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 . 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 . 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 .
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? 
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 .
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 . 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” .
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 . 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 . 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 .
According to many doctors the existing cures include: Ivermectin protocol, Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin  The paper used to discredit Hydroxychloroquine in the media was retracted from the Lancet for its flawed study design .
There is now overwhelming evidence of the deaths and harm this COVID injection is causing in the population . The thousands of deaths the injection is causing is being documented by the UK Yellow Card , the European Medicines Agency , the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)  and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration . The clinical trials for these vaccines will not be completed until 2023 .
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.
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.
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.
On 28 June 2021, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that the COVID-19 vaccine will be mandatory for all residential aged care workers. The decision was made at an emergency National Cabinet meeting between state and territory leaders. All aged care workers are expected to have their first dose by mid-September.
“This is something we wanted to see and so tonight we received the advice that would enable us to go forward with that measure”, Mr Morrison said.
“Imposing on a person the requirement to have a vaccine or not be able to work in a particular sector is something that no government would do lightly and as a result we have been considering this matter for some time now based on the best possible medical advice.”
It would be interesting to know who the government received their advice from, and what evidence they have to support this decision.
In August 2020, Mr Morrison initially claimed that the vaccine will be “as mandatory as possible” before back tracking on his comments. He followed this with “it’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine”.
“There are no mechanisms for compulsory… I mean, we can't hold someone down and make them take it”, Mr Morrison said at the time. It appears that they will just lose their job instead.
Perhaps we should have seen this coming. In January 2021, Mr Morrison stated that the Australian Health Primary Protection Committee (AHPPC) are “not recommending (mandatory vaccinations for aged care staff)”. However, the Prime Minister did not rule out making the COVID-19 vaccine compulsory “in the future”. It seems that day has arrived.
Chief advocate for National Seniors Australia Ian Henschke said back in January that “if it turns out the vaccine does prevent transmission, I would think it would be a no-brainer to make it mandatory”.
Guess what Mr Henschke? It doesn’t.
The Prime Minister has even said so himself, claiming that there is not yet “considerable evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. In fact, the clinical trials were not even designed to measure it.
According to a study in the Lancet journal, “these considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.”
One only has to look through the clinical trial data to discover this.
In the Pfizer clinical trial, “confirmed COVID-19 cases were determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and required at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease… The symptoms included: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.”
Yet, we are repeatedly told that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces severe illness, hospitalisation and death. It was never measured during the clinical trials.
In the UK, the death rate from the ‘Delta’ variant is “six times higher among those who were fully vaccinated for two weeks or longer than those who never received a shot”.
“Twenty-six people died among 4,087 who were fully vaccinated 14 days or more before testing positive for the Delta COVID variant. This equates to a death rate of 0.00636 percent, which is 6.6 times higher than the rate of 0.000957 deaths – or 34 deaths among 35,521 positive Delta cases among the unvaccinated.”
Fully vaccinated people are also being hospitalised in the UK at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. So much for the vaccine being effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
According to the Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine, the “longer term safety and duration of vaccine protection is unknown… vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission (has not yet been addressed)… a correlate of protection has yet to be established… (and) vaccine immunogenicity cannot be considered and used as a surrogate for vaccine protective efficacy at this stage”.
Furthermore, the vaccine still hasn’t been granted full approval by the TGA, and the clinical trials are not due for completion until 2023.
Given the complete lack of data on both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, how could the government mandate the vaccine for anyone, regardless of which sector they work in?
The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that a vaccine must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. Forcing someone to take a vaccine, especially an experimental one, so that they can keep their job is most certainly coercion.
If the government mandates the vaccine for aged care workers, who will be next? Doctors and nurses? Health care practitioners? Pilots and flight attendants? Where does it end?
There have already been 31,641 adverse events reported to the TGA as of the time of writing, including “318 reports of death in people who have been recently vaccinated”. In the US, there have been 6,113 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and in Europe, 15,472 deaths have been reported to EudraVigilance.
Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) chief Sean Rooney said that “part of doing all we can to protect older Australians in care is to consider mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for aged care workers – assuming is it safe to do so and with appropriate exemptions”.
Given the data from the TGA, VAERS and EudraVigilance, it most certainly is not safe to do so.
Dr Maria O’Sullivan from Monash University Faculty of Law explained that the “overriding consideration is whether it necessary and whether it’s proportionate”. To date, there has been one death in Australia due to COVID-19 in the first six months of this year. How is mandating a new vaccine with no long-term safety data “proportionate”?
