Law firm releases bombshell legal opinion on alleged illegal control of Doctor’s conduct

A new legal opinion published by Julian Gillespie LLB, BJuris and Peter Fam LLB casts doubt over the legal basis of AHPRA’s 9 March 2021 “gag order”. The opinion is accompanied by the following cover letter (click here to skip to the full opinion):

This email raises several issues which are of concern to the Australian public and Health Professionals and, we hope, you. Also, the attached Legal Opinion contains the report of Dr Phillip Altman, makes available to you and your colleagues a cutting edge update on the COVID-19 vaccinations, and a comprehensive analysis of associated Adverse Events in Australia, which together raise serious implications for Australian Personal Injury and Medical Negligence law.

Contingent to a joint statement received from AHPRA and the National Boards on 9 March 2021[1], Australian Health Professionals numbering over 825,000 were essentially forbidden from publicly questioning the science underlying the emerging COVID-19 injectables, let alone questioning any government messaging urging Australians to be vaccinated because these products were deemed ‘safe and effective’. The effect of this unilateral action was to undermine professional independence. However well intentioned, this gagging by bureaucratic decree inserted AHPRA and the National Boards between the Clinician and their Patient, which resulted in a serious failure of evidenced-based information being shared by Health Professionals with patients, being information required for patients to be fully-informed, for the purpose of their providing legally acceptable Informed Consent to receiving Covid-19 injectables.

This failure in Informed Consent across Australia has now occurred millions of times in respect of the Covid-19 injectables.

This failure in Informed Consent has likely resulted in 100s of 1,000s, if not millions of Australians agreeing to the administration of a Covid-19 injectables, where they would not have so agreed or Consented, had they been provided with all the available evidenced-based information concerning Covid-19 injectables, including that they expose a recipient to a real and significant risk of death, injury, or illness.

Indeed, now 17 months later and after numerous forms of pressure to take up the COVID-19 injectables in various age categories, a tremendous amount of data has been emerging from early 2021 and consistently into 2022, for accurately informing clinicians about these products.

This literature has included over one thousand[2] peer reviewed studies reporting of the harms being seen around the world, up to December 2021. In addition, it has become clear that the risk of serious illness and death attributable to COVID-19 disease is heavily weighted to the elderly and those with known co-morbidities, while in contrast, younger Australians are relatively resistant.  Also, since the advent of the Delta and Omicron variants, it is highly questionable whether the vaccines are preventing transmission or illness.

In any event, the implied and intended outcome of the gagging was to see Doctors and Health Professionals effectively mandated to support the government campaign to have the Australian population injected with drugs for which there was no adequate short-, medium-, or long-term safety or efficacy data. Indeed, the rush to market and Provisional Approval occurred despite the absence of the usual pre-clinical studies, including testing for Carcinogenicity and Genotoxicity. In this regard, it should be of serious interest that a peer-reviewed investigation[3] has demonstrated that mRNA-derived Spike proteins enter the cell nucleus and interfere with DNA. However, many critical facts like these became forbidden subjects for Health Professionals and Doctors to raise with their patients, let alone in public forums. Thus, we contend that the joint statement of 9 March 2021 has compromised proper and Informed Consent in Australia.

Especially given the lack of available pre-clinical research for each of these products, or clinical studies powered to detect early safety signals at the time of Provisional Approval, the need for ongoing critical appraisal of pharmacovigilance data remains paramount, to instruct responsible day to day practice by Medical Professionals. To date, none of the makers of the COVID-19 injectables have been able to stringently show their products to be Safe or properly Effective. To date, Adverse Events flowing from these products are at historically unprecedented levels globally and continue to rise. And again, to date, no other drugs in human history have reported more deaths, illnesses, injuries, and disabilities, which number as follows (to 28 June 2022):

Covid-19 Injectables                                      Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths

European Medicines Agency[4]                     1,845,179[5]                                                           45,982

US VAERS[6]                                                           835,062[7]                                                               13,388

Australia TGA[8]                                                   132,155[9]                                                               889

UK Yellow Card[10]                                              458,463[11]                                                             2,191

                                                Total                      3,270,859                                                             62,450  

It is widely acknowledged that all Adverse Event reporting systems suffer from under-reporting[12], an inherent challenge for passive reporting systems and their interpretation. For US VAERS reporting in respect of the COVID-19 injectables, the Under-Reporting Factor (URF) has been estimated to be between 40-49x[13]. If a conservative URF of 10x is applied, the above figures begin to more realistically represent the likely true effects of the Covid-19 injectables:

                                                                                Adverse Event Reports                                  Deaths


                                                Total                      32,708,590                                                           624,500

To be clear, the TGA has received more Adverse Event reports in 2021 through June 2022 for the COVID-19 vaccines, than they have been seen for all other vaccines in the preceding 50-year period. A similar explosion in Adverse Event reports for the  COVID-19 injectables has occurred in all other countries that chose to deploy them[14], but in Australia, comparing the period from 1971[15] until the start of 2021 in respect of traditional protein-based vaccines, to the period from 1 February 2021 through 8 June 2022 in respect of the COVID-19 injectables, we observe the following:

