By: Robyn Chuter

From the very beginning of the manufactured COVID-19 crisis, observant critics have been pointing out deviations from accepted scientific and medical norms in the diagnosis of this new clinical syndrome, and the attribution of deaths to it.
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford examined the various case definitions offered by national and international bodies, and concluded that there was no consistent definition of what a “case” of COVID-19 actually was.
Furthermore, contrary to accepted practice for infectious diseases, people who had no symptoms of disease whatsoever but had tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, using laboratory tests whose own manufacturers caution that they should not be used to diagnose disease, were counted as cases.
This is unprecedented. No one is diagnosed with the flu merely because they test positive to influenza virus; one would have to be actually displaying symptoms of respiratory illness to be counted as a “case” of influenza.
Way back in March 2020, retired pathologist Dr John Lee brought attention to the abrupt departure from standard practices of recording deaths from respiratory disease, that were only being applied to COVID-19 and not to influenza or any other respiratory virus:
“If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.
Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.
In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.”
How deadly is the coronavirus? It’s still far from clear
How prescient Dr Lee turned out to be. In country after country, when the medical records of people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 were examined, the overwhelming majority were found to be a) elderly and b) have multiple comorbidities which would be expected to reduce their already-limited life expectancy, as well as render them susceptible to any respiratory virus, including influenza and the host of viruses that cause cold and flu-like symptoms.

In Italy, for example, according to Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to the health minister,
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”
Italy: Only 12% of “Covid19 deaths” list Covid19 as cause
Detailed analysis of supposed COVID-19 deaths in the US state of Tennessee found that 96.3% had at least one comorbidity, and the majority had close to three.
And in Australia, “71.2% of people who died from COVID-19 had pre-existing chronic conditions certified on the death certificate,” with the median age of death 81.2 years for males and 86.0 years for females.
To put it bluntly, we really don’t know how many people have died from rather than with SARS-CoV-2 infection – that is, we don’t know how many people whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 would have died within a few months anyway, due to advanced age and/or pre-existing life-limiting disease, if they had not been infected.
Some deaths that genuinely were directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection have no doubt been missed, and some (probably many, if not most) deaths have been mis-attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
That’s what makes all-cause mortality a useful measure of the overall impact of the advent of SARS-CoV-2, and I’ll be focusing on this (and some related metrics) in Part 1 of this mini-series.

Quite simply, all-cause mortality is the total number of deaths that occur in a given time period, irrespective of cause. If SARS-CoV-2 is truly a deadly virus, we would expect to have seen all-cause mortality rise in the first year of its emergence. And conversely, if the novel injections commonly called “COVID-19 vaccines” were truly safe and effective, we would expect to see all-cause mortality fall in countries that have administered them to a large proportion of their population.
How does these expectations mesh with reality?
All-cause mortality in 2020In Australia, all-cause mortality in 2020 was lower than expected, with an age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October of 355.3 per 100,000 people, compared to the average SDR for 2015-2019 of 386.5. So in the middle of what we were told was the deadliest pandemic since the 1918 Spanish flu, with COVID death counters blaring from the chyrons of every news program, considerably fewer Australians died than in previous years. Huh.
An analysis of mortality data from 37 countries found that in 2020, all-cause mortality ranged from 4.3% less than expected to 14.4% more than expected. And here’s something strange: Latvia had 2.2% fewer overall deaths than expected, despite having the 22nd highest number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 per million of population (out of 224 countries).
Something fishy is clearly going on. Intriguingly, Denis Rancourt’s forensic analysis of week-by-week mortality data in the US and Europe found no “winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters” in 2020, but did observe a sharp peak of excess mortality in several jurisdictions, that directly followed the declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
However, this “COVID peak” was not observed in the seven US states (Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Arkansas) that did not impose a lockdown. Instead, Rancourt found, the presence of a “COVID peak” was positively correlated with the share of COVID-19-assigned deaths occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, to which – inexplicably and disastrously – hospital patients were discharged at the beginning of the pandemic, seeding institutions full of vulnerable elderly people with sick individuals.
Rancourt concluded:
“I postulate that the “COVID peak” represents an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.”
All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response