Bodily autonomy is one of our inalienable rights as a human being. We should not be pressured, coerced or manipulated into taking an experimental vaccine that has been rushed to market. We most certainly should not lose our job and our income for refusing to do so.
Where there is risk, there must be choice. Enough is enough. It is time to end this madness and cease the vaccine rollout immediately.
Mark Kilian and his wife Anneli were recently granted permission to enter the country from the US by the Australian Border Force and NSW Health. Mark’s father has terminal cancer and is on the verge of dying. Mark had arranged for a private charter plane to fly them from Sydney, where they landed from the US, to the Gold Coast, where Mark’s father is in hospital.
At the last minute, Queensland Health rejected their request for an exemption to leave hotel quarantine in Sydney, blocking them from entering Queensland.
As Mark stated, “the direct result of Queensland’s decision is denying me the right to say goodbye to my father. It strikes me as unbelievably cruel for this situation.” You would be hard-pressed to find someone who disagreed.
According to Queensland Health, “the public health risk with international travellers is significant and the risk of COVID-19 transmission to Queensland is high”.
The thing is both Mark and Anneli are fully vaccinated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines respectively. The Pfizer vaccine is ‘meant’ to be 95% effective, and the Moderna vaccine 94% effective.
If the COVID-19 vaccine is as effective as the government claims it to be, what risk are Mark and Anneli posing to the Queensland community? Aren’t they protecting the community by being fully vaccinated? Isn’t this what the government has been saying all along? ‘Get vaccinated to protect yourself and your community’.
Unfortunately, Mark and Anneli are not alone.
Moe and Sarah Haidar returned to Australia last month from Qatar where they had been living and working. They were meant to fly to Melbourne, but unfortunately their flight was cancelled. Instead, they flew to Brisbane six weeks later. At the time, Sarah was heavily pregnant.
During her 30-week check-up, scans revealed complications and Sarah underwent an emergency caesarean section on the 1st of June. If this wasn’t traumatic enough, Moe and Sarah were separated from their baby and were only allowed to see him via video call.
According to Moe, “she went through the procedure and they took him instantly… She didn’t have seconds with him, not even a glimpse and she didn’t know what he looked like, they just took him.”
This is heartbreaking. What sort of a world are we living in when a parent cannot see their child after they give birth?
Once again, Queensland Health through Health Minister Yvette D’Ath and Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young denied the couples request for an exemption from hotel quarantine.
And once again, both Moe and Sarah were fully vaccinated prior to arriving in Australia.
If the young couple are fully vaccinated, and the vaccine is effective, why were Moe and Sarah denied access to their newborn son? Does the government know something that we don’t, or are they lying to us?
In a recent Senate Estimates, Senator Malcolm Roberts asked the following question to Secretary of the Department of Health Dr Brendan Murphy: “Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?”
Dr Murphy answered with a simple “yes”.
The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, and that “a correlate of protection has yet to be established”.
The Prime Minister himself even claimed that there was not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”.
Yet, the government continues to claim that the vaccine is effective. If it was effective, why couldn’t a son see his dying father, or a couple see their new born baby?
If you search a little deeper, you will actually find that the vaccine isn’t that effective after all.
A recent study in the prestigious Lancet journal showed that the actual effectiveness is basically nothing. According to the study, “vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR) – i.e., the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine – which is expressed as 1-RR.” Basically, it measures the vaccine group versus the placebo group.
The relative risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 95%, and for the AstraZeneca vaccine it is 67%. These are the quoted efficacies of the two vaccines currently in use in Australia.
The study continues by stating that “although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population”. The absolute risk reduction is a far more accurate measure within society.
“ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs.”
The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%, whilst for AstraZeneca it is 1.3%. This is the actual effectiveness of the vaccines. Could you imagine the government trying to promote a vaccine with such a low efficacy?
What’s more, we have been told that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death. This is what the Lancet study had to say.
“These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.”
There we have it. The vaccine does not provide immunity, it does not prevent transmission, it is not effective, and it does not prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death.
Why is the government pushing a new, experimental and rushed to market vaccine that is still currently in the clinical trial phase with an efficacy of approximately 1% for a virus that has a 99.92% survival rate for those under the age of 60?
A son has been prevented from saying goodbye to his dying father, and a young couple have been denied access to their new born child.
The government does not have the right to do this. It is time to stand up. We must not allow this to continue. How many people have already been placed in this heart breaking position, and how many more will continue to be?
