 Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has warned that future international travel will require “compulsory vaccinations”. He also stated that once a coronavirus vaccine becomes available, Qantas will be “changing terms and conditions for travel”. As for domestic travel, we will have to wait and see, he said. However, it would appear that it may only be a matter of time before a vaccination is required for domestic travel as well.
Are we surprised by this announcement? Not really. Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth recently stated that the government would be “looking at specific things like not being able to go into restaurants, not being able to travel internationally, and not being able to catch public transport”. The Australian government under Prime Minister Scott Morrison have clearly stated that they intend to make the vaccine as “mandatory as possible”. Qantas is a publicly listed company on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX), which beggars the question, what do its shareholders think of this decision? They do in essence, own the company. Would they endorse such a decision, given that it could severely affect the company’s profits? Qantas has declared a $2 billion loss this year, its worst financial result in a century. Could they endure another year like this one? It would be safe to assume that the 30,000 Qantas employees may be required to get a vaccination to be employed with the company. We can only wonder what the Australian Services Union think of this decision – are they going to protect the rights of the Qantas employees if Mr Joyce tries to make the vaccination compulsory? Unfortunately, adverse reactions to vaccines is far more common than we are led to believe. In the United States, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out nearly $4.5 billion (and counting) to those who have suffered from adverse events as a direct result of vaccinations. Less than 1% of all adverse events from vaccinations are reported. US vaccine manufacturer Pfizer is currently the leading vaccine candidate in Australia. Pfizer is producing the new, experimental, highly controversial and rushed to market mRNA vaccine that experts are “very concerned” about due to its lack of clinical testing and safety data. This technology has never been approved for human use, making its development for coronavirus purely experimental from a scientific standpoint. Interestingly, this is the very same company that is facing a $7 billion lawsuit by the Nigerian government over illegal tests on children. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that the survival rate for all of those people infected with SARS-CoV-2 under the age of 70 is 99.5%. For those people 70 years and older, the survival rate is 94.6%. Scott W. Atlas, who is a Special Advisor to the President of the United States and a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, showed recently that there is no correlation between the number of cases and the number of deaths. As the case numbers continue to rise, the death rate has remained relatively steady. As a result, the survival rate for those infected with SARS-CoV-2 will continue to rise according to these latest trends. A Current Affair’s Tracey Grimshaw conducted the interview with Mr Joyce. Following the interview, A Current Affair sought the public’s opinion on their social media account with regards to Mr Joyce’s statement of mandating the COVID-19 vaccine to travel. At the time of writing, an overwhelming 89% of people said that they would NOT take the vaccine to travel internationally. It looks like Alan will be flying his aircraft at 11% capacity. There is plenty of competition amongst airlines in Australia, and it seems 89% of us would have no hesitation in flying with one of the competitors. The language used in the interview is manipulating and coercing people into taking a vaccine in order to travel internationally. Furthermore, Qantas has abandoned Australian citizens currently residing all around the globe. There are approximately 36,000 Australians stranded overseas, and this number continues to rise each week. National airline carriers from all over the world have brought their citizens home, including some of those from third-world countries. Where has Qantas been during these unprecedented times? Ticketmaster recently announced that it would require its customers to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination in order to enter their events. After a severe backlash, Ticketmaster put out a statement to clarify that “there is absolutely no requirement from Ticketmaster mandating vaccines/testing”. The public is speaking loud and clear. These things will only come into effect if we, the people, accept this as the way forward. Medical freedom is a basic human right. There will be an inherent risk with the COVID-19 vaccine, as there is with all vaccines, as there is with all medical intervention. We should not be told by our governments, by our medical practitioners, and least of all, by the CEO of an airline that we need to take a mandatory vaccination in order to live our lives. Our health is our own personal responsibility; we get to choose how we look after ourselves and the risks we are willing to take. Vaccinating 7 billion people to protect 1% of the elderly and vulnerable does not make much sense, no matter how you do the math. Vaccinating children makes even less sense, especially when it has been shown that COVID-19 rarely affects them. One must question the narrative; why the push to vaccinate the entire globe with mRNA technology, essentially recoding the cells of every human being? Why is the term mandatory being thrown around all over the place? Why is there no going back to the old normal? This is not the bubonic plague; it’s a nasty respiratory virus that is dangerous to the elderly, and to the vulnerable who are terminally ill or carry severe comorbidities such as obesity. The same way that the flu and pneumonia is a threat to the same group of people. People are not dropping dead on the street like we originally saw on TV when all of this launched almost a year ago. This is a virus so mild to over 99% of people that they don’t even know they have it. Brett Sutton, the Chief Health Officer of Victoria, went on record this week appearing at the enquiry for the Victorian Contact Tracing, and stated that “we know 75% of all cases don’t pass it on to anyone else and it’s only about 30% of all cases that drive transmission to all other close contacts”. Putting aside his inability to count to 100, it appears that this virus is not ‘highly’ contagious after all. Here at VCA, we implore all of our readers to follow the links and do your own research. There is one message that is coming out of the TV and newspapers, but there are always two sides to every story. Ask questions and push back if it doesn’t feel right to you. Where there is risk, there must always be choice. It is up to us whether we vaccinate ourselves and our children, and no one else, especially not Alan Joyce.
