NSW Medical Board to grill anti-vax doctor

A Sydney doctor has been hauled before the NSW Medical Board after he questioned evidence behind Covid-19 vaccines and promoted unapproved treatments.

A petition claiming to have almost 10,000 signatures supporting Paul Oosterhuis has been circulated online by an organisation called Doctors for Covid Ethics.

A Sydney doctor has been hauled before the NSW Medical Board after he questioned evidence behind Covid-19 vaccines and promoted unapproved treatments, including Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, in a case that will test the limits of what medical professionals can say publicly.

Anaesthetist Paul Oosterhuis, who has practised in NSW’s public hospital system for more than 30 years, will front the board at a hearing on Friday, where he could be stripped of his licence after he made Facebook posts more than two weeks ago.

He is defending his comments on the grounds of free speech, but senior members of the medical profession have rubbished the claim, saying doctors had a professional responsibility to promote evidence-based medical information only.

Dr Oosterhuis said he was “just raising scientific data and expressing an opinion” when he posted people should “take vit D, zinc, and early treatment with IVM (Ivermectin)/ HCQ (Hydroxychloroquine) as evidence-based medicine alternatives”.

In another post, he questioned the evidence base behind Covid-19 vaccines, which he said had “real risks and harms” because of the “immune escape from the selective evolutionary pressure of vaccinating with a non sterilising agent”.

Dr Oosterhuis said he saw the case against him as evidence of the emergence of a “heterodoxy” around Covid-19 and saw stifling medical debate as a move towards “something dangerous”.

“I think there are other people who understand what my concerns are (but) they’re under this gag order by AHPRA (the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency),” he said.

“All these professionals have a warning from the regulating authorities if you say anything (out of line) you’re at risk of being deregistered – we have a censorship campaign.

“Providing information about all the options of medical treatment was previously an obligation of medical treatment.

“AHPRA has said you can only speak good about the vaccine but I take the view you don’t have informed consent in the absence of an open, honest discussion of risks and benefits of medical procedures and advice.”

A petition claiming to have almost 10,000 signatures supporting Dr Oosterhuis has been circulated online by an organisation called Doctors for Covid Ethics, which has cast the case as an ethical dilemma at the intersection where free speech about evidence-based science and censorship collide.

UNSW immunologist John Dwyer dismissed the free-speech argument, saying doctors had a professional responsibility to promote evidence-based medical information only.

The Medical Council of NSW said it was bound by confidential­ity and unable to comment on the case. AHPRA was contacted for comment.