 On 22 July 2021, the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) granted “provisional approval” for the Pfizer vaccine in individuals 12 years and older. Provisional approval was previously granted for those over the age of 16.
According to the Australian Product Information (API), 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age were enrolled in the clinical trial (1,131 in the vaccine group and 1,129 in the placebo group). Of these teenagers, 1,308 (660 in the vaccine group and 648 in the placebo group) were followed for two months after their second dose. The most frequent adverse reactions were “injection site pain (>90%), fatigue and headache (>70%), myalgia [muscle pain] and chills (>40%), arthralgia [joint pain] and pyrexia [fever] (>20%)”. All of these reactions were considered very common. Common adverse reactions included nausea and injection site redness. Uncommon reactions included lymphadenopathy [disease of the lymph nodes], insomnia [difficulty falling or staying asleep], decreased appetite, lethargy, hyperhidrosis [abnormal excessive sweating], night sweats, asthenia [abnormal physical weakness or lack of energy], and malaise [general feeling of discomfort, illness or unease]. Rare reactions included acute peripheral facial paralysis. Adverse reactions from post-market experience include anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritis [itch], urticaria [hives], angioedema [swelling beneath the skin or mucosa]), myocarditis [inflammation of the heart muscle], pericarditis [inflammation of the heart membrane], diarrhoea, vomiting and arm pain. To summarise the above findings, the majority of children had a reaction to a vaccine for a disease that is asymptomatic or mild in almost every case. It is completely illogical and irrational in every way possible to vaccinate children against COVID-19. The Australian Public Assessment Report (AusPAR) states that the “adolescent group demonstrated increased frequency of headache, chills, and fever” in comparison to adult subjects. The report also claims that the “sample size is relatively small and is not sufficient for the detection of rare adverse reactions”. Is it acceptable that children are placed at an increased risk of a reaction for a virus that they have no chance of dying from in Australia? The AusPAR highlights further shortcomings. According to the report, the submitted data has the following limitations:
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK claims that “there are emerging reports from the UK and other countries of rare but serious adverse events, including myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart), following the use of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines in younger adults… Data on the incidence of these events in children and young people are currently limited, and the longer-term health effects from the myocarditis events reported are not yet well understood.” Myocarditis is a serious illness with long-term consequences. The cells of the heart do not regenerate. Once they are dead, they are dead. Why are we putting our children at risk of long-term heart damage? “Until more data become available, JCVI does not currently advise routine universal vaccination of children and young people less than 18 years of age.” “The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain.” “At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.” The health benefits in children do not outweigh the potential risks. Our government bureaucrats and health officials continually refuse to follow proper science. They need to be held accountable for putting our children at risk. The JCVI clearly states that it the “evidence strongly indicates that almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19”. “Where symptoms are seen in children and young people, they are typically mild, and little different from other mild respiratory viral infections which circulate each year.” “The incidence of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in children and young people is extremely low.” Are we trying to save children from a mild respiratory infection or are we trying to save them from dying? “In England, between February 2020 and March 2021 inclusive, fewer than 30 persons aged less than 18 years died because of COVID-19, corresponding to a mortality rate of 2 deaths per million. During the second wave of the pandemic in the UK, the hospitalisation rate in children and young people was 100 to 400 per million. Most of those hospitalised had severe underlying health conditions.” “For children and young people without underlying health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, the direct individual health benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are limited. While vaccination of younger cohorts could reduce the risk of outbreaks of COVID-19 in school settings, the vast majority of those infected in any outbreak will either be asymptomatic or have mild disease.” The following statement by the JCVI is critical. “At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. Until more safety data have accrued and their significance for children and young people has been more thoroughly evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.” And what about ‘long COVID’? “Concerns have been raised regarding post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID) in children. Emerging large-scale epidemiological studies indicate that this risk is very low in children, especially in comparison with adults, and similar to the sequelae of other respiratory viral infections in children.” It could not be any clearer. Children are not at risk from the virus, and they should not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In the US, there have been 14,494 adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for those aged 12-17. Of the adverse events reported, there were 2,127 reports of anaphylaxis, 383 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, and 68 reports of blood clotting disorders. There have been 871 serious adverse events reported, along with 17 deaths. At the time of writing, there has been 4,805 cases and zero deaths in people aged 0-19 in Australia since the beginning of the pandemic. There is absolutely no justification for vaccinating children against COVID-19. Although they may contract the virus, in nearly all cases they will be asymptomatic or experience mild disease. The chance of developing long-COVID, severe illness, being hospitalised or dying is almost non-existent. The clinical trials are not due for completion in 2023. Children are not guinea pigs and they are not to be experimented on. Ever. We need to do everything we can to protect our children from government bureaucrats and health officials pushing an unproven and potentially dangerous vaccine. It is time to stand up and unite. Share this widely and say no to vaccinating our kids. Our children’s lives and our future generations depend on it.