0 Comments
 Kylie Lang is a ‘journalist’, and it would seem she is clearly desperate to influence a certain type of reader in her recent piece for the Courier Mail. Her article titled “Don’t let anti-vax loonies take over” sets a tone right from the heading. The article itself is bursting at the seams with name-calling, weak data and opaque information. The journalism creed written by Walter Williams in 1914 states that “that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust…. also that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism”. It seems Kylie may have missed the memo.
The Covid 19 pandemic has been revaluated by the CDC to show that the virus is 50 times less deadly than originally modelled. Over 99% survival rate for those 69 and under, and 94.6% for those over 70. With over a year of data and experience with C19, we can clearly see that the virus is most harmful to the elderly and others who are vulnerable with terminal illness or serious comorbidities such as obesity. There is referenceable science and data to review. How does forcing a vaccination upon the entire population of the planet to protect this very small percentage of human beings make sense? Well to put it quite simply, it doesn’t. We are being conditioned to view fighting for our freedoms as being selfish. Medical freedom is a basic human right and bodily autonomy is not a gift from the Government. Human beings are able to evaluate risk and decide for themselves how they choose to go about their lives on a day-to-day basis. The language in this article is very strong and is designed to incite and divide. “The bleating of the ignorant will become even more irritating than it is now”, “Now is not the time to go easy on these blinkered anti-vaxxers”, “convincing people to behave like responsible citizens will be (a hurdle to overcome)”. At VCA we choose to rise above the cheap-shot journalism and simply focus on facts and data. Let us take a look at some of Kylie’s main points. “Australia’s economy stands to take a $55billion dollar hit if a vaccine is NOT USED WIDELY by the end of 2021”: This sadly, is very true. But it did not have to be. We have covered the billions of dollars that the government has committed to rushed-to-market vaccines in previous articles already. These decisions about how to spend our tax dollars have been made by few people, without any consulting with the public whatsoever. Prime Minister Scott Morrison showed his hand early on by stating that the C19 vaccine would be as “mandatory as you can possibly make it”, before quickly backtracking these sentiments. However, Health Minister Greg Hunt went on the record this week stating that the “although the vaccine will not be mandatory at this stage, theGovernment has been very cautious not to rule that out”. Alarm bells should be ringing. Do we need a vaccine showing 90% efficacy (in limited clinical trials), for a virus with a survival rate of >99%? “The compelling reasons vaccines are being developed for urgent approval is lost on deluded individuals who reject science and common sense”: Kylie doesn’t share any of these compelling reasons in her article, however it’s important to note that science is never settled, unlike the rhetoric which is being repeated over and over again through the television and media. Governments around the world are still using the outdated framework which was installed at the beginning of the pandemic, to justify unlawful lockdowns and vastly disproportionate restrictions on citizens across the globe. In actuality, Science is transparent and peer reviewed. It is revisited, retested time and time again. It is an ever-moving target. That is not what we are seeing with C19. The Victorian Government, which initiated some of the harshest and longest lockdowns to date, have refused to release any of their “expert health advice” to the public. The World Health Organisation has gone on the record to state that they no longer condone lockdowns, and they should not be used any longer as a tool to manage the virus. “The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.” The virus has been with us for a year, do we not have a better method in place than to put citizens on house arrest? In South Australia after a cluster arose of 22 cases, the Premier ordered a severe six-day lockdown where the 1.67million people who resided in the State were not even allowed to leave the house to walk their dog. This decision was not based on health advise, rather a testimony to contact tracers from a person who tested positive for C19. Obviously not based on science, the Chief Health Officer (CHO) of South Australia went on to explain there was a new “sneaky strain” of Covid to justify this lockdown. This decision was spectacularly reversed 72 hours later with other CHO’s chiming in to confirm there are no new strains of C19. Because if there were, wouldn’t the vaccines become redundant? “While the elderly and immunocompromised… are most at risk of dying from coronavirus no one is immune and effects on survivors can be serious”: There have been no long-term peer-reviewed studied of the lasting effects of Covid. Many long term effects remain unknown. In fact, the main recorded after effect for those requiring hospitalisation is shortness of breath and fatigue, noted as being similar to the after-effects of a severe flu. This is actually a non-fact-based statement designed to incite fear. Let’s not forget the images that came through the television from China at the beginning of the pandemic; people laying dead in the street or shopping mall, while medical workers dressed head to toe in hazmat suits tended to the lifeless bodies. It all seems pretty far fetched knowing what we know now. When all is said and done, this matter is very simple. Human beings should not be forced to inject their bodies or the bodies of the children with drugs if they don’t want to. This is a basic human right. The Nuremberg Code states as point one “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. We should not feel pressured or coerced into accepting any medical intervention, especially if one of those reasons is because our Government has overcommitted our nation financially to a bank with no door. Commercial decisions are not health focused. All coronavirus vaccine makers have been plagued with issues throughout the trial phases, with a woman in the UK contracting transverse myelitis as well as a doctor in Brazil tragically losing his life. These rushed-to-market vaccines will have no long-term safety studies carried out when the first doses are administered. For example, with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted a provisional determination so the vaccine can be fast-tracked, and no clinical data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine needs to be submitted for SIX years according to the Australian Government. Added to this, the vaccine makers are immune from any liability for injuries they may cause. The Australian Government has even gone on the record to say that the elderly and vulnerable will NOT be receiving the first doses of the vaccines until they are deemed safe – yes, you read that right. Will you blindly sign up to be a Guinea pig for the entire planet? Where there is risk, there must always be choice. We encourage all of our readers to follow the links and do their own research. Hopefully, Kylie Lang comes across some facts along the way too.  In a recent Sky News article, Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt praised the Australian media for “dispelling concerns raised by anti-vaxxers” and for “shining a light on the myths of the anti-vaxxers”. According to Mr Hunt, “Australians are great vaccinators so I’m confident that the noise of any anti-vaxxers will be dismissed by the vast bog of Australia’s population that has a strong trust in science and medicine”.
