A Sydney anaesthetist who questioned the efficacy of vaccines and health restrictions—including lockdowns—has had his registration suspended by the state’s medical authorities.
Dr. Paul Oosterhuis, who has been a medical practitioner for over 30 years, was brought before the New South Wales (NSW) Medical Council on Sept. 3, after “two anonymous complaints” were lodged against him regarding his social media activity, according to a petition on Doctors for COVID Ethics.
“In the social media posts for which I face a medical board hearing, I discussed issues such as early treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19, evidence for government measures such as lockdowns and PCR tests, and evidence regarding risk-benefit analyses of COVID-19 vaccines,” he wrote in the petition.
Oosterhuis said he also questioned the evidence underpinning government policies on mask mandates and lockdowns and claimed there was evidence vaccines had “low effectiveness and real risks and harms.”
“Over the last 18 months, I have been increasingly concerned about the misinformation and censorship creeping into science and medicine,” he added.
The NSW Medical Council confirmed that the doctor’s registration was suspended on the same day under Section 150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW), which allows the Council to suspend a practitioner’s registration immediately.
“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 told The Epoch Times. “The Council has advised the suspension to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for recording on the public register of practitioners.”
The Medical Council could not release any further details regarding the decision or the proceedings.
AHPRA confirmed it had received concerns regarding medical professionals “failing to meet” their Code of Conduct obligations and contravening existing COVID-19 medical health guidelines.
The body said it received complaints regarding health practitioners for advocating views contrary to public health advice (without evidence to back those views); prescribing non-evidence-based treatments without proper disclosure around risks or benefits; and breaching public health orders (and being fined) for not social distancing, wearing masks, or abiding by health restrictions.
“Experience tells us that most practitioners, when concerns are raised directly with them, modify their behaviour to become compliant,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times. “In a small number of cases, national boards are likely to take action to ensure the actions of the practitioner do not place the public at risk of harm.”
AHPRA guidelines (pdf) state that health practitioners must ensure their social media activity “does not contradict or counter” public health campaigns or messaging.
Oosterhuis indicated he would appeal the suspension.
“I am very disappointed by the Medical Council’s decision to suspend my registration,” he wrote on Facebook. “The material I submitted in support of my evidence-based concerns was not considered. I intend to appeal the decision.”