Number of Adverse Event Reports non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                 19,330

Number of Adverse Event Reports COVID-19 injectables (18mths):                            132,668

Number of Reaction Types non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                                 1,492

Number of Reaction Types COVID -19 injectables (18mths):                                          3,660

Number of Adverse Reactions non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):                                           43,878

Number of Adverse Reactions COVID-19 injectables (18mths):                                     433,669

# Adverse Reactions per Adverse Event report non-COVID vaccines (50yrs):           2.27

# Adverse Reactions per Adverse Event report COVID-19 injectables (18mths):     3.27

To assist you to understand the causes leading to these concerning signals, we provide to you the comprehensive and up-to-date report of Dr Phillip Altman annexed to the Opinion. By way of background, Dr Altman’s report has been used in modified formats to assist the Courts in Australia and New Zealand to understand the scientific evidence behind the COVID-19 injectables. It is proving to be the long-awaited body of work needed by the Judicial, Medical and Scientific communities of Australia, to bring clarity by critical scientific appraisal during these controversial times of COVID-19.


Legal Ramifications for Registered Health Practitioners And AHPRA Public Officers


The AHPRA and the National Boards joint statement of 9 March 2021

The Legal Opinion has been made publicly available by law firm Maat’s Method, and was authored by former barrister Mr Julian Gillespie and myself, Principal Lawyer Mr Peter Fam.

The Opinion establishes several conclusions that represent serious matters requiring immediate consideration by every Personal Injury/Medical Negligence lawyer whose community members have been adversely effected by the administering the Covid-19 injectables.

In essence, the Legal Opinion posits that the 9 March 2021 AHPRA ‘gag order’ was only an advisory, not even AHPRA policy.  It was made in contravention to the Codes of Conduct which supersede such an advisory in Law.  Even if made with good intentions as the experimental gene-based Covid-19 injectables were rolled out in an atmosphere of great hope, its outcomes have been to undermine the Codes of Conduct, the practitioner-patient/client relationship, and thwart the right of patients to fully-informed Informed Consent.

In short, the Legal Opinion establishes the following:

  • The publication of the 9 March 2021 joint statement by AHPRA and the National Boards was illegal.
  • At all times before and after publication of the March statement, Health Professionals were required to observe first their Codes of Conduct, irrespective of the various coercive and threatening statements made in the March statement.
  • Codes of Conduct are subordinate legislation deemed Statutory Rules; a failure to strictly observe Codes of Conduct amounts to a breach of the National Law.
  • Nothing in the March statement allowed any Health Professional to not observe their Code of Conduct in respect of the Covid-19 injectables.
  • Covid-19 injectables administered by a Health Professional who does or did not fully-inform patients of the known risks associated with the injectables, for the purpose of patients providing fully-informed Informed Consent, were and are in breach of the National Law.
  • Health Professionals who do not and/or did not fully-inform patients of the known risks associated with the Covid-19 injectables for the purpose of patients providing fully-informed Informed Consent, are now legally liable to ‘vaccine’ victims for Professional Negligence and/or Medical Negligence.
  • No Australian government has put in place any indemnity or immunity for Health Professionals in respect of their potential liability to patients to whom they administered Covid-19 injectables.
  • As a consequence of the 9 March statement being illegal, the public officers within AHPRA and the National Boards responsible for the publication of the statement, now appear to be personally liable to Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ victims. The reason for this would be due to the foreseeable harm arising from the statement ‘gagging’ Health Professionals from sharing evidenced-based information about the known risks associated with the Covid-19 injectables. This liability arises under the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office.
  • Lastly, Health Professionals who may indeed be professionally liable to ‘vaccine’ victims, may themselves be able to also sue the public officers within AHPRA and the National Boards responsible for the March statement, again by resort to the tort of Misfeasance in Public Office.

This Legal Opinion is likely to be tested widely in the courts in the coming months and years.  Therefore, in the spirit of collegiality, we have alerted you about the Legal Opinion so you may alert any Health Professionals who may be personally and professionally affected by the conclusions it contains, or alternatively, assist the many thousands of ‘vaccine’ victims across Australia seek proper redress for the harms that have befallen them.

We implore you as colleagues to give the information and resource contained in this email your greatest attention, with a view to sharing the same with your colleagues. There will doubtless be many questions arising from our email and we invite further discussion with you.

Full Opinion view/download

Opinion re AHPRA March 2021 Statement and Codes of Conduct 15.08.22 (with annexure)-3Download




[4] – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen

[5] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[6] (only US/Territories) – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[7] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[8] – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[9] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included.

[10] – Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca

[11] Individual reports refer to a single patient, where more than one adverse reaction is often included. The 458,463 reports received to 24 June 2022 reported a total of 1,495,273 various forms of adverse reaction.




[15] See DAEN website for no. of adverse events non-COVID vaccines and Covid injectables.

Source –