1 Comment
 SA-Best Party member Frank Pangallo has called for those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine to have what they do in the community “controlled and restricted”.
Mr Pangallo said that “while people might still have a choice whether or not to get vaccinated, what they can do in the community will need to be controlled and restricted”. “There would need to be a requirement incorporated with QR code information that if you want to travel on public transport, airlines, enter venues, shopping malls, restaurants and cafes, you will need to show you have been vaccinated… It might also have to apply for workplaces.” Mr Pangallo is advocating for the introduction of a ‘vaxport’, which is essentially a vaccine passport to participate within society. He also claimed that Australia is on the “cusp of a health and economic catastrophe”. This is fear mongering at its finest. Other countries are currently trying to implement similar measures. French President Emmanuel Macron is trying to make proof of vaccination or immunity from a COVID-19 infection mandatory in order to “enter cafes, restaurants and a range of other venues” such as museums, galleries and cinemas. However, Mr Macron was forced to walk back some of the proposed measures due to severe backlash from industries and the public. This is before the measures have even been implemented. In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has announced that proof of vaccination will be required to “enter nightclubs and other crowded venues” from the end of September. Again, this has been met with protests from an angry public who are marching for freedom of choice and the right to bodily integrity. In Greece, thousands of people protested in Athens against mandatory vaccination. Cardiologist Faidon Vovolis said that “every person has the right to choose… We're choosing that the government does not choose for us.” Mr Vovolis also questioned the scientific research around masks and vaccines. The key point here is that each individual has the right to choose and should not be punished for this choice. Any form of punishment would be considered coercion, and no one should be coerced into taking a vaccine against their will. In 2021, at the time of writing, there have been six deaths in Australia related to COVID-19, according to the Department of Health. During the same period, there have been four deaths following vaccination, according to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report states that “four were confirmed and three were deemed probable TTS (thrombocytopenia syndrome)” following the AstraZeneca vaccine. There have 9,149,817 doses administered of the COVID-19 vaccine, with 39,077 adverse events reported at a reporting rate of 0.43%. To date, there have been 32,129 cases of COVID-19 with 915 deaths. The chance of an individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is 0.13%, whilst the chance of someone dying from COVID-19 is 0.0036%. The chance of having an adverse event to the vaccine is nearly four times greater than the chance of testing positive to SARS-CoV-2, and nearly 120 times greater than dying from COVID-19. No wonder people are hesitant to take the vaccine. Furthermore, the TGA has granted the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provisional approval. They are not currently fully approved products. The clinical trials for both of the vaccines are not due for completion until 2023. The Minister for Health Greg Hunt declared in February that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Perhaps we should ask Mr Pangallo if he would knowingly participate in a vaccine trial. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the “longer term safety and… duration of vaccine protection” is unknown. What if the vaccine is deemed to be unsafe long term? What will the side effects be? There simply hasn’t been enough time to monitor long-term safety, which typically takes 3-4 years. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that there are other limitations with the submitted data and that the following questions have not yet been addressed:
Mr Pangallo, how can you say that people should be prevented from participating in society by refusing an experimental vaccine with no long-term safety data? Will you be held responsible should people suffer from severe adverse events or die? In the US, nearly 11,000 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination, along with over 460,000 adverse events. More deaths have been reported in six months for the COVID-19 vaccine than for all other vaccines in the last 30 years. What’s more, only 1-10% of adverse events are typically reported to VAERS. In the UK, more than 1,400 deaths have been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme, whilst in Europe, over 18,000 deaths have been recorded with EudraVigilence. These numbers are frightening whichever way you look at them. Surely the number of deaths alone should be enough to cause a complete halt to the vaccine roll out. 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”. Allowing only those who are vaccinated to travel on public transport, airlines, enter venues, shopping malls, restaurants, cafes and workplaces is pressuring, coercing and manipulating people into taking the vaccine. Mr Pangallo is promoting discrimination against those who choose not to take the vaccine. One of our basic human rights is bodily integrity. People are responsible for their own health care decisions, not the government. No government has the right to segregate or discriminate against those who choose not to take a vaccine, especially one with so many questions that have yet to be answered. Mr Pangallo is creating unnecessary fear and alarmism. He is promoting discrimination and segregation, and he is creating a division within society amongst the ‘vaxxed’ and the ‘unvaxxed’. We need our leaders to stand up and take charge, and not succumb to fear mongering. We need our doctors and scientists to show us the real science, rather than promote a product that is creating unimaginable damage throughout the world. We need everyone to stand up and unite as one. We need to protect our freedom of choice, especially our right to medical freedom. Where there is risk, there must be choice.  “I would look at that video, and say, you know what, that’s not COVID-19, that’s actually a complication of the vaccine.”