Is that the same trust in science and medicine that our fellow Americans hold, resulting in pay outs of nearly $4.5 billion (and counting) to those who have suffered from adverse events as a direct result of vaccinations? Perhaps it is that the same trust in science and medicine whereby less than 1% of all adverse events as a result of vaccinations are actually reported. A recent report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) began with this opening line: “Politicians and governments are suppressing science”. The report went on to say that “science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency – a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.” Despite the views of Mr Hunt, people are within their rights to raise concerns. This doesn’t make them ‘anti-vaxxers’. This makes them informed, educated and empowered people with their health and the health of their children at the forefront of their minds. People have the right to ask questions, especially when the government has signed a deal with US pharmaceutical company Pfizer, who is producing a new, experimental, unproven and rushed to market mRNA vaccine. This is the same company that is being sued by the Nigerian government for $7 billion over illegal tests on children. Australia has also signed a deal with UK pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, who has paid $355 million in criminal and civil charges relating to illegal marketing, $198 million to settle product safety cases, $505 million in tax and accounting violations, and many millions more in pricing and anti-competitive behaviour and employment discrimination cases. The British Medical Journal poses a simple, but powerful question. “How might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times?” And the answer: “The first step is full disclosure of competing interests from government, politicians, scientific advisers, and appointees, such as the heads of test and trace, diagnostic test procurement, and vaccine delivery. The next step is full transparency about decision making systems, processes, and knowing who is accountable for what.” Mr Hunt continued by saying that “as the anti-vaxxers have made more noise, they’ve had less impact and that’s I think the good news”. According to a recent poll on mainstream media program A Current Affair, an overwhelming 79% of people said ‘no’ when they were asked if they would take a Covid-19 vaccine. These figures clearly oppose the assumptions of Greg Hunt. The Health Minster finished off by saying that “while the government had no plans at this point in time to make the coronavirus vaccination mandatory once it receives approval”, he said they had also been “very cautious not to rule those things out”. This is following Prime Minster Scott Morrison stating that the vaccine would be as “mandatory as possible”. Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth also stated that the government would be “looking at specific things like not being able to go into restaurants, not being able to travel internationally, and not being able to catch public transport” Despite what Mr Hunt says, we have the right to raise our concerns. We have the right to question policies and decisions. We should trust in science and medicine, but science and medicine should not be suppressed if it doesn’t fit the narrative. We live in a democracy, and part of living in a democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of choice. As the British Medical Journal so eloquently stated, “when good science is suppressed, people die”. At Vaccine Choice Australia, we are NOT ‘anti-vaccination’. We are PRO choice. Our mission is to create an environment where vaccination choice is normal, and where coercive and divisive vaccination policy and legislation is seen as discriminatory. We are a team of passionate people who believe there is nothing more important than medical freedom. Where there is risk, there must always be choice.  Vaccine manufacture Pfizer recently announced that its new, experimental and highly controversial mRNA vaccine was more than 90 per cent effective in preventing COVID-19 based on initial data. Initial data that has not been peer-reviewed or published as a preliminary preprint. Health Minister Greg Hunt has stated that Australia is on track to roll out this COVID-19 vaccine well ahead of ‘schedule’ in March 2021.
