 On 28 June 2021, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that the COVID-19 vaccine will be mandatory for all residential aged care workers. The decision was made at an emergency National Cabinet meeting between state and territory leaders. All aged care workers are expected to have their first dose by mid-September.
“This is something we wanted to see and so tonight we received the advice that would enable us to go forward with that measure”, Mr Morrison said. “Imposing on a person the requirement to have a vaccine or not be able to work in a particular sector is something that no government would do lightly and as a result we have been considering this matter for some time now based on the best possible medical advice.” It would be interesting to know who the government received their advice from, and what evidence they have to support this decision. In August 2020, Mr Morrison initially claimed that the vaccine will be “as mandatory as possible” before back tracking on his comments. He followed this with “it’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine”. “There are no mechanisms for compulsory… I mean, we can't hold someone down and make them take it”, Mr Morrison said at the time. It appears that they will just lose their job instead. Perhaps we should have seen this coming. In January 2021, Mr Morrison stated that the Australian Health Primary Protection Committee (AHPPC) are “not recommending (mandatory vaccinations for aged care staff)”. However, the Prime Minister did not rule out making the COVID-19 vaccine compulsory “in the future”. It seems that day has arrived. Chief advocate for National Seniors Australia Ian Henschke said back in January that “if it turns out the vaccine does prevent transmission, I would think it would be a no-brainer to make it mandatory”. Guess what Mr Henschke? It doesn’t. The Prime Minister has even said so himself, claiming that there is not yet “considerable evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. In fact, the clinical trials were not even designed to measure it. According to a study in the Lancet journal, “these considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.” One only has to look through the clinical trial data to discover this. In the Pfizer clinical trial, “confirmed COVID-19 cases were determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and required at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease… The symptoms included: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.” Yet, we are repeatedly told that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces severe illness, hospitalisation and death. It was never measured during the clinical trials. In the UK, the death rate from the ‘Delta’ variant is “six times higher among those who were fully vaccinated for two weeks or longer than those who never received a shot”. “Twenty-six people died among 4,087 who were fully vaccinated 14 days or more before testing positive for the Delta COVID variant. This equates to a death rate of 0.00636 percent, which is 6.6 times higher than the rate of 0.000957 deaths – or 34 deaths among 35,521 positive Delta cases among the unvaccinated.” Fully vaccinated people are also being hospitalised in the UK at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. So much for the vaccine being effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine, the “longer term safety and duration of vaccine protection is unknown… vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission (has not yet been addressed)… a correlate of protection has yet to be established… (and) vaccine immunogenicity cannot be considered and used as a surrogate for vaccine protective efficacy at this stage”. Furthermore, the vaccine still hasn’t been granted full approval by the TGA, and the clinical trials are not due for completion until 2023. Given the complete lack of data on both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, how could the government mandate the vaccine for anyone, regardless of which sector they work in? The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that a vaccine must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. Forcing someone to take a vaccine, especially an experimental one, so that they can keep their job is most certainly coercion. If the government mandates the vaccine for aged care workers, who will be next? Doctors and nurses? Health care practitioners? Pilots and flight attendants? Where does it end? There have already been 31,641 adverse events reported to the TGA as of the time of writing, including “318 reports of death in people who have been recently vaccinated”. In the US, there have been 6,113 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and in Europe, 15,472 deaths have been reported to EudraVigilance. Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) chief Sean Rooney said that “part of doing all we can to protect older Australians in care is to consider mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for aged care workers – assuming is it safe to do so and with appropriate exemptions”. Given the data from the TGA, VAERS and EudraVigilance, it most certainly is not safe to do so. Dr Maria O’Sullivan from Monash University Faculty of Law explained that the “overriding consideration is whether it necessary and whether it’s proportionate”. To date, there has been one death in Australia due to COVID-19 in the first six months of this year. How is mandating a new vaccine with no long-term safety data “proportionate”? Bodily autonomy is one of our inalienable rights as a human being. We should not be pressured, coerced or manipulated into taking an experimental vaccine that has been rushed to market. We most certainly should not lose our job and our income for refusing to do so. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Enough is enough. It is time to end this madness and cease the vaccine rollout immediately.
5 Comments
 Mark Kilian and his wife Anneli were recently granted permission to enter the country from the US by the Australian Border Force and NSW Health. Mark’s father has terminal cancer and is on the verge of dying. Mark had arranged for a private charter plane to fly them from Sydney, where they landed from the US, to the Gold Coast, where Mark’s father is in hospital.