These are the emphatic words of Dr Peter McCullough on the government’s latest advertisement on COVID-19. The Australian government recently released a confronting new advertisement warning about the dangers of COVID-19. The 30 second advertisement shown on free-to-air television depicts a terrified young woman struggling to breathe. The advertisement has been met with severe public backlash, with many people calling for it to be scrapped immediately. Some have labelled it insensitive and distressing for those who may be suffering from COVID-19, whilst others have claimed that it is offensive when people in this age group are not yet eligible for the vaccine. Australia’s Chief Medical Officer Professor Paul Kelly said that the purpose of the ad is to shock us and grab our attention. “It’s meant to be graphic, it’s meant to push that message home”, according to Professor Kelly. The ad is designed to increase vaccination rates, particularly in Sydney, where there has been a recent outbreak of coronavirus cases. The ad has certainly shocked many, but not in a good way. University of NSW Strategic Health Policy Consultant Adjunct Professor Bill Bowtell stated that “this ad should be immediately taken off air”. Professor Bowtell said that a young girl with COVID-19, who is approximately the same age as the actor, is currently on a ventilator fighting for her life. “This insensitive ad can only distress her family and friends. It is misconceived in every way.” Social media has been flooded with comments. Hugh Riminton wrote on Twitter that it is “completely offensive to run an ad like this when Australians in this age group are still waiting for their bloody vaccinations”. In April, the Australian government limited the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine to those over the age of 50 due to rare blood clotting disorders in younger people. However, this advice changed in June, when the government recommended the vaccine only for those over the age of 60. Minister for Health Greg Hunt said at the time that the “government places safety above all else… This updated advice received today is based on new evidence demonstrating a higher risk for the very rare condition (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome) in the 50-59 year-old age group.” To date, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is still currently recommending that the AstraZeneca vaccine be given to only those 60 years and older. Queensland Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young even stated that younger Australians are at more risk of dying from a complication from the AstraZeneca vaccine than from COVID-19. ICU specialist Tom Solano explained that “as an ICU specialist please know that we’d never deliberately let you suffer like that. We’d try to get increased support before it got that bad.” Other medical professionals have been highly offended by the advertisement, claiming that it is an insult to doctors and nurses, as they would never allow a patient to suffer or be in clear distress like what is depicted in the advertisement. The government clearly didn’t consult medical professionals prior to creating the short clip. In fact, it would appear that they have not been consulting medical professionals throughout the entire pandemic. Perhaps the most telling comments came from Dr Peter McCullough. Dr McCullough is a professor of medicine and a cardiologist. He is the editor of two major journals. He was the first doctor to publish the early treatment protocols for COVID-19. And according to Dr McCullough, he has published “as much on COVID-19 as any doctor in the world”. More telling however, is that Dr McCullough sees COVID-19 patients as part of his practice in the US. What Dr McCullough had to say will shock you, and should come as a warning that we are continually being lied to. “COVID patients that are that young don’t have those symptoms, number one. They breeze through it with a mild cold. A young woman like that would breeze through this with some mild nasal congestion for a few days and be over it.” “But what can happen in young people is when they take the vaccine, particularly those women ages 18-48, and she’s in that range, they can develop life-threatening blood clots. And a life-threatening blood clot issues to the lungs can cause someone to look just like what you saw in that picture – extremely short of breath and extremely anxious.” “So, I would look at that video and say, you know what, that’s not COVID-19. That’s actually a complication of the vaccine.” These are the words of one of the most highly regarded doctors in the world on COVID-19. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) state that they have “received and reviewed 355 reports of deaths in people who have recently been vaccinated and found that only three were linked to immunisation. These deaths were all related to the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine – two were TTS cases and one was a case of ITP.” Most recently, a 72 year old South Australian woman tragically passed away following the AstraZeneca vaccine. There has only been one death in Australia this year from COVID-19 – a female in her 90’s who recently passed away in Sydney. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US, at the time of writing, there have been 438,441 total adverse events, including 41,015 serious injuries and 9,048 deaths. Yet, the Minister for Health claims that the government puts safety above all else. If they did, they would cease the vaccine roll out immediately. The Australian government is trying to shock and scare people into getting the vaccine. A vaccine that currently has provisional approval only, a vaccine with no long-term safety data, and a vaccine that does not provide immunity or prevent transmission. Furthermore, the vaccine comes with side effects such as miscarriage or premature birth, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, anaphylaxis, blood clotting disorders, myocarditis and pericarditis, and death, just to name a few. We do not need to be pressured, coerced or manipulated into taking an experimental product for a virus with a survival rate of 99.8% for those under the age of 70. This advertisement is shocking in all the wrong ways, and it should be removed immediately.  “We need to stop this madness.”
