Who is Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan? How to Fight Back Against the Machine
Who is Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan?
Dr. Kunadhasan is an anesthetist and perioperative physician from Victoria, in Australia. She was fired because she had unanswered questions about the Covid-19 vaccine and did not agree with the mandates. No appropriate risk/benefit analysis was forthcoming, which raised a big red flag for her. For not agreeing to be railroaded into taking a therapeutic for which there was no good data, she was shown the door. In addition, since November 2022, she has been under investigation by Australian authorities for the ‘crime’ of disseminating ‘anti-Covid-19 vaccine information.’
As one of several thousand volunteers who have spent time with a dedicated team combing through the Pfizer BioNTech ‘secret’ documents that have been dribbled out since a court order, she is in a position to know the highly questionable ‘data’ that went into the approval of these shots. The team is organized through the “Daily Clout” organization of Dr. Naomi Wolf. It can be found here: dailyclout.io.
See the following brief (under 2 minutes) video statement that Dr. Kunadhasan gives in response to her being under investigation:
Dr. Kunadhasan belongs to the AMPS (Australian Medical Professionals’ Society), which is the alternative medical society in Australia. Like elsewhere, old institutions are being abandoned by free-thinking people who do not wish to be owned by the corporate-governmental cabal. The AMPS is going to bat for Jeyanthi, who has already been punished with loss of job and status.
The ‘official’ governmental medical body in Australia is the AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency). They are the ones who apparently have been tasked with punishing those physicians who refuse to blindly accept the Covid-19 edicts, despite the absence of evidence of safety or efficacy. AMPS’ response to this attack on Dr. K’s behalf can be found here:
I will briefly summarize their response in Dr. Kunadhasan’s case, which otherwise runs to 7 pages and can be found in its (redacted) entirety here:
The letter from AHPRA to Dr. Kunadhasan demands a response to the anonymous accusation of promoting “anti Covid-19 vaccination statements” and for “professional misconduct.”
No specifics were forthcoming. Professional misconduct generally means providing substandard care or criminal conduct or a breach of integrity. None was substantiated. Health impairment to the point of being unable to provide care is another area – also not relevant.
Specifics as to which statements of Dr. Kunadahasan fell afoul of regulations were previously requested but no specifics were given, only broad sweeping assertions that statements made were unprofessional. Vaccines that are only provisionally approved because of an emergency are definitionally subject to scrutiny and further research exactly because they are unproven. Disallowing public debate, discussion and informed consent on the matter runs afoul of the very nature of an unproven therapy. Australian Common Law requires that an accuser state which statement runs afoul of which law. This was not done.
“Merely attaching material in the Notification with a deadline to provide a response is not sufficiently informing the recipient respondent which components of the notification require response, in a way that risks self-incrimination, and is not naturally just nor efficient.”
This amounts to harassment. It has been reported that 16 medical practitioners have committed suicide after being thus harassed by AHPRA.
“… ungrounded or frivolous notifications to competent and discerning medical practitioners for performing their ethical obligations under their Code is extremely damaging and can result in a culmination of psychological harms that have contemporarily been referred to as Moral Injury.”
The complaint appears to be frivolous, and there does not appear to be a case to answer. Since through other work reviewing Pfizer documents Jeyanthi is in a position to know better than AHPRA and the complainant of the manifold problems with the Pfizer data, perhaps the AHPRA and the anonymous complainant would benefit from reviewing some of her work on the Pfizer documents.
Discussion of public matters is an important political right.
There is reason to suspect that the anonymous complainant is using public resources via anonymous complaint to stifle research into documents used to support this vaccine. This smacks of intimidation. It is suggested that AHPRA make sure that the complainant is acting in good faith and is not benefiting materially from making this complaint.
If it is possible that this is a bad faith complaint in order to quash research into matters of public interest, this must be investigated. It is also recommended that the AHPRA ask for an immediate ‘integrity audit’ to be sure that they are not a compromised organization. The AMPS is happy to recommend an independent lawyer who can assist the AHPRA in self-investigation.
AMPS hereby notifies the AHPRA that this complaint may have been made in bad faith. AHPRA is demanded to cease and desist from further harassment and to desist from interfering with the doctor’s rights to free speech.
Now to my way of thinking, the best defense is a good offense. This, my friends, is how that is done.
One of our country’s most important freedoms is that of free speech.
Agree with this essay? Disagree? Join the debate by writing to DailyClout HERE.