Australia News & Commentary

Australian Medical Association: “You Won’t Be Able to Hide. Your Life Will Be Miserable”

"'No jab, no job' is political, not medical. It is a fierce medical violation of a person’s conscience, rights, body, and consent. It is not patient care."
  • 655
    Shares

A history of the Australian Medical Association, from its conception in the BMA (British Medical Association), shows a long history of political activism.

Most appear to agree that the AMA is a powerful union and lobbyist group.

At one time benevolent, their foundation included as a condition of AMA membership the acceptance of the obligation “to observe the highest standard of professional integrity in the conduct of medical practice.”

Given that many Australians hear the term AMA, and instantly think expert opinion, it’s important to question the AMA’s behaviour over the course of the past two years.

At what point does their political activism become more about pushing a political agenda than it does healthcare?

Is the AMA’s direction violating its vocation by breaking with a clear tradition of doctors helping other doctors better serve and care for their patients?

Does the AMA represent the majority of doctors anymore?

Is the AMA an unsightly anachronism attached to Australia’s bloated bureaucracy?

In his 2016 exposition for the online journal, The Conversation, Stephen Duckett described the AMA as the “foremost medical lobby group’; a ‘key player in Australia’s strife-ridden health politics, which is riddled with self-serving interest groups.”

It’s clear that the AMA is a politically motivated organisation. The AMA doesn’t just appear to support the politicisation of medicine, they’re actively lobbying for it.

This is backed by Dr. Chris Perry, Queensland’s Australian Medical Association director recently cheering on the idea that life will be very difficult for the unvaccinated.

The QLD AMA executive told the fiendish COIVD Stasi collaborators, aka Channel Nine:  “You won’t be able to hide. You will be miserable. You will have a very lonely life and you won’t be able to maintain your employment.”

During the interview, Dr. Perry failed to distinguish between support for traditional, tried and true vaccines, and support for the COVID-19 varieties.

The AMA director claimed to speak for all Queensland doctors, stating that “99.97% support vaccines.”

It seemed bold for Dr. Perry to claim total representation of every doctor in Queensland, when, according to Duckett’s 2016 exposition, as of 2016 the AMA ‘represented only 30% of the medical profession.’

What the rather abrasive Dr. Perry also failed to mention was the large number of doctors who are not legally allowed to voice their opinion, or offer medical advice which goes against the politically approved narrative.

To add, the AMA executive refused to be transparent about such things as:

  • There being no long-term COVID “vaccine” data.
  • There is likely to be no transparency until 2075.
  • The censorship of medical professionals.
  • Doctors cannot give an honest medical opinion because of politics.
  • Adverse reactions are being dismissed or downplayed by doctors for fear of punitive government reprisal.
  • The destruction of doctor/patient confidentiality.
  • The end of informed consent.
  • High survivability rates.

The level of happy hubris from Dr. Perry may help to unpack why Duckett states, ‘the AMA, as an organisation is in decline.’

Surprisingly, Duckett categorises the AMA’s political alignment as “conservative.”

An assessment contradicted by the AMA backing of SSM, abortion (including late-term abortion), the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement, and the AMA’s soft opposition to responsible border control.

The recent history of the AMA indicates that politics is masquerading itself as medicine.

Take a closer look at what happened in Victoria this week to Dr. Mark Hobart.

Take an even closer look at the mistreatment of Dr. Robert Malone, and a whole range of other medical professionals who would struggle to be represented honestly by legacy media, let alone the AMA.

Why is the AMA seemingly defending the Government, and not those they say they represent: the doctors and their patients?

For an organisation representing physicians, the AMA has been squeamishly quiet on coming to the defence of medical practitioners hounded into silence by the State.

Additionally, the AMA’s position on abortion and their concerns about the potential ‘compromise of patient care’, is itself contradicted by their support of vaccine mandates.

For instance, the AMA states: “Any decision on abortion is between the doctor and patient. There is no place for third parties – governments, over-zealous politicians and lawyers, hospital committees, or even the spectre of legal action.”

The AMA (we should include Fair Work Australia, along with 99% of other Unions) all seem too eager to support COVID-19 authoritarian precedents that compromise patient care.

Politicians now dictate how physicians treat, and what physicians prescribe, and say to their patients.

This turns physicians into a puppet of the State.

The Hippocratic oath has been exchanged for an oath of loyalty to the current prevailing political narrative.

As myself, Ben Davis, and the brilliant Mark Powell covered at length during the beginning of 2020. The World Health Organisation has followed a similar path.

Rather than fight COVID with medicine, they took up a political fight against imaginary racists.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that these organisations are quintessential examples of politics hijacking medicine, and ideology hurting healthcare.

To borrow from Bill Muehlenberg: “The right to choose and bodily autonomy are basic human rights in health care. Deny these or take them away and you have gone straight back to tyranny and despotism – no different from what we saw happening in Germany in the 30s and 40s.”

He isn’t clutching at straws.

For those ready to pound out “you can’t use Nazi parallels with COVID,” let the record show history begs to differ: “The Nazi group in charge of the actual killing in the gas chambers was called the General Welfare Foundation for Institutional Care…” (Dean Stroud, 2013 ‘Preaching in Hitler’s Shadow’)

Wilhelm Busch, a Confessing Church Pastor wrote:

When Hitler came to power and everything was shaking, the word was: ‘Up to such and such a date you can still join the party!’ Or, ‘Up to such and such a date you can still become a member of the “German Christians”. Then the lists will close. Hurry!’ [Yet] I seemed still to hear Christlieb’s voice: ‘Only the devil is in a hurry. If you have no clarity…wait.’ So, I let all the dates pass and remained a free man.

Busch added:

We’d discovered that my son had haemophilia, yet later they conscripted him for the war in Russia.

I ran to see the army doctor who examined him. But a pastor who belonged to the ‘Confessing Church’ and was not ‘standing without reserve behind our beloved Führer’ did not get a hearing.

I can still see the little troop standing on the station. Destination Russia! They were just children, eighteen years old. I could have screamed when I saw my child marching away, looking so pale. What did this tender artistic soul have to do with an unjust war? He had been caught in a pitiless machine.

Then somewhere in Russia he bled to death. Abandoned and alone!

No! Not alone! In his wallet was found a bloodstained scrap of paper with the words: ‘The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want… And though I walk in the dark valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me.’ (Christ or Hitler?)

When it comes to abortion, patient care and bodily autonomy apply just as much to the baby as it does to the mother.

With the “no jab, no job” COVID-19 “vaccine” mandates the same argument for patient care and bodily autonomy stands.

No jab, no job” is political, not medical. It is a fierce medical violation of a person’s conscience, rights, body, and consent. It is not patient care.

The AMA are only showing their age, and hypocritical irrelevance when spokesmen like Dr. Perry step onto live television and proudly promote the dehumanisation of those who don’t want, don’t need, and may not be able to get the COVID-19 “vaccines.”

The generation susceptible to COVID-19 can be protected without raping, disfiguring, and potentially killing the generations under them.


  • 655
    Shares