Medical Board of Australia v Nixon [2025] QCAT 453

• [1] In this proceeding, the Medical Board of Australia ('Board') makes eight allegations against Dr David Nixon, a general practitioner whose non-practising registration is currently suspended.
• [2] Allegations one to six involve differing aspects of the circumstances in which he consulted with, diagnosed and granted COVID-19 vaccination exemptions to a cohort of patients in the period between 27 February 2021 and 2 March 2022.
• [3] Allegation seven is that Dr Nixon conducted research into the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine without the approval or consent of relevant authorities.
• [4] Allegation eight relates to him making public posts online between 25 October 2022 and 2 February 2025 that, either individually or taken together, are inconsistent with professional values and/or qualities expected of a medical practitioner, as they do not provide a balanced perspective and were contrary to public health campaigns and public health measures in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• [5] Dr Nixon does not challenge the factual allegations which the Board makes about his consultation with, diagnosis and granting of COVID-19 exemptions for the cohort of patients involved in allegations one to six. He agrees he undertook the consultations, made the diagnoses and provided the exemptions as the Board alleges. He did not challenge the expert witness called by the Board, Dr Singleton, about any of those factual matters in allegations one to six.
• [6] Dr Nixon sought to establish, through Dr Singleton, that his opinions about the propriety of the regulatory system during the period of 2021 to 2022 concerning the management of COVID-19 were correct, that is, that the approach arising from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation Guidelines took away from foundational ethical principles. Dr Singleton did not agree with him about this. She did not accept that the public messaging was phrased in absolute terms; her evidence was that the Government messaging was clear and open about potential adverse effects. She did not agree that the vaccines at the time were less than safe and effective. She did not agree with Dr Nixon's statement that all pericarditis and myocarditis arose because of the vaccines. Dr Singleton gave evidence that everyone will recall the urgency of the circumstances which prevailed at the time, and her opinion was that whilst the vaccines were not trialled in Australia, there was good evidence available that vaccination was safe and effective at the time they were introduced. For this reason, Dr Singleton disputed that the vaccines were experimental. Her evidence included her experience that at the time she was working in a clinic where there was lots of misinformation, distress and concern about vaccination and a significant need for counselling. Dr Singleton's evidence included the need for counselling to address both the risks to the individual of being vaccinated and the risks of not being vaccinated, as well as the risks to others which arose from an individual not being vaccinated, such as older family members or work colleagues who may have had greater risk factors. Dr Singleton also gave evidence that in the balancing of risk factors, the capacity of the health system to deal with sick people in the pandemic without being overwhelmed was a factor for consideration. Her evidence was that, as at 2021 to 2022, the vaccines were safe and effective and this remains the position based on what we know today.
• [7] Dr Nixon did not give oral evidence, but he made submissions. He made two overarching arguments:

(a) The first was that, in summary, at the time of the events the system mandated an approach to vaccination that took away from foundational ethical principles.

(b) The second was that, with hindsight and what we know today, his position about the system has been proven to be correct.

• [8] The Tribunal does not accept on the evidence that the system relating to COVID-19 vaccinations in Australia in 2021 to 2022 mandated an approach that ran counter to foundational ethical principles. It accepts Dr Singleton's expert opinion evidence that there was good evidence for the implementation of a vaccination program and sound reasons for the approach that was adopted.
• [9] Further, the Tribunal does not accept that, with hindsight and what we know today, Dr Nixon's position about the system has been proved to be correct. The professional assessors sitting with me inform the Tribunal that there is no body of evidence which challenges the efficacy of vaccination against COVID-19. The Tribunal is satisfied that the facts alleged by the Board, which give rise to allegations one to six, are established.
• [10] As to allegations seven and eight:

(a) there is a six-volume hearing book in evidence (which relates to all allegations);

(b) it contains numerous statements by Dr Nixon, including statements on his website, statements he has made in interviews and statements he has self-published;

(c) those statements include that he has, from 2022,[1] engaged in research into the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine. He has also told the Ahpra investigators that he had been doing this when he was interviewed in August 2024;

(d) there is no evidence that he has obtained any approval or consent for this research.

(e) there are also videos of presentations he has given about the nature of the COVID-19 vaccine;

(f) much of this material, that is, the written statements and some of the links to some of the material in the interviews, is contained on his website;

(g) Dr Nixon does not dispute the factual aspects of these matters.

• [11] In those circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Board has established the factual aspects of the allegations seven and eight.
• [12] The Tribunal will now hear submissions on the characterisation of the facts which have been found established and on sanction.

[1] The Tribunal accepts Dr Nixon's statement that the reference in one of his papers to 'from 2021 onwards' was an error and makes a finding that it occurred from 2022.