According to Dr Michael Mosley in a report by the government-funded SBS, people in Australia are living in a “bubble if they believe they can return to any form of normalcy while unvaccinated”. “The thing about Australia, you’re all naïve in the sense that you’re all vulnerable because none of you have natural immunity and if none of you are being vaccinated then you’re never going to be able to travel again because you’re going to be entering into a world where there’s still quite a lot of COVID around. If you find that acceptable rather than what might be a theoretical, miniscule risk from a vaccine then I think you’re looking at the world in completely the wrong way.” Dr Mosley, what would you consider to be a “theoretical, miniscule risk from a vaccine”? According to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, nearly $4.5 billion has been paid out to those who have suffered adverse events as a result of vaccinations. And less than 1% of all adverse events from vaccines are reported, so this figure would be astronomically higher. A report on the Sky News website stated that “vulnerable citizens will miss out on the first doses of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine until the drug is deemed safe”. Deemed safe? Isn’t this why vaccine companies conduct ‘rigorous’ trials to determine if a vaccine is safe before they start injecting them into people? The report continues by saying that “the Therapeutic Goods Administration will not allow the elderly, children or pregnant women to receive the vaccine until research is conducted into potential side effects”. Potential side effects? Again, isn’t this what the trials are for? Or are we the guinea pigs in this experiment? Experts are warning that the lack of data is ‘very concerning’. Aliasger K. Salem, chair of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Iowa, says that “as a scientist, you’d want to see actual data from a clinical trial to really know what the actual interpretation of the results are”. Several experts are concerned that the “public is getting an ‘incomplete picture’ about the vaccine’s success that doesn’t reveal critical information, such as which demographic groups it protected and whether it was from a mild or severe form of the virus”. As associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Peter Doshi says, “All we have right now is a headline by Pfizer”. A recent study found that “the antibodies developed after infection with… COVID-19 only last a very short time, meaning any future vaccine for the novel virus will be certifiably useless”. Researchers found that the antibodies created to destroy the virus waned within a few short weeks. After approximately two months, only 16.7% of patients still had any antibody response. According to Dr William Haseltine, “Not only do antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 fade, and perhaps fade quickly, studies have also shown that only 15 percent of those who test positive for antibodies make the neutralizing antibodies necessary to develop immunity in the first place. And not all of those who make neutralizing antibodies make them at high levels. Some of those infected make no antibodies at all.” It gets worse. A study in the International Journal of Clinical Practice showed that “previous coronavirus vaccine efforts – for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) – have revealed serious concern: The vaccines tend to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement”. This means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the “vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in a more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated”. This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do. According to this data, we would be better off without a vaccine than with one. Robert F. Kennedy Jr explains that in 2012 there were 30 promising candidates for a SARS vaccine. The four best candidates were given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. “While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.” In the 1960’s, scientists developed an RSV vaccine and decided to skip animal trials and proceed directly to trials on humans. “The children developed a champion antibody response – robust, durable. It looked perfect (but when) the children were exposed to the wild virus; they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine.” Dr Mosley finishes by saying that “the cost of not being vaccinated is normally much, much worse, if you get COVID-19, your friends get it, your mother gets it, then the risk of long COVID (lasting symptoms) they are horrible, this is a horrible disease to get.” There are no peer-reviewed studies that show ‘long COVID (lasting symptoms)’ exist. The overall survival rate of those that are diagnosed with COVID-19 is 99.4%. What we don’t know is what the adverse reactions are going to be, how severe they are going to be, and how many people are going to suffer temporarily or permanently from them. Dr/documentary maker Mosley, we don’t appreciate you calling us naïve. We have the right to decide how we look after our bodies and our health. We don’t need you to tell us how to look at the world. Our bodies are designed to fight infection on their own with a strong immune system. And we certainly don’t want you guilting us into getting a new, experimental, highly controversial and rushed to market vaccine by suggesting that we are putting our friends and mother at risk if we don’t. Where there is risk, there must be choice. It is our right to choose whether we take a vaccine, not the governments. Vaccine manufacture Pfizer recently announced that its new, experimental and highly controversial mRNA vaccine was more than 90 per cent effective in preventing COVID-19 based on initial data. Initial data that has not been peer-reviewed or published as a preliminary preprint. Health Minister Greg Hunt has stated that Australia is on track to roll out this COVID-19 vaccine well ahead of ‘schedule’ in March 2021. According to Dr Michael Mosley in a report by the government-funded SBS, people in Australia are living in a “bubble if they believe they can return to any form of normalcy while unvaccinated”. “The thing about Australia, you’re all naïve in the sense that you’re all vulnerable because none of you have natural immunity and if none of you are being vaccinated then you’re never going to be able to travel again because you’re going to be entering into a world where there’s still quite a lot of COVID around. If you find that acceptable rather than what might be a theoretical, miniscule risk from a vaccine then I think you’re looking at the world in completely the wrong way.” Dr Mosley, what would you consider to be a “theoretical, miniscule risk from a vaccine”? According to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, nearly $4.5 billion has been paid out to those