These are the prophetic words of Gigi Foster, a professor with the School of Economics at the University of NSW. She wrote a brilliant article recently for the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Stop this human sacrifice: the case against lockdowns”. NSW recently followed Victoria’s lead with premier Gladys Berejiklian plunging much of the state into yet another lockdown. Queensland has done the same, and South Australia and Western Australia have enforced varying restrictions. Parts of the Northern Territory were also been placed into a snap lockdown. Gigi explains that these policies come at an enormous cost. “These costs include the loss of happiness due to loneliness from social isolation, the crowded-out healthcare for problems other than COVID, the long-term costs to our children and university students of disrupting their education, and the economic losses that have shuttered businesses, damaged whole sectors, increased equality, and will depress our spending on everything from roads to hospitals for years to come. Deaths from causes other than COVID may well result.” And result they have. In an article titled “Self-harm alarm”, Susie O’Brien explains that “data from Kids Helpline shows 16 per cent of calls from children aged 5 to 12 are related to suicide concerns and self-harm and 26 per cent of calls from those aged 13-18. The national service received 13,000 suicide-related contacts in 2020, with 1150 callers presenting with an immediate suicide issue. More than one-third of contacts requiring intervention from emergency services involved suicide.” Kids Helpline virtual services manager Tony Fitzgerald said that “calls in all categories had soared during Covid-19, and the demand had continued this year. There are long-term effects from last year, even with our youngest kids who are struggling to cope with their anxiety on top of everyday pressures.” The government are putting the lives of our children at risk for a virus that has claimed one life in 2021. This is an absolute disgrace. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper explains that “it is possible that SIP (shelter-in-place) policies increased deaths of despair due to economic and social isolation effects of SIP policies”. This includes deaths due to drug overdoses, homicides and unintentional injuries. The paper states that “existing studies suggest that SIP policies led to a reduction in non-COVID-19 health care, which might have contributed to an increase in non-COVID-19 deaths. For example, one study in the United Kingdom predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Further to this, “it is possible that SIP policies do not slow COVID-19 transmission” and “prior studies find only a modest effect of SIP policies on mobility”. The paper also claims that it is “unclear whether modest reductions in mobility could slow the spread of an airborne pathogen”. This last point is one worth noting. According to the authors, the only countries in which they observed a fall in the trajectory of excess deaths were Australia, New Zealand and Malta. All are island nations, which have geographical advantages. “In every other country, we observe either no visual change in excess deaths or increases in excess deaths.” Gigi Foster explains that “lockdowns also carry immediate costs of suffering (such as declines in mental health due to loneliness) and long-run costs in many dimensions, which a cost-benefit analysis would reveal”. “Our government owes its people a transparent reading on all excess deaths during SIP orders – that is, lockdowns – and a full costing of its lockdown policies that counts both deaths and suffering.” The government are still yet to provide a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns more than 15 months into the pandemic. This is information should be made public. As citizens, we have the right to know how our elected officials can make such drastic decisions that have enormous consequences for all of us. An open letter written to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) highlights the disproportionate response in relation to lockdowns. The authors state that “not only are lockdowns historically unprecedented in response to any previous epidemic or pandemic in American history, but they are not so much as mentioned in recent guidance offered by the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention”. The authors continue by saying that “given the gravity of the decisions being made, we cannot ignore the possibility that the entire “science” of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it”. China was the first country to enforce draconian lockdowns in Wuhan in January 2020. They never existed prior to this. Donald Henderson, who is widely accredited for eradicating smallpox, explains that “experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted”. After nearly 18 months, it is clear that lockdowns do more harm than good. Gigi Foster sums it up this way. “What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.” “We need to stop this madness. Right now, we need to focus our attention and protection on the people in our population who are actually vulnerable to serious effects of this virus. We need to buy medicines and establish treatment protocols that work to reduce the severity of COVID symptoms, while offering vaccinations to anyone in vulnerable groups who wants them – with no compulsion, and no tethering of population vaccination rates to border openings.” “The good news is that much of the world seems to be waking up to the fact that shelter-in-place directives are tantamount to a ritualistic human sacrifice. They’re losing their religion, slowly but surely.” This sounds like a common-sense approach, yet common sense is not so common these days. Lockdowns don’t work. If they did, there would be no need to continually lock down. They only cause harm. People should not be denied the right to see family and friends, earn a living, run a business, access health care, go to school and travel. These are basic human rights. We have the right to decide how much risk we take on, not the government. How many more lives will be lost as a result of lockdowns? We need to stop this madness. By Dr Judy Wilyman In May 2009, the World Health Organisation (WHO) changed the definition of a ‘pandemic’ based on the advice provided by a small select committee that was not required to reveal their conflicts of interest until 12 months later [1][2]. This change in definition was critical to the ability for the WHO to declare a swine-flu ‘pandemic’ in June 2009 and then a coronavirus pandemic in March 2020.
