Covid-19: Anti-vax doctor loses fight to practice medicine

A Sydney doctor has had his registration suspended, after he was hauled in front of the medical board to defend his anti-vaccination messages.

A health worker prepares a syringe for administering the Vaxzevria Covid-19 vaccine. Picture: Getty Images

A Sydney doctor who promoted anti-vaccination views and spruiked unproven Covid treatments has had his registration suspended, as medical authorities seek to clamp down on the spread of misinformation.

Anaesthetist Paul Oosterhuis fronted the NSW Medical Board over social media posts he shared promoting ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and warning against “gene therapy” vaccines, in a case he argues was about the right to free speech.

Dr Oosterhuis, who worked as a “good soldier” in the public hospital system for 30 years, has vowed to appeal the decision, claiming he was stripped of his ­license because he refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19.

“I was deeply disappointed they didn’t look at my evidence,” he said. “They didn’t discuss the posts, all they seemed to care about was if I was getting the vaccine.

“I explained the evidence that I was seeing, and they appeared not to want to look at it basically.”

In a marathon five-hour hearing, Dr Oosterhuis said he presented scientific evidence that supported his view that vaccinations contained a “non sterilising agent”, which posed a serious risk, and that Covid-19 could be treated with vitamin D and zinc in combination with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

“Actions like this by the medical council have a chilling effect on the ability of practitioners to speak freely, and exchange ideas,” he said.

However, the medical board said it made the decision on the basis that Dr Oosterhuis’s actions imperilled public trust in the medical system.

“The Medical Council has taken this action in order to protect the health and safety of the public and to maintain confidence in the medical profession,” a spokesperson said.

University of NSW immunologist John Dwyer backed the ­decision, saying doctors had a professional ­responsibility to promote evidence-based medical information, especially when the country was facing a major health crisis.

“Misleading the public at the time where we need genuine ­expertise to give people confidence in how we handle this pandemic is very troubling,” he said.

“The public are confused and feel the medical information hasn’t been clear, and who is an expert and who isn’t.”

Professor Dwyer said by ­nature, anti-vaccination views conflicted with the principals of medicine, and no doctor should harbour them or voice them in public. “I don‘t believe you can be a doctor, and pretend you are ­offering the public evidence-based care, if you hold such a ­belief that vaccination doesn’t work or is dangerous, as the evidence doesn’t support that.”

Dr Oosterhuis had already ­decided not to practise medicine as he once did, instead claiming the fight ahead to overturn the suspension as a matter of scientific principle. “I don’t plan to practice in a system that I don’t think honours basic ethics,” he said.