At the last minute, Queensland Health rejected their request for an exemption to leave hotel quarantine in Sydney, blocking them from entering Queensland. As Mark stated, “the direct result of Queensland’s decision is denying me the right to say goodbye to my father. It strikes me as unbelievably cruel for this situation.” You would be hard-pressed to find someone who disagreed. According to Queensland Health, “the public health risk with international travellers is significant and the risk of COVID-19 transmission to Queensland is high”. The thing is both Mark and Anneli are fully vaccinated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines respectively. The Pfizer vaccine is ‘meant’ to be 95% effective, and the Moderna vaccine 94% effective. If the COVID-19 vaccine is as effective as the government claims it to be, what risk are Mark and Anneli posing to the Queensland community? Aren’t they protecting the community by being fully vaccinated? Isn’t this what the government has been saying all along? ‘Get vaccinated to protect yourself and your community’. Unfortunately, Mark and Anneli are not alone. Moe and Sarah Haidar returned to Australia last month from Qatar where they had been living and working. They were meant to fly to Melbourne, but unfortunately their flight was cancelled. Instead, they flew to Brisbane six weeks later. At the time, Sarah was heavily pregnant. During her 30-week check-up, scans revealed complications and Sarah underwent an emergency caesarean section on the 1st of June. If this wasn’t traumatic enough, Moe and Sarah were separated from their baby and were only allowed to see him via video call. According to Moe, “she went through the procedure and they took him instantly… She didn’t have seconds with him, not even a glimpse and she didn’t know what he looked like, they just took him.” This is heartbreaking. What sort of a world are we living in when a parent cannot see their child after they give birth? Once again, Queensland Health through Health Minister Yvette D’Ath and Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young denied the couples request for an exemption from hotel quarantine. And once again, both Moe and Sarah were fully vaccinated prior to arriving in Australia. If the young couple are fully vaccinated, and the vaccine is effective, why were Moe and Sarah denied access to their newborn son? Does the government know something that we don’t, or are they lying to us? In a recent Senate Estimates, Senator Malcolm Roberts asked the following question to Secretary of the Department of Health Dr Brendan Murphy: “Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?” Dr Murphy answered with a simple “yes”. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, and that “a correlate of protection has yet to be established”. The Prime Minister himself even claimed that there was not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. Yet, the government continues to claim that the vaccine is effective. If it was effective, why couldn’t a son see his dying father, or a couple see their new born baby? If you search a little deeper, you will actually find that the vaccine isn’t that effective after all. A recent study in the prestigious Lancet journal showed that the actual effectiveness is basically nothing. According to the study, “vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR) – i.e., the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine – which is expressed as 1-RR.” Basically, it measures the vaccine group versus the placebo group. The relative risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 95%, and for the AstraZeneca vaccine it is 67%. These are the quoted efficacies of the two vaccines currently in use in Australia. The study continues by stating that “although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population”. The absolute risk reduction is a far more accurate measure within society. “ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs.” The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%, whilst for AstraZeneca it is 1.3%. This is the actual effectiveness of the vaccines. Could you imagine the government trying to promote a vaccine with such a low efficacy? What’s more, we have been told that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death. This is what the Lancet study had to say. “These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.” There we have it. The vaccine does not provide immunity, it does not prevent transmission, it is not effective, and it does not prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Why is the government pushing a new, experimental and rushed to market vaccine that is still currently in the clinical trial phase with an efficacy of approximately 1% for a virus that has a 99.92% survival rate for those under the age of 60? A son has been prevented from saying goodbye to his dying father, and a young couple have been denied access to their new born child. The government does not have the right to do this. It is time to stand up. We must not allow this to continue. How many people have already been placed in this heart breaking position, and how many more will continue to be? How would you feel if it was your mother or father, or your son or daughter? Join us at www.standupnowaustralia.com.au to get involved and stop the totalitarianism that has gripped our country and the world. 