Without this change to the definition of a ‘pandemic’, the WHO could not have declared a public health emergency under the International Health Regulations in March 2020, and this state of emergency could not have been extended into 2021. It is this arbitrary change to the definition of a ‘pandemic’ that has resulted in the removal of human rights globally and the imposition of a police state in many countries. The change to the definition that occurred in 2009 was the removal of the need for there to be an ‘enormous number of deaths and illnesses’ to a new virus before a pandemic can be declared. This phrase was replaced with ‘cases’ in the new definition and a pandemic could be declared simply if there was an ‘increase in the number of ‘cases’ of a disease’, regardless of whether these ‘cases’ were serious or non-serious, or even if the cases had no disease symptoms at all. This change to the definition is critical because historically, epidemiologists and immunologists stated that ‘cases’ of an infectious disease do not indicate the risk of the disease to the community [3]. Once public health infrastructure and nutrition was improved in developed countries in the mid-twentieth century scientists recognised that the only meaningful statistics to inform governments of the risk of a disease to the community are the hospitalisations and case-fatality statistics in each demographic [4]. This is the reason why many governments stopped notifying of cases of infectious diseases in the 1950’s – 60’s. In developed countries cases of disease were mostly (99%) non-serious or asymptomatic cases (sub-clinical infections) and these cases were fundamental to producing long-term herd immunity in the population. Medical Diagnosis of Disease Diagnosis of disease is a grey area of science because criteria can be changed over time, and this can give the appearance of an increase in one disease and a decline in another. In addition, people usually die from multiple factors, therefore cause of death can be subjective. Hence an appearance of a pandemic can be manipulated by medical authorities by changing the diagnostic criteria for a disease or by changing its surveillance in the population. This was the case in the swine-flu pandemic in 2009 and it is described in my article titled ‘A new strain of influenza or a change in surveillance? [5] This was also the case for the alleged global public health emergency in 2020. The WHO declared a pandemic of Coronavirus 2019 based solely on the alleged identification of the virus using a RT-PCR test. This test is not a diagnostic tool, meaning it cannot diagnose COVID disease, and the extra surveillance of the healthy population resulted in hundreds of healthy people without symptoms and/or non-serious cases of disease, being used to frighten the public about a new ‘flu-like illness’ that was called COVID disease. Outline of the Steps taken by Medical Authorities to Create an Appearance of a Pandemic in March 2020: 1.‘Cases’ of Disease Do Not Inform of the Risk of a Disease to the Community The history of the control of infectious diseases provides evidence that under a traditional definition of a ‘pandemic’ it is extremely unlikely that a global pandemic of a virus would ever occur after 1950/60. This is because the virulence and pathogenicity of microorganisms is determined by the environmental and host characteristics of each country. Therefore, the arbitrary change in definition of a pandemic by the WHO that removed the need for a virus to be causing enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses worldwide, not just in some countries, is critical to the question of whether there was a ‘global public health emergency’ in 2020 for a new mutated coronavirus. The traditional definition of a pandemic defines the risk of a pathogen on case-fatality statistics (deaths) and hospitalisations, and not on an increase in ‘cases’ of a disease. By 1950, in Australia, it was recognised that the majority of cases of infectious diseases were non-serious or asymptomatic due to improved hygiene, sanitation and nutrition, and these non-serious cases provided immunity in individuals. After 1950 in all developed countries, it was only hospitalisation and case-fatality statistics (deaths) within each demographic, that were considered useful in informing governments about the risk of a disease to the community [4]. This is the reason why the Australian government stopped reporting cases of measles, whooping cough and influenza in 1950: the majority of these cases in Australia (99.9%) after this time were non-serious cases of disease that were fundamental to creating herd immunity in the population [3]. It was recognised that virulence and pathogenicity was determined by environmental and host characteristics, and therefore infectious disease control was referred to as social or ecological medicine, and it was addressed in government public policy because it was dependent upon improvements to environment and lifestyle – not medications. Since 1986, when liability was removed from all vaccine manufacturers in the US, the WHO has been re-writing this history to claim that vaccines are necessary to control these diseases. Whilst some vaccines may have been responsible for a decline in ‘cases’ of some diseases, they were not responsible for the reduction in the risk of death. This is significant because they are not a risk-free solution. The reduction in cases needs to be weighed against the increase in chronic illness and death in children caused by vaccines. Historically public health authorities acknowledged that the risk of death to infectious diseases was removed before vaccines were introduced. The claim that vaccines prevent these diseases has been aided by renaming infectious diseases as ‘vaccine-preventable diseases’ in the 1990’s without providing supportive evidence for this claim and by merging public health under the medical regulatory board in each country to control this knowledge. This is significant because medical doctors are not educated in the history of the control of infectious diseases or in nutrition and epigenetics. These areas of medicine are fundamental to good health outcomes in genetically diverse populations when drugs/vaccines are being recommended. 