who have suffered adverse events as a result of vaccinations. And less than 1% of all adverse events from vaccines are reported, so this figure would be astronomically higher. A report on the Sky News website stated that “vulnerable citizens will miss out on the first doses of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine until the drug is deemed safe”. Deemed safe? Isn’t this why vaccine companies conduct ‘rigorous’ trials to determine if a vaccine is safe before they start injecting them into people? The report continues by saying that “the Therapeutic Goods Administration will not allow the elderly, children or pregnant women to receive the vaccine until research is conducted into potential side effects”. Potential side effects? Again, isn’t this what the trials are for? Or are we the guinea pigs in this experiment? Experts are warning that the lack of data is ‘very concerning’. Aliasger K. Salem, chair of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Iowa, says that “as a scientist, you’d want to see actual data from a clinical trial to really know what the actual interpretation of the results are”. Several experts are concerned that the “public is getting an ‘incomplete picture’ about the vaccine’s success that doesn’t reveal critical information, such as which demographic groups it protected and whether it was from a mild or severe form of the virus”. As associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Peter Doshi says, “All we have right now is a headline by Pfizer”. A recent study found that “the antibodies developed after infection with… COVID-19 only last a very short time, meaning any future vaccine for the novel virus will be certifiably useless”. Researchers found that the antibodies created to destroy the virus waned within a few short weeks. After approximately two months, only 16.7% of patients still had any antibody response. According to Dr William Haseltine, “Not only do antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 fade, and perhaps fade quickly, studies have also shown that only 15 percent of those who test positive for antibodies make the neutralizing antibodies necessary to develop immunity in the first place. And not all of those who make neutralizing antibodies make them at high levels. Some of those infected make no antibodies at all.” It gets worse. A study in the International Journal of Clinical Practice showed that “previous coronavirus vaccine efforts – for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) – have revealed serious concern: The vaccines tend to trigger antibody-dependent enhancement”. This means that rather than enhance your immunity against the infection, the “vaccine actually enhances the virus’ ability to enter and infect your cells, resulting in a more severe disease than had you not been vaccinated”. This is the exact opposite of what a vaccine is supposed to do. According to this data, we would be better off without a vaccine than with one. Robert F. Kennedy Jr explains that in 2012 there were 30 promising candidates for a SARS vaccine. The four best candidates were given to ferrets, which are the closest analogue to human lung infections. “While the ferrets displayed robust antibody response, which is the metric used for vaccine licensing, once they were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died.” In the 1960’s, scientists developed an RSV vaccine and decided to skip animal trials and proceed directly to trials on humans. “The children developed a champion antibody response – robust, durable. It looked perfect (but when) the children were exposed to the wild virus; they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine.” Dr Mosley finishes by saying that “the cost of not being vaccinated is normally much, much worse, if you get COVID-19, your friends get it, your mother gets it, then the risk of long COVID (lasting symptoms) they are horrible, this is a horrible disease to get.” There are no peer-reviewed studies that show ‘long COVID (lasting symptoms)’ exist. The overall survival rate of those that are diagnosed with COVID-19 is 99.4%. What we don’t know is what the adverse reactions are going to be, how severe they are going to be, and how many people are going to suffer temporarily or permanently from them. Dr/documentary maker Mosley, we don’t appreciate you calling us naïve. We have the right to decide how we look after our bodies and our health. We don’t need you to tell us how to look at the world. Our bodies are designed to fight infection on their own with a strong immune system. And we certainly don’t want you guilting us into getting a new, experimental, highly controversial and rushed to market vaccine by suggesting that we are putting our friends and mother at risk if we don’t. Where there is risk, there must be choice. It is our right to choose whether we take a vaccine, not the governments.  Today ABC News published this article claiming the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine is 90% effective. So who says the vaccine is 90% effective? Pfizer does. There have been no peer reviewed studies, no scientific documents, no data around the inert placebo used in the trials (if in fact there was one), nothing. Just a press release from the company that stands to make $15 billion dollars from the windfall which is a Covid-19 vaccine.
Firstly, let us talk efficacy versus effective. Vaccine efficacy is calculated through clinical trials, like the Pfizer/BioNTech trial. Vaccine effectiveness is measured out in the real world, once the vaccine has been approved for use in the general population. This vaccine started phase three trials in July, that is a mere 90 days ago. The clinical trials are light on detail and opaque at best, with no raw data being released for public consumption. The announcement was made via press release, not a peer-reviewed journal paper, and it did not include the vaccine/placebo breakdown of infected participants. Pfizer are developing a vaccine using mRNA technology which has never been approved for use on humans because of the immense dangers involved in altering human DNA forever. Australia has just signed an agreement to receive 10 million doses of this Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, which “contains genetic material messenger called mRNA. It injects people with the genetic material necessary to grow the "spike protein" of SARS-CoV-2 inside their own cells, eliciting an immune response the body will remember when it encounters the real virus.” This information is located within this announcement article from the Age. Scientists and ethicists are abounding alarms about this new, untested, and very controversial experimental RNA technology. Instead of injecting an antigen and adjuvant as with traditional vaccines, this technology plugs a small piece of coronavirus genetic code into human cells, altering DNA throughout the human body