On the 28th of May 2021, Victoria was plunged into another draconian lockdown yet again. Businesses and schools were closed, mental health issues continue to increase exponentially, and domestic violence is rising to frightening new levels. However, according to journalist Jon Faine, we have NO RIGHT to complain. Published in The (left leaning) Age, it comes as no surprise that Jon uses classic virtue signalling to make other left leaning baby boomers, who have done quite well in life, feel bad enough to toe the line and “do the right thing”. The same people who got their degrees for free in the 1970’s and marched for freedom, now drive European cars, own second homes and secretly feel bad about becoming what they swore they would not. So, with the world crashing down around them, it’s time to use the tried and true methods of shame and guilt. Let’s take a look at what we should feel bad about. First up, it’s enjoying coffee, exhibitions, food and concerts for one. Has this man even been to Melbourne? To say that eateries, events and other such “frivolous activities” are not major parts of the economy ignores the $23.4 billion tourism generates every year and the some 232,000 people it employs. It is a particularly tone deaf comment considering that the very day Jon’s article was published, thousands of hospitality and creative entrepreneurs marched at Flinders Street Station, opposing the Victorian Government's disproportionate response to the pandemic, and imploring them to let them get back to work. Tell them the “real economy” isn’t built on “discretionary spending”. And those international students that our universities depend on that you speak of, Jon? They tend to come to Melbourne for its once vibrant food and cultural scene, to either enjoy it or work in it. Without it, Victoria loses around $6 billion dollars. But you’re right, we shouldn’t complain about the Government shutting down our lives and costing the economy almost $27 billion dollars. It is hard to see why Jon believes that these measures are widely supported. The World Health Organisation has condemned lockdowns as a means to control the pandemic, because it disadvantages those at most risk, making the poor people poorer. The very people who Jon wants us to think about, are the most disadvantaged by the lockdowns. Why then should we not use our voices to oppose these measures? Of course, Jon also hits out at those who do not wear masks, saying that they are “not taking the simplest precaution”. Funny that, because there is a slew of evidence that says mask wearing does not protect you at all from the spicy flu. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrates that the “diameter (of a SARS-CoV-2 particle) varied from about 60 to 140 nm”. N95 masks filter out particles 300nm and above. Based on the size of the virus particle alone, masks do not work. Cloth masks are even less effective. The authors of another study in the New England Journal of Medicine explain that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection”, and that the “desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic”. Could they be referring to people such as Jon? And lastly, a study in medRxiv states that the “evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19”. In his article, Jon claimed that he would “decline any conversation about how annoying lockdown is” if someone walked around with their mask over their mouth but not their nose. Jon, would you also decline a conversation based on science on how ineffective masks actually are? Of course, what this article is all about, is vaccine refusal. If we have “not bothered” to get our jab or are refusing to do so, then we should forfeit any right to complain about lockdowns because we are not contributing to communal safety. Now, here is where Jon gets it really wrong, because there is not one piece of evidence that suggests that the vaccine stops transmission. Prime Minister Scott Morrison admitted as much by stating that there is not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. Former Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy agreed that we could still get COVID-19 and infect others even after receiving the vaccine. And the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has yet to be addressed. There has been no hard scientific evidence presented by governments as to what amount of the population being vaccinated will allow us to open up and go back to normal. And the most glaringly obvious fact is that there is no data that exists to show that these vaccines are safe in the medium or long term. If you want that safety data, it won’t be available until 2023, because, dear Jon, we are the experiment and these vaccines are only provisionally approved. A quick look at the TGA website will show you that, as of the time of writing, these new COVID-19 vaccines have had around 24,500 adverse reactions in the few short months that it has been on the market. So you see Jon, many of us are not complacent or lazy, we have simply done our research and made the decision that it is our body and our choice. Isn’t that what your generation marched about? The freedom to choose, to go out and build businesses and legacies, and to contribute to the economy. This is what Australia is all about. Last we checked, Australia was a place where we could enjoy a great concert, a good cup of coffee, and choose whether we wanted to be a part of the biggest drug trial in human history without fear of shame or ridicule. Australia stands for inclusivity, for freedom and for letting everyone have a go. Shame on you Jon for segregating the nation with your divisive piece. It is you who should be ashamed, not us.  Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has announced that Qantas will launch an incentives program from July to encourage people to get vaccinated. The program will also include anyone who has already received the vaccine.