Rancourt and co-authors went on to conduct a similarly microscopic analysis of week-by-week mortality data in Canada from 2010 to 2021, and drew essentially the same conclusion:
“We find that there is no extraordinary surge in yearly or seasonal mortality in Canada, which can be ascribed to a COVID-19 pandemic; and that several prominent features in the ACM/w [all-cause mortality per week] in the COVID-19 period exhibit anomalous province-to-province heterogeneity that is irreconcilable with the known behaviour of epidemics of viral respiratory diseases (VRDs). We conclude that a pandemic did not occur.
In addition, our analysis of the ACM/w, by province, age and sex, allows us to highlight anomalies, occurring during the COVID-19 period, which provide strong evidence that:
* Among the most elderly (85+ years), many died from the immediate response to the pandemic that was announced by the WHO on 11 March 2020.
* Predominantly young males (0-44 years, and also 45-64 years) probably indirectly died from the sustained pandemic response, in the summer months of 2020, and into the fall and winter, starting in May 2020, especially in Alberta, significantly in Ontario and British Columbia, whereas not in Quebec.”
Analysis of all-cause mortality by week in Canada 2010-2021, by province, age and sex: There was no COVID-19 pandemic, and there is strong evidence of response-caused deaths in the most elderly and in young males
Demographer Dana Glei confirmed that “nearly 2/3 of excess deaths among younger Americans appear to have resulted from causes other than COVID-19” and that these deaths – mostly from drug overdose and homicide – were “likely to be an indirect result of economic distress, the disruption of normal life, and heightened uncertainty related to the pandemic.”
Parenthetically, it’s important to point out that all these factors were direct results of government policies that impacted negatively on the lives of working-age people, rather than of the virus itself, which causes severe illness and death predominantly in older individuals. It’s intellectually dishonest to attribute the social and economic devastation wreaked upon the population to “the pandemic”, as if a virus had the power to shut down businesses, close schools and churches and stop people from seeing their loved ones.

All-cause mortality in 2021Now, what about 2021? What happened to all-cause mortality as countries rolled out COVID-19 injections? Again, if the injections worked – that is, protected recipients against COVID-19 – and were as safe as we were promised they were, we would expect to see all-cause mortality drop.
If vaccines save lives, there should be fewer people dying in countries with high vaccine uptake.
In Europe, excess mortality (all-cause mortality above expected rates) in people aged 15-44 during the second half of 2021 was nearly double what it was during 2020, although vaccination rates across the continent averaged at least 70%. Adults aged 45-64 also had somewhat higher excess mortality in the latter half of 2021 than in 2020, whilst in the oldest age groups, excess mortality was lower in 2021, most likely due to the “harvesting effect” – a large proportion of people with compromised health died in 2020, leaving fewer frail people to die in 2021.
In Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands and Germany, COVID-19-related deaths were dramatically lower in 2021 than 2020. However, bumps in all-cause mortality in 2021 coincide with the timing of the COVID-19 injection in all of these countries bar Sweden.
In the US, excess mortality has been higher for all of 2021 (up 15% on expected deaths) than 2020 (up 13.6%).
Once again, the greatest excess mortality is seen in younger age groups that have an exceptionally low risk of dying of COVID-19, but have been exposed en masse to experimental injections. For 0-24 year olds, excess mortality in 2021 was close to double what it was in 2020:
25-44 year olds and 45-64 year olds also had significantly higher excess mortality in 2021 than in 2020:

75-84 year olds had roughly equivalent excess mortality in both years, and the 85+ group had higher excess mortality in 2020 than in 2021, indicating a harvesting effect as would be expected given the carnage that occurred in US nursing homes in 2020.