and programming our cells to produce antibodies to fight the virus. MRNA vaccines are a form of genetic engineering called “germ line editing”, with these genetic alterations passed down to future generations. In January the Geneva Statement, the world’s leading ethicists and scientists, called for an end to this kind of experimentation. You can read the full statement here. Not only is this technology (which has never been authorised for use on human beings) extremely dangerous, it has never been tested long term. Again, these phase three trials have lasted just 90 days, and this injection will alter your DNA, and the DNA of your future generations, forever. Shockingly, in this article Pfizer admits it is still collecting safety data and plans to apply for emergency authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration in late November. Again, the safety data is not available to the public in raw form. Pfizer says so far “no serious safety concerns have been observed”, but who is gauging what is serious or not? Covid 19 vaccines trials have been plagued with issues like transverse myelitis and death, which are quickly swept under the rug as “no direct link to the vaccines” are found. Direct links of adverse effects to vaccines are rarely found, although over $4billion dollars being paid out in the US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program would indicate otherwise. Dr Plotkin, emeritus professor of paediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania, told RN Breakfast “That there is early efficacy of 90 per cent is great, but ... we don't know whether the vaccine protects against infection, so that individuals who are vaccinated won't be able to excrete the virus and infect other people, as a scientist I would have to wait for those other data before I could decide whether or not this is really as promising as it sounds." The article clearly explains that the vaccine reduces symptoms but does not stop a person from becoming infected or infectious. This is learned through rushed clinical trials which have skipped the very integral animal testing phase altogether. It has just been announced that CSL will begin to manufacture the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine at the end of November locally in Australia, before it has even finished their phase three trials and safety testing. Hundreds of millions of dollars being poured into manufacturing of a product which is not yet authorised seems to be a very big commercial gamble, unless those making these decisions know something we do not. What is the mad rush to develop a vaccine, in this case DNA altering, to simply reduce flu like symptoms? According to CDC data, 99.4% of the global population regardless of age or race will survive Covid-19, without any issues. The survival rate of the flu is set at 99% by the World Health Organisation estimates. Without the Covid-19 pandemic, it is evident that mRNA technology was not going to be authorised for human use anytime soon. Would you take a rushed-to-market DNA altering vaccine which has not been safety tested?  South Korean officials have refused to suspend an influenza vaccination program after 83 deaths were linked to the program. Of these deaths, one was a 17-year-old boy. The country with a population of 52 million people is currently aiming to vaccinate 30 million people. Meanwhile, a key group of doctors have called for the program to be halted.
Singapore, which uses two of the influenza vaccines in question, had advised medical practitioners to temporarily cease using those vaccines. Despite this pause in a neighbouring country, South Korean health officials have refused to suspend their program, stating that they have found no “direct” links between the deaths and the influenza vaccination. Last year, more than 1,500 elderly people died within seven days of receiving the flu vaccine in South Korea. Again, the government claimed that the deaths were not linked to the vaccinations. The highest number of deaths previously linked to a seasonal influenza vaccination in South Korea was six in 2005. It has been reported that most of the deaths have been in those over the age of 60 with pre-existing medical conditions. Sound familiar? Given that Covid-19 predominantly affects those over the age of 60 with pre-existing medical conditions, it would be reasonable to have reservations about the many Covid-19 vaccines that are currently being rushed to market. Governments all over the world, including here in Australia, are urging people to get their flu shot more than ever this year. Countries in the northern hemisphere are entering their flu seasons, and there are fears that both viruses could surge simultaneously and overwhelm the health care system. However, this has not eventuated in countries in the southern hemisphere, such as Australia, which have already experienced their flu season during the pandemic. A 2020 US Pentagon study found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%. Why is the Australian government urging people to get the flu shot if it increases the risk of getting the virus? According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook, more than 10% of people that receive the influenza vaccine will suffer from adverse events. These include induration, swelling, redness and pain. 1-10% of people will experience fever, malaise and myalgia. Immediate adverse events, although rare, may include hives, angioedema or anaphylaxis. Other adverse events from influenza vaccines in other countries include fever and febrile convulsions in children under five, Guillain-Barre Syndrome and narcolepsy. A 2018 CDC study found an increased risk of acute respiratory illness among children under the age of 18 caused by non-influenza pathogens after receiving the flu shot, compared to children that did not receive the flu shot during the same period. Another study of young healthy children carried out in Australia in 2011, found that seasonal flu shots doubled their risk of illness from non-influenza viral infections, and that the flu shot increased their risk of virus-associated acute respiratory illness, including influenza, by 73%. There are another three studies from around the world that show similar results. The influenza virus was first isolated in 1933. The first flu vaccine was developed in the US in 1938. Despite this, influenza still kills over 500,000 people around the world every year. Last year in Australia, 4,124 people died from influenza and pneumonia. According to the CDC in the US, approximately 36,000 people have died each year from the flu since 2010. In 2018, the flu vaccine had an effectiveness of 29%. There were no lockdowns, mask mandates or social distancing. Businesses were open, children still went to school and we still travelled all over the world. In 1968, the Hong Kong flu pandemic occurred. It was considered a