How would you feel if it was your mother or father, or your son or daughter?
Join us at www.standupnowaustralia.com.au to get involved and stop the totalitarianism that has gripped our country and the world.
On the 28th of May 2021, Victoria was plunged into another draconian lockdown yet again.
Businesses and schools were closed, mental health issues continue to increase exponentially, and domestic violence is rising to frightening new levels. However, according to journalist Jon Faine, we have NO RIGHT to complain.
Published in The (left leaning) Age, it comes as no surprise that Jon uses classic virtue signalling to make other left leaning baby boomers, who have done quite well in life, feel bad enough to toe the line and “do the right thing”.
The same people who got their degrees for free in the 1970’s and marched for freedom, now drive European cars, own second homes and secretly feel bad about becoming what they swore they would not. So, with the world crashing down around them, it’s time to use the tried and true methods of shame and guilt.
Let’s take a look at what we should feel bad about.
First up, it’s enjoying coffee, exhibitions, food and concerts for one. Has this man even been to Melbourne? To say that eateries, events and other such “frivolous activities” are not major parts of the economy ignores the $23.4 billion tourism generates every year and the some 232,000 people it employs. It is a particularly tone deaf comment considering that the very day Jon’s article was published, thousands of hospitality and creative entrepreneurs marched at Flinders Street Station, opposing the Victorian Government's disproportionate response to the pandemic, and imploring them to let them get back to work. Tell them the “real economy” isn’t built on “discretionary spending”.
And those international students that our universities depend on that you speak of, Jon? They tend to come to Melbourne for its once vibrant food and cultural scene, to either enjoy it or work in it. Without it, Victoria loses around $6 billion dollars. But you’re right, we shouldn’t complain about the Government shutting down our lives and costing the economy almost $27 billion dollars.
It is hard to see why Jon believes that these measures are widely supported. The World Health Organisation has condemned lockdowns as a means to control the pandemic, because it disadvantages those at most risk, making the poor people poorer. The very people who Jon wants us to think about, are the most disadvantaged by the lockdowns. Why then should we not use our voices to oppose these measures?
Of course, Jon also hits out at those who do not wear masks, saying that they are “not taking the simplest precaution”. Funny that, because there is a slew of evidence that says mask wearing does not protect you at all from the spicy flu.
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrates that the “diameter (of a SARS-CoV-2 particle) varied from about 60 to 140 nm”. N95 masks filter out particles 300nm and above. Based on the size of the virus particle alone, masks do not work. Cloth masks are even less effective.
The authors of another study in the New England Journal of Medicine explain that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection”, and that the “desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic”. Could they be referring to people such as Jon?
And lastly, a study in medRxiv states that the “evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19”. In his article, Jon claimed that he would “decline any conversation about how annoying lockdown is” if someone walked around with their mask over their mouth but not their nose. Jon, would you also decline a conversation based on science on how ineffective masks actually are?
Of course, what this article is all about, is vaccine refusal. If we have “not bothered” to get our jab or are refusing to do so, then we should forfeit any right to complain about lockdowns because we are not contributing to communal safety.
Now, here is where Jon gets it really wrong, because there is not one piece of evidence that suggests that the vaccine stops transmission. Prime Minister Scott Morrison admitted as much by stating that there is not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. Former Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy agreed that we could still get COVID-19 and infect others even after receiving the vaccine. And the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has yet to be addressed.
There has been no hard scientific evidence presented by governments as to what amount of the population being vaccinated will allow us to open up and go back to normal. And the most glaringly obvious fact is that there is no data that exists to show that these vaccines are safe in the medium or long term. If you want that safety data, it won’t be available until 2023, because, dear Jon, we are the experiment and these vaccines are only provisionally approved. A quick look at the TGA website will show you that, as of the time of writing, these new COVID-19 vaccines have had around 24,500 adverse reactions in the few short months that it has been on the market.
So you see Jon, many of us are not complacent or lazy, we have simply done our research and made the decision that it is our body and our choice.
Isn’t that what your generation marched about? The freedom to choose, to go out and build businesses and legacies, and to contribute to the economy. This is what Australia is all about. Last we checked, Australia was a place where we could enjoy a great concert, a good cup of coffee, and choose whether we wanted to be a part of the biggest drug trial in human history without fear of shame or ridicule.
Australia stands for inclusivity, for freedom and for letting everyone have a go. Shame on you Jon for segregating the nation with your divisive piece. It is you who should be ashamed, not us.
Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has announced that Qantas will launch an incentives program from July to encourage people to get vaccinated. The program will also include anyone who has already received the vaccine.
In a recent interview, Mr Joyce said that “we are looking at giving 1000 points flight vouchers, credits and we are going to offer ten mega prizes, at least one for each state and territory, where a family of four get unlimited travel on the Qantas and Jetstar network, anywhere in the network for a year”.
“We are trying our best to help with this vaccine rollout – it will be retrospective and will include anyone who has already been vaccinated and will apply to anybody that is vaccinated until the end of 2021.”
This announcement comes after Mr Joyce’s comments in late 2020 that “future international travel will require compulsory vaccinations”, and that Qantas will be “changing terms and conditions for travel”.
It seems that Qantas isn’t the only company incentivising the experimental injection. In the US, New Jersey was offering a “shot and a beer” for those who received their first dose in May, whilst Detroit is giving out “$50 prepaid cards” to anyone who drives a resident to a vaccine site. Meanwhile in Maryland, state employees are being offered a “$100 payment” for being vaccinated.
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is offering a free doughnut a day for the rest of the year with proof of vaccination. Which is ironic given that people with comorbidities such as obesity are at far greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than those who are healthy.
In Cleveland, Chagrin Cinemas were offering free popcorn, whilst Market Garden Brewery were offering 10-cent beers. In gets worse. In Arizona, Mint Dispensary were offering free cannabis, whilst Greenhouse of Walled Lake were offering a free pre-rolled joint. If the vaccine doesn’t get you, the drugs most certainly will.
Some of the other companies offering incentives in the US include AT&T, Instacart, Target, Trader Joe’s, Chobani, Petco, Darden Restaurant, McDonald’s and Dollar General. This is despite the fact that there has been over 4,400 deaths reported to the VAERS database in the US following vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine.
However, it appears that Ohio is the place to be. Governor Mike De Wine announced that there will be five lucky winners of a cash prize of $1 million. That’s right. You could win a million dollars for simply rolling up your sleeve and taking an injection that bypassed critical animal trials. Hopefully these lucky people will actually get to enjoy their prize money.
Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has stated that Australia needs to look at “as many incentives as we can” to increase vaccination rates. Part of this plan is vaccine passports. Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently announced his intentions to develop vaccine passports to allow people to travel domestically without the need for quarantine if they come from a known ‘hotspot’. This was met with severe backlash, not just from the public, but also from state premiers and even his own colleagues.
The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. Could incentives be considered as coercion?
It is difficult enough for people to find the truth amongst the government and media propaganda, let alone have incentives thrown their way to ‘push them over the line’.
If we were in the midst of a global pandemic so severe that we had to shut our international borders, quarantine every returning traveller for 14 days in a hotel, lockdown cities for days or weeks at a time, costing the economy billions of dollars and countless livelihoods (and lives), mandate masks in and outside, and force thousands, if not millions, of people to get tested, even when healthy, why do we need to incentivise the vaccine that is supposed to be our ‘ticket’ to freedom?
If this pandemic was a deadly as we are made to believe, and the vaccine was safe and effective as we have been repeatedly told, then wouldn’t people be rushing out to get it?
We have seen the effects of the recent lockdown in Victoria, and how there has been a surge in people receiving the vaccine. Was this done intentionally? Are our governments using draconian lockdown measures to pressure people into taking the vaccine?
Campaign Edge owner Dee Madigan claimed recently that “the only way to get through to people now is through a scare campaign… Or the other way to do it is to offer people incentives.” Why do people need to be scared into taking an injection with no long-term safety data for a virus with a 99.8% survival rate in those under the age of 70? This most certainly is pressuring, coercion and manipulating people into receiving the vaccine.
The fear campaign has been running wild since the beginning of the pandemic. According to German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, the “sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told”.
Dr Joseph Mercola refers to the pandemic as a “casedemic” due to the constant fear around the number of ‘cases’. Cases are not a measure of severity when it comes to a disease. The government and media have continuously created fear around people who are a ‘positive case’, regardless of whether they are infectious or not. This is especially true for Australians returning from overseas.
The TGA’s most recent report on the number of reactions post-vaccination is nothing short of horrifying. Since the beginning of this year, there has been 1 death due to COVID-19. However, during the same period of time, there has been 210 deaths reported after receiving the vaccine, along with 22,031 adverse events.