OneAmerica, a major provider of life insurance in the US state of Indiana has disclosed that death rates in their working age population (aged 18-64) are an unprecedented 40% higher than before the advent of COVID-19, but the vast majority of deaths claims are for non-COVID-related deaths. Both short- and long-term disability claims have also risen dramatically.
According to the company’s CEO Scott Davison,
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica… A three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic… so 40% is just unheard of.”
Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64
Remarkably, India’s life insurance industry has also experienced nearly the exact same increase in deaths claims, which were up 41% in 2021 compared to 11% in 2020; once again, claims for COVID deaths have decreased whilst non-COVID death claims have increased.
Here in Australia, the age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October 2021 (the latest date for which the Australian Bureau of Statistics has adequate data) was 357.8 per 100,000 people, which was slightly higher than the SDR of 355.3 per 100,000 people for the same time period in 2020. In particular, the number of deaths in September and October was slightly above historical averages .
While the number of injections administered to the Australian population ticks ever upward, new deaths attributed to COVID-19 have increased dramatically. In fact, more Australians are dying of (or with) COVID-19 now than in 2020, when no vaccine was available, despite 77% of the entire population being “fully vaccinated” and another 3% being “partially vaccinated”.
Australia’s experience is not unique. Mathematician Mathew Crawford has produced a fascinating case study of Vermont, the most highly-vaccinated state in the US (I’ve updated the figures in his article based on information current as at January 14, 2022). 78.3% of Vermont’s total population is fully vaccinated, and 100% of those 65 and older have received at least 1 dose. And yet, Vermont has seen its COVID-19 death toll blow out from 120 deaths before the vaccine rollout began to 370 deaths after it began.
Looking at countries with low, moderate and high COVID-19 deaths per million population (graphs below from Kathy Dopp), it’s clear that the majority of countries have higher COVID death rates after their vaccine rollouts than before and that, tragically, many countries that had essentially zero deaths from COVID-19 before they began injecting their populations – such as Taiwan, Laos, Tanzania, Vietnam, Cambodia, Fiji and Timor-Leste – are now seeing their death rates shoot up:


The data are clear: more people are dying now, of both COVID- and non-COVID-related causes, since the drive to inject every man, woman and child on earth with novel, poorly-tested experimental medical technologies began.
The question is “Why?” And that’s what I’ll be attempting to answer in Part 2. Stay tuned.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/if-the-covid-19-injections-work-why

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

By : Robyn Chuter

We’re nearly two years into the COVID-19 debacle, and nothing that governments anywhere in the world have done to “stop the spread” and “end the pandemic” has worked. Nothing. Nada. Big fat zero.
If you have any remaining doubt about that, I urge you to read Dr Paul Elias Alexander’s outstanding summary of the damning evidence, More Than 400 Studies on the Failure of Compulsory Covid Interventions. The title kind of gives it away, but let me give you a quick summary:

• Lockdowns don’t work – that is, they don’t reduce the death toll from COVID-19, and they cause increased deaths from non-COVID causes (162 studies and articles cited).
• School closures don’t reduce deaths from COVID-19, and in fact increase deaths by delaying the development of herd immunity, and in addition directly harm children by increasing rates of abuse and neglect (75 studies and articles cited).
• Face masks don’t work when worn in the community, whilst the evidence for any protective effects when worn by healthcare workers is mixed; mask mandates have had no effect whatsoever on SARS-CoV-2 transmission or rates of COVID-19 disease; and there are serious physical and psychological harms from prolonged mask-wearing (97 studies and articles cited on face masks, 9 on mask mandates and 61 on mask harms).

And to add insult to injury – or more to the point, to pile injury on top of injury – the novel pharmaceutical products described as “COVID-19 vaccines” cannot possibly end the COVID-19 pandemic, because they don’t stop proliferation of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract. Watch:
SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious respiratory virus that is spread primarily through airborne transmission, which means that sanitising your hands, disinfecting surfaces and maintaining an arbitrary distance from other people is pointless biosecurity theatre – pointless, that is, in preventing the spread of the virus, but that was never the real intention anyway.
The primary route of entrance of SARS-CoV-2 is via inhalation of tiny droplet nuclei, or aerosols, that are less than 5 micrometres (5 μm) in diameter. That is, we breathe it into our nostrils. (And by the way, cloth masks increase the dose of those tiny aerosols that end up in your nose.)

Luckily for us, we’ve co-evolved with viruses, so our bodies know a thing or two about how to handle them. The secretory immunoglobulin A system, or sIgA, is our first line of defence against both respiratory and gastrointestinal viral infections.
sIgA is the most prevalent type of antibody produced in the human body. It is produced by immune system cells known as lymphocytes, that live just under the mucous membranes that line our respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts (the respiratory and gut mucosa).
As soon as a viral antigen (a snippet of protein that the immune system recognises as foreign to the human body) comes in contact with the respiratory mucosa, lymphocytes release sIgA which is ejected through the mucous membrane onto the mucosal surface, where it can prevent viruses from binding to cells and thus infecting them:

From ‘The COVID vaccines were designed to fail’

