a silenced profession is a less safe one.

AMPS and NPAA has been saying this for years. The regulatory process must be impartial, transparent, and genuinely open to challenge. Not just in principle. In practice.

Is that the experience of practitioners engaging with AHPRA right now? We don't think so. And we're not going to stop saying it.

There are live leadership tensions that exist in every complex healthcare organisation, they’re not just abstract questions.

19/05/2026

Another explosive chapter in the COVID-19 story is unfolding.

New testimony reported in the US Senate alleges intelligence analysts were pressured to downplay the possibility of a laboratory origin for COVID-19 and silence dissenting views during the pandemic response.

Whether you agree or disagree with these claims, one thing is clear:

Healthcare professionals and the public deserve transparency.
Not censorship. Not political spin. Not selective science.

For years, frontline clinicians who raised questions were dismissed, attacked, or silenced. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on the origins debate.

Science only works when scrutiny is allowed.
Public trust only survives when governments and institutions are honest.

AMPS will always support:
• Open scientific inquiry
• Protection for whistleblowers
• Transparency in public health decision-making
• Respectful debate without intimidation

Nurses, doctors, and healthcare workers carried the weight of this pandemic. They deserve the full truth — wherever it leads.

Dr. Peter McCullough breaks down the bombshell Senate testimony claiming Fauci orchestrated a laboratory-leak suppression campaign and silenced intelligence analysts for political gain.