Given that Australia is on track to record more deaths post-vaccination than from COVID-19 itself, why should we be incentivised into taking an experimental injection that quite clearly does more harm than good?
The vaccine does not provide immunity or prevent transmission. There was no statistical significance in the clinical trials to show that it prevents severe illness, hospitalisation or death. Yet, there have been thousands of adverse events and deaths reported post-vaccine in countries all over the world.
The media needs to stop lying to us, and the government needs to stop the rollout of the vaccine immediately.
Where there is risk, there must be choice. Not incentives.
Australia slammed shut its international border in March 2020. Since that time, Australia has had one of the strictest border measures in the world. Residents have been banned from leaving the country, and international arrivals have been capped for the majority of this time. There are over 36,000 Australian citizens still currently stranded overseas.
A number of health officers and politicians have stated recently that we have to abandon our “fortress” approach and look at reopening our borders. However, it comes with a catch. We must all be vaccinated.
Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton recently stated that “we all need to step up to get vaccinated in order to open up Australia to world travel and arrivals so that our education sector, tourism sector and all of the other kinds of compassionate reasons for us to see family and friends overseas can come to the fore.”
Professor Sutton said that we are at a “critical juncture where we need to make a call on letting it (the virus) run”, rather than trying to eliminate it completely. As we have seen around the world, elimination is not achievable.
Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth addressed the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons’ during their annual scientific meeting, where he had this to say: “We once again have a responsibility as a profession to calmly reassure the community that vaccines must be taken up when they are offered, that waiting is not a valid option either individually or for the public health, and that ultimately when we allow COVID-19 back on our shores and it circulates in our community, that we are prepared and comfortable for that to happen.”
NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian claimed that NSW “need to do around 10 million jabs to get the majority of our population vaccinated” in order to reopen borders.
Victorian MP Tim Wilson said that the country risked becoming a “hermit outpost” with the ongoing border closures, whilst New South Wales MP David Sharma stated that there were “real and significant costs, economic and personal, to keeping borders closed”. Even the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged that “you can’t eliminate the virus”, yet the government has forecast international borders to reopen during the middle of 2022. Well, at this stage.
Dr Coastworth stated that “the (medical) profession can help the community have a stronger, higher appetite for risk by reassuring them of the effectiveness of the vaccine, the importance of getting vaccinated and the (benefits) of having a vaccinated immune population”.
Physicians for Informed Consent have produced a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine risk statement. One of the questions asked is whether the COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safer than COVID-19. Here is the answer.
“The extent to which the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safer than COVID-19 is not known. The clinical trial indicates that in subjects 65 to 74 years old, the vaccine may be only 53% effective, and in subjects 75 years or older, the age group that comprises about 60% of all COVID-19 deaths, the vaccine may be 0% effective; also, in children age 16 to 17 the vaccine may not be effective. The clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalisations and deaths, and the trial did not assess if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection or spread (transmission) of the virus.”
“Severe adverse events in the vaccine group occurred in 1 in 91 subjects in the Pfizer clinical trial. The CDC has recorded that 1 in 43 vaccinated subjects was unable to perform normal daily activities and required medical attention. Furthermore, for people 15 to 34 years of age, the clinical trial did not include enough subjects to be able to show that the vaccine is safer than the disease, and because the clinical trial observation period lasted only two months, the incidence of long-term side effects from the vaccine for any age group is not known.”
At the time of writing, the chance of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is 0.11%, whilst the chance of dying from COVID-19 is 0.0035% in Australia. For those under the age of 70, the survival rate is 99.8%.
However, the chance of having an adverse event from the vaccine is 0.67%. That is six times higher than even testing positive to the virus, let alone dying from COVID-19.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US quite clearly shows that that the vaccine is not safe. Over 4,000 deaths have been reported following the COVID-19 vaccine, and that’s only in the last six months. Nearly 200,000 adverse events have been reported, and typically only 1-10% of adverse events are actually reported on VAERS.
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 people to travel only if they have been vaccinated is not acting in accordance with the criteria for valid consent.
From the moment the borders snapped shut and there was talk of a vaccine, it was clear that the federal and state governments would use travel as a way to coerce people into receiving the experimental injection.
Does this mean that people who choose not to take the vaccine simply won’t be allowed to travel? Isn’t this coercion and manipulation?
Travel must not be used as a lure for people to take the vaccine. They must be provided with all of the information, and allowed to make an informed decision.
Continue to ask questions. Continue to seek more information. And continue to share this information with others. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.