At the same time as they’re firing their antiviral missiles through the respiratory mucosa, these crack troop lymphocytes send for reinforcements by signalling other immune system cells that live in the central lymphoid organs in the bronchial and intestinal mucosa to also pump out sIgA. Thus, a call-to-arms propagates through every mucous membrane-lined organ in the human body, along with military intelligence and a specific battle plan on how to recognise and defend against the viral intruder.
If secretory IgA levels are high enough, the virus will be stopped in its tracks, before it gets the chance to enter enough cells to generate an infection. If they aren’t, and if our innate immune mechanisms don’t manage to fend off the attack, the virus will replicate and will make its way down into the lower respiratory tract from where it can infect the lungs. This is the pattern that SARS-CoV-2 follows.
sIgA levels are lowered by suboptimal vitamin D levels, obesity, and possibly by zinc deficiency – so well done to those public health geniuses who designed COVID-19 policies that restricted going outdoors into the vitamin D-generating sunshine, and resulted in 35 per cent of Australians gaining weight, mostly because of increased junk food consumption.
Unlike the johnny-on-the-spot secretory IgA which mops up respiratory viruses at their point of entry into the body, the novel injections marketed as “COVID-19 vaccines” only generate the classes of antibodies known as immunoglobulin G (IgG) and circulating immunoglobulin A (IgA).
As the name of the latter class implies, these are antibodies which circulate in the blood, searching for virus that has breached the mucosal defences and broken through into the bloodstream (which is easy to do once the virus has invaded the highly-vascularised lungs) in order to try to invade internal organs.
Sufficiently high levels of these antibodies do help to prevent the organ damage that characterises severe COVID-19, which is why studies such as those I cited in my previous article, The COVID-19 vaccine treadmill, show an initial decrease in the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation and death related to COVID-19, which tapers off dramatically after around 6 months (sooner in males, frail elderly people and those with comorbidities) as vaccine-generated antibody levels plummet.
However, these blood-borne antibodies cannot neutralise SARS-CoV-2 in the respiratory mucosa because they don’t reach it. And this is why COVID-19 injections don’t stop infection with SARS-CoV-2, don’t stop viral replication in the nasopharynx (nose and throat), and don’t stop transmission of the virus.
I, and many others, have said it before, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again: The current crop of “COVID-19 vaccines” cannot possibly end the pandemic because they are incapable of generating herd immunity.
What they do, unfortunately, is to

• Reprogram both the innate and adaptive immune system, decreasing the response to viruses (which helps to explain the reports of shingles outbreaks following receipt of COVID-19 injections) while upregulating the inflammatory response to fungi.
• Cause spike protein to be made by cells located deep inside our bodies, in direct contrast to what happens in the course of natural infection. When a respiratory mucosal cell becomes infected with a virus, it displays a piece of that virus on its outer membrane, attracting the attention of both IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T lymphocytes which then proceed to destroy the cell in order to prevent it from spewing out more infectious virus. The destruction of these cells inflames the mucosal surface, contributing to symptoms such as cough, sore throat and congestion. Unless the infected person’s immune function is impaired by advanced age, obesity or comorbidities, the infection will be confined to these mucosal surfaces. But COVID-19 injections deliver instructions to build and display viral spike protein into the endothelial cells which line our blood vessels. When these endothelial cells are attacked by IgG antibodies and cytotoxic T lymphocytes, the blood vessel wall is breached and the spike protein can enter into organs such as the heart, causing myocarditis, sudden cardiac arrest and death.
• Drive viral immune escape which leads to vaccine-resistant strains becoming dominant in heavily-vaccinated populations, perpetuating the pandemic by delaying the development of herd immunity which would otherwise have been reached in a matter of months, based on experience from past viral respiratory pandemics.

And they may also:

• Generate anti-idiotype (or “Ab2”) antibodies which drive autoimmune reactions;
• Engender “original antigenic sin”, resulting in an impaired immune response to both seasonal coronaviruses and variants of SARS-CoV-2 with significant spike protein mutations.

It’s almost as if the people and institutions in charge of both the medical and policy responses to COVID-19 don’t want the pandemic to be over, and don’t want us to have robust immune systems that fend off viral infections without attacking our own bodies. But that couldn’t possibly be so, could it?

​https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/why-covid-19-vaccines-will-never
https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

Following is a letter which I am sending to every Queensland and Federal member of parliament and senator in response to the Chief Health Officer’s direction that all heathcare providers must be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 by 15 December 2021. I encourage readers to present this open letter to their own local member and senator, and give full permission to reproduce it in whole or in part.
​
I encourage all Queensland healthcare practitioners, whether medical, allied health or complementary, who are opposed to the CHO direction mandating COVID-19 vaccination, to join the Queensland Health Practitioners Association and contribute to our legal fighting fund. Members of the public who wish to support practitioners’ right to choose whether or not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine can contribute via MyCause.
You can download the letter as a PDF file here.