relatively mild pandemic. An estimated 1 million people died, which is equivalent to over 2 million people today. There were no lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing or vaccines. The flu vaccine has not eradicated influenza, in fact it is clearly evidenced as causing much harm and death. Why do governments think that a rushed-to-market Covid-19 vaccine with no long-term studies is going to eradicate Covid-19? There are currently two strains of sars-cov-2 in Australia, and three around the world. There are numerous influenza strains. It would be safe to assume that by the time a vaccine becomes available, the virus will have mutated further (like influenza does). What then? Would this render a vaccine ineffective? Oddly enough, the effectiveness of the Covid-19 vaccine will only need to be set at around 50% to receive the green light from the FDA. Thomas Lumley, a biostatistician at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, has said that “the companies are aiming for the vaccines to stop at least 50% of vaccinated people getting symptomatic COVID-19, the definition of success in the FDA guideline, but they are hoping for an efficacy of 60% or greater. But even 60% would not be enough to reach herd immunity, in which enough of the population has vaccine-derived immunity to stop the disease spreading.” As with any medical intervention, there are inherent risks. We must be informed of these risks prior to receiving a vaccination. We should then have the right to refuse a vaccination should we deem the risk to be too great, without being penalised with schemes such as “No Jab, No Play/Pay”. With the Australian Prime Minister vowing to make the Covid-19 vaccination as “mandatory as possible” in Australia, we must remember our fundamental human right to have the final say of what goes into our bodies and the bodies of our children. Whether we decide to vaccinate or not must always remain our CHOICE.  Prime Minister Scott Morison, along with Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt, have proudly announced that Australia has just entered into two further vaccines agreements with Novavax and Pfizer/BioNTech with a cost to taxpayers of $1.5 billion dollars.
The Prime Minister announced an investment of $1.7 billion dollars to secure vaccines from Oxford/AstraZeneca and University of Queensland /CSL on September 7, bringing the total dollars spent on vaccine pipeline procurement to $3.2 billion. That money comes directly from our pockets, so let’s take a closer look at where our hard-earned tax dollars are going. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine has been plagued with issues throughout the trials, which were paused globally when a participant from the UK trials contracted transverse myelitis. The trials have since resumed globally in all countries except for the United States. This same vaccine trial has tragically cost a 28 year old doctor in Brazil, a phase three trial participant, his life. Interestingly, this doctor was part of the placebo testing group. He was not administered an inert placebo as one would assume; he was reportedly being dosed with a market approved meningococcal vaccine. More on this topic in another article. The Prime Minister advised that Novavax will supply 40 million vaccine doses and Pfizer/BioNTech will provide 10 million, if the vaccines are proven safe and effective. With these vaccines being rushed to market, is there any way to know if the vaccines are either safe or effective by the time the first doses are administered in early 2021? The FDA have set the benchmark for efficacy of a Covid-19 vaccine at 50% to get the green light for public consumption. An excerpt from their Development and Licensure Guidelines reads: “To ensure that a widely deployed COVID-19 vaccine is effective, the primary efficacy endpoint point estimate for a placebo-controlled efficacy trial should be at least 50%, and the statistical success criterion should be that the lower bound of the appropriately alpha-adjusted confidence interval around the primary efficacy endpoint point estimate is >30%.”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that there is a large amount of risk and little benefit, associated with these rushed to market vaccines. Alarmingly, the newly acquired Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, “contains genetic material messenger called mRNA. It injects people with the genetic material necessary to grow the "spike protein" of SARS-CoV-2 inside their own cells, eliciting an immune response the body will remember when it encounters the real virus.” This information is located within the very same announcement article from the Age. Scientists and ethicists are abounding alarms about this new, untested, and very controversial experimental RNA technology. Instead of injecting an antigen and adjuvant as with traditional vaccines, this technology plugs a small piece of coronavirus genetic code into human cells, altering DNA throughout the human body and programming our cells to produce antibodies to fight the virus. MRNA vaccines are a form of genetic engineering called “germ line editing”, with these genetic alterations passed down to future generations. In January the Geneva Statement, the world’s leading ethicists and scientists, called for an end to this kind of experimentation. “The ‘Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Need for Course Correction’ points to the need to clarify misrepresentations, center societal consequences and concerns, and foster meaningful public empowerment and deliberation on the potential uses of this species-altering technology. It is a robust and cautionary statement about the future of heritable genome editing that seeks to disrupt the current trajectory of discussions about the applications of this technology and demands broad societal consensus before any decision is made about whether to allow its use in humans”. You can read the full statement here. Keep in mind that Covid vaccines have been allowed to skip the critical animal testing phase in order to get products out to market as quickly as possible. Renowned Doctor Peter Hotez warns of potentially fatal consequences of skipping animal studies “if there is immune enhancement in animals, that’s a showstopper”. Former NIH Scientist Judy Mikovits says it’s criminal to test MRNA vaccines on humans, “MRNA can cause cancers and other dire harms that don’t surface for years”. The associated risks with the multitude of unknowns, minimal testing and rushing to market are evident, and disturbing to say the least. There are mounting concerns in the medical industry, as well as in the general population. The Barrington Declaration was established on the 5th of October 2020, citing over 661,000 signatures at the time of writing, declaring that “epidemiologists and public health scientists have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.” Of