2. A ‘Pandemic’ is different to an Epidemic or Outbreak in some Countries A ‘pandemic’ by the traditional definition requires that the virus be causing enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses in the healthy population, without co-morbidity, in all countries. The different environmental conditions and host characteristics in each country means that a ‘pandemic’ cannot be declared until the virus is observed to be causing enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses in each country. This is how a ‘pandemic’ differs from an epidemic or serious outbreak of disease in some countries. In 2020 many countries did not have the virus in the country when a global ‘pandemic’ was declared by the WHO on 11 March. This resulted in a public health emergency being declared in all countries, even those that did not have the virus. In fact, Australia was the first country to declare that this new coronavirus had ‘pandemic potential’ on 21 January 2020, when there was not a single case of this disease in the country. This is the date that Australia applied for emergency pandemic powers even though it had no Australian data to support this request. This pandemic was predicted on a mathematical model using generic data and non-transparent assumptions provided by the WHO/GAVI alliance: an alliance that includes corporate partners. This enabled governments, such as Australia, to claim they have prevented a pandemic by closing the borders to international travellers. This claim has been made by the Australian Prime Minister, even though there is no evidence that the virus would ever have become a pandemic under the specific environmental and host conditions in Australia or in many other countries. The perpetuation of the state of emergency is being based solely on non-serious cases of disease which do not indicate the risk of an infectious disease to the community. 3. Government Public Health Policies are never Designed on Disease Statistics from other Countries Public health policies are never designed using the statistics from other countries. This is because many factors play a role in the pathogenicity and virulence of the virus / bacteria in different countries. It is false to claim that any government has prevented a pandemic by closing the borders when you have not seen how the virus will behave under the specific environmental / host characteristics and quality of health care within each country. A positive identification of the presence of a virus in an individual, that does not have any disease symptoms, is not evidence of an asymptomatic ‘case’ of disease. This is because humans carry thousands of these viruses/bacteria around all the time, and the virus only becomes pathogenic under specific environmental and host conditions. The biggest flaw in this claim of a global pandemic is the suggestion that everyone who gets exposed to this virus will get serious disease and that identifying the virus in an individual without symptoms makes them a risk to the community. This claim is contrary to the scientific knowledge of how viruses cause disease, and it fails to acknowledge that there are many outcomes from exposure to any virus. For example, no disease symptoms, mild or serious disease, or death. The only statistic that can inform governments of the risk of a virus to the community is the death or case-fatality statistics in each demographic. People without any disease symptoms are not and never have been classified as a ‘case’ of disease or a ‘risk’ to the community prior to 2020. 4. Mathematical Models with Hidden Assumptions were used to Predict the Deaths to the new Coronavirus 2019 in 2020 Governments used mathematical modelling with non-transparent assumptions provided by industry, to predict the number of deaths that would occur if this virus entered the country. The models wildly exaggerated the number of deaths in all countries to the new Coronavirus 2019. Generic mathematical models cannot be used to produce a realistic prediction of a pandemic because the models are not based on real data from all countries. This mathematical model was dumped by US Surgeon general, Jerome Adams on 13 April 2020 because “it was not based on real data” [6]. 5. Screening the Healthy Population to Obtain ‘Cases’ of Flu-Like Illness (COVID19) is Fraudulent The governments of all countries funded their health departments to obtain cases of flu-like illness in the healthy population by using a PCR screening test that does not diagnose disease. This enabled them to claim that any positive result from this test (that cannot diagnose COVID disease) was “an asymptomatic case of COVID”. People without symptoms became a case of disease in developed countries for the first time in history in 2020. 6. In 2020 Governments Globally Mandated the Flu Vaccine in Aged-Care Facilities for the First Time Governments globally mandated the flu-vaccine for all aged-care facilities for the first time ever in December 2019-2020. It is well known that there is a cluster of deaths and neurological illness in these facilities up to 3 or 4 weeks after these flu vaccination campaigns are run. This occurred in the winter in both the northern and southern hemisphere and the cluster of deaths and neurological illness in aged-care facilities correlated to the increased cases/deaths of COVID that were reported in the mainstream media in 2020. This correlation has never been systematically investigated for the cause of the deaths that were labelled as COVID. In addition, the CDC changed the reporting of the cause of death on the death certificates in 2020. Elderly people with co-morbidity were now dying “from flu-like illness” (COVID) and not “with flu and from their underlying health conditions” as was previously the case for the past two decades. 7. 1986 Liability was Removed from Manufacturers for any Harm caused by a Vaccine In 1986 medical ethics were reversed when pharmaceutical companies requested that the US government remove liability from all vaccines because they were paying out millions of dollars in compensation every year for vaccine injuries and deaths. This removal of liability enabled governments to put vaccines on the market without proper safety testing under the guise of being ‘life-saving drugs’ when in fact they kill and injure millions of people every year. They are not risk-free products. It was this decision by the US Congress to remove liability in 1986 that enabled governments globally to reverse the precautionary principle that is designed to protect human health in government policies. By reversing this principle, governments have placed the onus of proof of harmlessness on the public and not the manufacturers of the vaccines or the government [7]. This allows governments to ignore the evidence that parents provide regarding the causal links of adverse events (AE’s) to vaccines, and to not actively monitor the AEs in the population so that the hard evidence is never collected. 