In the lead-up to the elections in Tasmania, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has expressed its concerns over the Liberal Party's choice of a Covid vaccine critic as a candidate. Dr. Julie Sladden, a medical doctor who has been critical of pandemic policies and vaccine safety, was selected as the Liberal Party's candidate for the seat of Bass in northern Tasmania. The AMA described this selection as “untenable,” stating that it undermines the government's message to follow clinical advice and get vaccinated.
Dr. Sladden, who closed her medical practice in 2021 due to Covid vaccine mandates, has been active in politics and the media. She has written op-eds criticizing pandemic policies and vaccine safety, consulted for a federal Liberal MP, and co-founded the not-for-profit Australians for Science and Freedom. Her selection as a candidate appears to be a strategic move by the Liberal Party to attract voters who are skeptical of mainstream pandemic policies.
The AMA's opposition to Dr. Sladden's candidacy is based on its belief that political leaders should provide accurate information to the public, particularly regarding Covid vaccines. The AMA emphasized the importance of basing medical opinions on peer-reviewed evidence. However, this statement comes at a time when a large-scale peer-reviewed study on Covid vaccine safety has raised new safety signals and apparent dose-effects. The study, involving 99 million people from multiple countries and conducted by scientists affiliated with reputable organizations, adds to the growing body of research documenting potential harms from Covid vaccines.
The AMA's stance on Dr. Sladden's candidacy reflects its commitment to promoting and protecting the interests of doctors and patients. However, it also highlights a lack of diversity in the organization's approach to health policy and politics. The AMA's insistence on uniformity of opinion among political candidates disregards the democratic process and the right of voters to choose candidates who represent their interests.
Furthermore, public trust in government and institutions has been declining, and many Australians have become skeptical of the mainstream narrative on Covid vaccines. The low uptake of Covid boosters, as indicated by government figures, suggests that people are no longer blindly following the “safe and effective” mantra. The AMA's opposition to Dr. Sladden may inadvertently draw attention to her as a candidate who represents those who have lost trust in the medical establishment.
Ultimately, the decision of who will best represent the interests of Tasmanians lies with the voters, not the medical establishment. The intrusion of the AMA into the electoral process is seen by some as unwarranted and calls for an apology. It is now up to voters to decide whether they align with Dr. Sladden's perspectives and want her to represent them in the upcoming elections.
In conclusion, the AMA's opposition to Dr. Julie Sladden's candidacy reflects its concern over her criticism of pandemic policies and vaccine safety. However, this opposition highlights a lack of diversity in the organization's approach to politics and raises questions about its influence over the democratic process. With public trust in institutions declining, voters will ultimately decide who will best represent their interests in the upcoming elections.