those signatures, over 11,000 are medical and public health scientists, and over 33,000 are medical practitioners. The public health risk for Covid-19 has been vastly downgraded since the original and grossly inaccurate modelling was released. Even though this original modelling was proven to be inaccurate, it is still being used to justify lockdowns, mask mandates and severe restrictions around the globe. As per CDC data, the infection fatality rate of Covid-19 is more than 50 times less than this original modelling, offering a >99.4% survival rate across all ages. Is decimating the global economy and rushing dangerous and untested vaccines to market, a proportionate response to the inherent risk? For people asking about the safety studies on these vaccines, please understand that ALL Covid-19 vaccines are in still in trial phases, no long-term safety studies have been done. For example, with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted a provisional determination so the vaccine can be fast-tracked, and no clinical data on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine needs to be submitted for SIX years according to the Australian Government. If alarm bells were not already ringing, they are now. Is our government justified in spending billions of our hard-earned tax-payer dollars on these rushed to market vaccines, making them “as mandatory as possible”, with dangerous and untested technology contained therein? There will be no safety testing data available when the first doses of these vaccines are being administered to the public. In fact, there will not be any data available for at least six years or more. It is time for our government to be transparent. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Where there is risk, there must be informed consent. Where there is risk, one must have the right to say no, free of coercion or penalty. It is time for us to stand up. Change the politician or change the politician.  On Monday the 26th of October, the City of Sydney council joined the City of Newcastle and the Blue Mountains City councils in banning the Australian Vaccination-risks Network’s Vaxxed Bus from any council areas.
The motion refers to the bus currently touring the country operated by the Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN), touting the bus tour as spreading dangerous misinformation relating to public health. The AVN clearly state on their website, “The Australian Vaccination-Risks Network exists to further a pro-choice position with regard to vaccination and other health decisions. The AVN is NOT anti-vaccination, nor are we pro-vaccination, we are PRO-CHOICE.” It’s easy to see how the proposed motion makes one wonder how competent these councils really are. Many of the stories on the AVN website are from parents that have vaccinated their children. There are hundreds of interviews with the families of those that have been injured or killed by vaccines. The AVN provides a forum with information so that parents can make an informed decision on whether they choose to vaccinate their children or not. The AVN bus aims to provide a space where those that have been injured or those who have tragically lost loved ones as a result of vaccination can be seen and heard. Many people are unaware that they do in fact, have a choice when it comes to vaccination. Scott Morrison previously announced that the COVID-19 vaccine would be made mandatory when it becomes available. After severe backlash from the Australian public, he back tracked and stated that it would be as “mandatory as possible”. We can confidently assume what this means. They will not force someone to take the vaccine, but they will make it very difficult to function in society without it. It has already been advised that international travel, government benefits, restriction of employment opportunities and potential refusal of service in certain establishments will be linked to a vaccine certificate of sorts. Interestingly, the “No Jab, No Play/Pay” policy was introduced into childcare by Mr Scott Morrison himself in 2015, a fact that he is rather proud of. Will our children be able to go to childcare or school? Will we be able to work for certain employers? Will we be able to enter certain businesses? Will we be able to attend large concerts and sporting events? Will we be able to travel overseas? These are the liberties that the government are trying to remove if we choose not to accept the Covid-19 rushed-to-market vaccine, which has skipped the vital animal testing phase and will have no long-term safety studies completed at the time the first shots are being administered in Australia, which is penned for January and February of 2021. Injury and death are all too common when it comes to vaccines. The National Childhood Vaccination Injury Compensation Program (NCVICP) in the US has paid out over $4 billion since its inception in the late 1980s. Furthermore, the Morrison government recently announced that is has granted indemnity to the two suppliers of the Covid-19 vaccine, the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, and the University of Queensland vaccine being marketed by Seqirus (CSL), rejecting calls to set up an injury compensation scheme here in Australia. This means that vaccine manufactures cannot be held liable for adverse events caused by the vaccines, which experts say are “inevitable” when the vaccine becomes available. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine trials were suspended globally in September due to a severe adverse reaction in one of its participants. The adverse reaction was transverse myelitis, which is inflammation of the spinal cord, and results in pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Only one-third of people have a full or near-full recovery, with the seriously affected suffering permanent impairments that impact their ability to perform ordinary tasks of daily living. The vaccine trail has shockingly recorded its first death, with a 28-year-old physician losing his life in the Brazilian arm of the trials. The Australian Vaccination-risks Network states, “the proposal to censor the voices of Australians who have been adversely affected by a government-recommended medication is unconstitutional and immoral. The motion is discriminating against an entire section of the population who have been adversely affected by vaccines. They are not anti-vaccine because they have already been vaccinated – they have suffered from the government and medical advice and now, they are being further injured by these efforts to suppress their freedom of political speech.” Where there is risk, there must be choice, and there must always be informed consent. It is time to stand up to our governments, for our rights and our freedoms, and for the rights and freedoms of our children. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