8. The is No Law in any Health Act to Legitimise Mandatory or Coercive Vaccination Policies Vaccination policies are now being presented through government social services departments in coercive and mandatory policies, even though there is no law in any health act in any country to support mandatory or coercive vaccination policies. These policies are not for a legitimate public health purpose if they are not validated in health law. In other words, governments have not provided any scientific evidence to support the need for removing human rights to coerce people into getting vaccines or to mandate them for participation in employment or in any institution. 9. Industry Controls the Publication and Promotion of Scientific Studies to Doctors, Politicians, and the Public The peer-review system of science is broken because drug companies control every aspect of the scientific process including the peer-review journals [3]. Scientific studies with negative results on safety and efficacy of drugs are not being published in journals because they do not make money for the industry-funded journals. Studies with negative results get suppressed and there is no true independent scrutiny of the science that is being published in peer review journals or being used in government vaccination policies. The politicians are presented with non-objective scientific studies because pharmaceutical companies can influence policy design through the donations and lobbying system of government and there is no independent advisory board to scrutinise this science. 10. Global Health Policies Promoted by the WHO are not based on Independent Science Global health policies that are being presented by the WHO are not designed on independent objective science. They are being designed and influenced by the GAVI alliance, that includes the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the biotechnology companies, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund [3, Ch 3]. These corporate-public partners influenced the design of the International Health Regulations (IHR) which were implemented by the WHO in 2005. The WHO required that all member countries sign up to the IHR and it was these regulations that removed sovereignty of all countries when the WHO declared a global pandemic in 2020. A definition of fascism is the collaboration of government in corporate-public partnerships such as those in the GAVI alliance that advise the WHO. This alliance removed the sovereignty of all countries when the global emergency powers were triggered by the WHO in 2020. 11. The Emergency Powers give Responsibility for the Pandemic Directives to the Prime Minister When the world health organisation declared a “global pandemic” the responsibility for all the measures put in place in every country was then given to the prime minister or president of the country, not the health departments. The directions were being provided to each country through the IHR that were designed by the corporate-public partners in the GAVI alliance and presented by the WHO. This collaboration breached the WHO’s charter to provide independent objective science in the promotion of global health policies to all member countries. 12. The Directives for the Alleged Global Pandemic in 2020 will Promote Sickness and Disease in the Population – not Health. All the directives introduced in 2020 to control a new disease based on cases and not deaths to this disease, were the opposite to how we have traditionally controlled infectious diseases. Further, every directive caused harm in the healthy population and was the opposite to the academic literature on the promotion of health in the community. It was revealed that the annual mortality statistics for 2020 were within the range of a normal flu year for every country and that the survival rate for the healthy population under 65 that did not have underlying co-morbidity was 99.9% in Australia. The survival rate for people over 65 with co-morbidity was found to be greater than 95.5% in all countries. During 2020 it was revealed that cures for respiratory diseases such as COVID (flu-like illness) were suppressed to the public globally to allow governments to promote a vaccine as the only solution to this new disease; even though this vaccine had not been trialled for safety and efficacy [8]. According to many doctors the existing cures include: Ivermectin protocol, Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin [8] The paper used to discredit Hydroxychloroquine in the media was retracted from the Lancet for its flawed study design [9]. There is now overwhelming evidence of the deaths and harm this COVID injection is causing in the population [10]. The thousands of deaths the injection is causing is being documented by the UK Yellow Card [11], the European Medicines Agency [12], the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) [13] and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration [14]. The clinical trials for these vaccines will not be completed until 2023 [15]. It is acknowledged by these government regulators that the deaths and AEs reported are approximately only 1% of the real number due to the delayed effects of AE’s after the vaccine is given. This can be weeks, months, or years after receiving the vaccine. It is also because governments use a voluntary reporting system and they do not actively follow up the health outcomes of every vaccinated person to determine causal links. Summary There is no global public health emergency in 2020-21 and this alleged pandemic has been based on a flawed definition of a pandemic and designed by the collaboration of corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance that advises the WHO. This has been done with the intention of controlling global populations through a medical tyranny. The current situation is being maintained by the suppression of science through financial conflicts of interest and by a media, along with Big Tech companies, that are collaborating with the corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance. There should be no coercive promotion of experimental vaccines until sufficient evidence has been collected from clinical trials to demonstrate that the benefits of these drugs far outweigh the risks. This information is not currently available because the clinical trials for these injections will not completed before 2023. This is an unmonitored experiment on the population with a new genetic technology. This amounts to genocide in a genetically diverse population due to the well documented adverse events of vaccines. References:
 Sophie Aubrey wrote an article recently in the Sydney Morning Herald titled ‘How anti-vaxxers are weaponizing pregnant women’s fears’.