In a recent interview, Mr Joyce said that “we are looking at giving 1000 points flight vouchers, credits and we are going to offer ten mega prizes, at least one for each state and territory, where a family of four get unlimited travel on the Qantas and Jetstar network, anywhere in the network for a year”. “We are trying our best to help with this vaccine rollout – it will be retrospective and will include anyone who has already been vaccinated and will apply to anybody that is vaccinated until the end of 2021.” This announcement comes after Mr Joyce’s comments in late 2020 that “future international travel will require compulsory vaccinations”, and that Qantas will be “changing terms and conditions for travel”. It seems that Qantas isn’t the only company incentivising the experimental injection. In the US, New Jersey was offering a “shot and a beer” for those who received their first dose in May, whilst Detroit is giving out “$50 prepaid cards” to anyone who drives a resident to a vaccine site. Meanwhile in Maryland, state employees are being offered a “$100 payment” for being vaccinated. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is offering a free doughnut a day for the rest of the year with proof of vaccination. Which is ironic given that people with comorbidities such as obesity are at far greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than those who are healthy. In Cleveland, Chagrin Cinemas were offering free popcorn, whilst Market Garden Brewery were offering 10-cent beers. In gets worse. In Arizona, Mint Dispensary were offering free cannabis, whilst Greenhouse of Walled Lake were offering a free pre-rolled joint. If the vaccine doesn’t get you, the drugs most certainly will. Some of the other companies offering incentives in the US include AT&T, Instacart, Target, Trader Joe’s, Chobani, Petco, Darden Restaurant, McDonald’s and Dollar General. This is despite the fact that there has been over 4,400 deaths reported to the VAERS database in the US following vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine. However, it appears that Ohio is the place to be. Governor Mike De Wine announced that there will be five lucky winners of a cash prize of $1 million. That’s right. You could win a million dollars for simply rolling up your sleeve and taking an injection that bypassed critical animal trials. Hopefully these lucky people will actually get to enjoy their prize money. Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has stated that Australia needs to look at “as many incentives as we can” to increase vaccination rates. Part of this plan is vaccine passports. Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently announced his intentions to develop vaccine passports to allow people to travel domestically without the need for quarantine if they come from a known ‘hotspot’. This was met with severe backlash, not just from the public, but also from state premiers and even his own colleagues. The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. Could incentives be considered as coercion? It is difficult enough for people to find the truth amongst the government and media propaganda, let alone have incentives thrown their way to ‘push them over the line’. If we were in the midst of a global pandemic so severe that we had to shut our international borders, quarantine every returning traveller for 14 days in a hotel, lockdown cities for days or weeks at a time, costing the economy billions of dollars and countless livelihoods (and lives), mandate masks in and outside, and force thousands, if not millions, of people to get tested, even when healthy, why do we need to incentivise the vaccine that is supposed to be our ‘ticket’ to freedom? If this pandemic was a deadly as we are made to believe, and the vaccine was safe and effective as we have been repeatedly told, then wouldn’t people be rushing out to get it? We have seen the effects of the recent lockdown in Victoria, and how there has been a surge in people receiving the vaccine. Was this done intentionally? Are our governments using draconian lockdown measures to pressure people into taking the vaccine? Campaign Edge owner Dee Madigan claimed recently that “the only way to get through to people now is through a scare campaign… Or the other way to do it is to offer people incentives.” Why do people need to be scared into taking an injection with no long-term safety data for a virus with a 99.8% survival rate in those under the age of 70? This most certainly is pressuring, coercion and manipulating people into receiving the vaccine. The fear campaign has been running wild since the beginning of the pandemic. According to German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, the “sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told”. Dr Joseph Mercola refers to the pandemic as a “casedemic” due to the constant fear around the number of ‘cases’. Cases are not a measure of severity when it comes to a disease. The government and media have continuously created fear around people who are a ‘positive case’, regardless of whether they are infectious or not. This is especially true for Australians returning from overseas. The TGA’s most recent report on the number of reactions post-vaccination is nothing short of horrifying. Since the beginning of this year, there has been 1 death due to COVID-19. However, during the same period of time, there has been 210 deaths reported after receiving the vaccine, along with 22,031 adverse events. Given that Australia is on track to record more deaths post-vaccination than from COVID-19 itself, why should we be incentivised into taking an experimental injection that quite clearly does more harm than good? The vaccine does not provide immunity or prevent transmission. There was no statistical significance in the clinical trials to show that it prevents severe illness, hospitalisation or death. Yet, there have been thousands of adverse events and deaths reported post-vaccine in countries all over the world. The media needs to stop lying to us, and the government needs to stop the rollout of the vaccine immediately. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Not incentives. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