The article began with the line “the vaccines are safe”. This line was part of an illustration posted by the Australian College of Midwives to encourage midwives to get vaccinated. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine, the long-term safety is “unknown”. No long-term safety studies have been conducted. There simply hasn’t been enough time. Short-term safety does not equate to long-term safety. Claiming that the vaccines are safe is a lie. They might end up being safe long-term, but at this stage, as the TGA clearly states, that is completely unknown. The Australian College of Midwives posted a second image saying “don’t hesitate, just vaccinate”. Given that no long-term safety data exists, this alone should be enough to make pregnant women, and everyone else for that matter, hesitate. What if the long-term safety data reveals that the vaccines are indeed unsafe? What would the long-term effects be on the pregnant mother and her child? This, again, is all an unknown of course. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers” has not yet been addressed. This report was published in January 2021 and is yet to be updated. An article on the Pfizer website titled ‘The facts about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’ states that the “available data on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy”. A recent document by the Department of Health states that “real-world evidence has shown that Comirnaty (Pfizer) is safe for pregnant women and breastfeeding women”. It also claims that “pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19” and that “their babies also have a higher risk of being born prematurely”. “Real-world evidence is available from a study of over 35,000 pregnant women who had an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. This study did not find any side effects specific to pregnant women or their babies. However, it is still possible that there are very rare side effects that would not have been detected in this study.” Perhaps this study missed the ‘real-world’ evidence reported to various adverse event reporting systems around the world. The reports are as shocking as they are horrific. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US shows that “as of June 4, 2012 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 666 reports of miscarriage or premature death”. In the UK, the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme reveals that the “total number of miscarriages now stands at 94 alongside 1 report of a tragic premature baby death, 6 reports of foetal death and 2 reports of stillbirth”. According to EudraVigilance, the adverse event reporting system in Europe, as of June 19, under the heading ‘pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions’, 390 adverse events were reported following the Pfizer vaccine, 256 reports following the Moderna vaccine, 229 following the AstraZeneca vaccine and 9 following the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. That is a total of 884 reported adverse events. These are the cases that have actually been reported. Typically, 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS, and this number is likely to be similar in other countries. In Australia, at the time of writing, there have been 8,010 cases of COVID-19 in females between the age of 20-49, which encompasses predominantly those of child bearing age. Within this same age bracket, there have been zero deaths. Not a single female of child bearing age has died in Australia from COVID-19. Why would a pregnant female choose to place herself at risk of suffering an adverse event to her or her unborn child when her risk of death is zero? According to Ms Aubrey, “women are more likely than men not to want a COVID-19 vaccine. More specifically, women in their 30s – child-bearing age – are most likely to hold safety concerns.” And rightfully so. Women typically make the majority of the health care decisions within a family, and they are more inclined to do their research on particular topics, such as vaccines. Another article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Katina Curtis explains that “young women, migrants and Indigenous Australians will be given the hard sell on the coronavirus vaccine”. Why does the government need to “sell” the vaccine? If the pandemic was as bad as we are made to believe, and the vaccine was going to help get us out of it, why would you have to sell it? Shouldn’t people be lining up to take it? They are not by the way, with around 4% of the population fully vaccinated. Federation University’s Dr Naomi Smith claimed that the standard pregnancy fears are being “weaponized”, whilst Ms Aubrey explains that the “anti-vaccination activists commonly sit in sectors of the wellness realm where a natural lifestyle reigns and essential oils and organic food are sold as curative”. Perhaps if more people sat in the “wellness realm where a natural lifestyle reigns”, Australia wouldn’t have a health care system that is often at capacity, and where ischaemic heart disease is the leading cause of death. Perhaps more people would have a strong immune system that could fight off a virus such as SARS-CoV-2, which is less deadly than influenza for those under 60. Who would have thought that living a naturally healthy lifestyle was a bad thing? The COVID-19 vaccines are novel, they are still in the clinical trial phase, and they have been rushed to market. No long-term safety studies exist, and they don’t provide immunity or prevent transmission. Everyone has the right to be hesitant about the vaccine, but none more so than pregnant women, given it affects not only them, but their unborn child. Losing an unborn or new born child is one of the most heart breaking and traumatic events any parent could ever go through. No one should ever be experimented on, least of all pregnant women. There are two lives at stake, including that of a child. There is mounting evidence that the spike protein is transferred to the baby through the mother’s breast milk. There is also mounting evidence that the spike protein is the toxin, the very thing doing the damage to the body. How safe are the vaccines really? To all of the pregnant women, stand strong and stand in your power. Ask questions and follow your intuition. You ultimately know what is best for you and your baby. It is your body and it is your choice. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