Dear Sir/Madam
As I am sure you are aware, the Chief Health Officer of Queensland has issued a direction1 ordering that by 15 December 2021, all persons who work in a healthcare setting must have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine, with the maximum penalty for noncompliance being 100 penalty units (i.e. $13,785) or 6 months imprisonment.
I am a sole practitioner in a home-based Lifestyle Medicine clinic. Unless I comply with this directive, I will no longer be able to see clients in person. Whilst hairdressers, beauty therapists, and massage therapists (including those who provide “non therapeutic” massage) are not subject to a vaccine mandate2 despite working in extremely close proximity to their clients, the Chief Health Officer of Queensland judges that clients sitting opposite me in a well-ventilated room would be at an unacceptable risk of infection unless I am “fully vaccinated”.
Australia’s COVID-19 policies are scientifically unsoundI have an Honours degree in Public Health, a qualification which taught me the history and mission of the public health movement, as well as how to read, understand and critique scientific literature. The former outcome of my academic training – understanding the mission of public health – alerted me to the fact that the Federal and State policy responses to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 are uniformly disastrous from a public health standpoint. Not only have these policy responses completely abandoned the evidence-based protocols laid out in the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza3, they violate the foundational principle laid down by D.A. Henderson, the man who designed the strategy which resulted in the eradication of smallpox:
“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. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”4
Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza
State and Federal policies aiming to “stop the spread” of SARS-CoV-2 (a fool’s errand with a highly contagious but low virulence airborne virus) have indeed been catastrophically disruptive to normal social functioning, have stoked rather than allayed public anxiety, and have resulted in the denial of needed medical care to the public by prohibiting access to safe and inexpensive early effective treatment for COVID-195, 6, which has been repeatedly shown to reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death by at least 85%, even in high-risk elderly patients7, 8, 9.
The latter outcome of my academic training – ability to read and understand medical and scientific literature – has alerted me to two pivotal facts:
1. The risk of COVID-19 vaccines exceeds the benefits, for individuals in all age groupsThe risk:benefit ratio of receiving any of the products described as “COVID-19 vaccines” currently available in Australia is extremely unfavourable to me personally; that is, I am far more likely to experience a serious adverse event than I am to be made seriously ill from SARS-CoV-2 infection. According to an exhaustive analysis by Kostoff et al10,
“A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic. The risk of death from COVID-19 decreases drastically as age decreases, and the longer-term effects of the inoculations on lower age groups will increase their risk-benefit ratio, perhaps substantially.”
Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?
In other words, as a healthy, normal-weight 50 year old with no comorbidities, my risk of dying as a result of receiving any of the currently-available COVID-19 vaccines exceeds my risk of dying of COVID-19 itself by substantially more than five times.
According to the University of Oxford’s QCovid Calculator11, my personal risk of a COVID-19-associated death if unvaccinated is 1 in 111,111, based on data collected in the second and third pandemic waves in England. Using US and Australian data, MyCOVIDOdds12 calculates my risk of dying if infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 at 1 in 50,250 if I receive no treatment, or 1 in 334,983 with evidence-based early treatment.
Given the vanishingly small likelihood that I would become seriously ill or die as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection, even a low likelihood of injury by COVID-19 vaccines would be quite simply unacceptable to me.
However, the risk of injury is not low. All pharmacovigilance systems including DAEN in Australia, VAERS in the US, the Yellow Card system in the UK, EudraVigilance in the EU and the WHO’s VigiBase are raising safety signals to a degree unprecedented in their history. I must stress that the purpose of pharmacovigilance systems is not to prove causation but to detect safety signals which must then be thoroughly investigated through both examination of patient clinical records and pathology (including autopsy) specimens, and data analytics. One way of detecting such signals is to compare adverse event reports between different vaccine products.
The comparison between adverse event and death reports to DAEN associated with COVID-19 vs influenza vaccines is striking:
The number of deaths reported to VAERS in association with receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is clearly wildly in excess of any other vaccine13:
Furthermore, there is a strong temporal relationship between vaccination and death. If there were no causal relationship between receipt of the vaccine and death, death reports would be evenly distributed over the days following vaccination, but in fact it is obvious that deaths cluster in the few days following vaccination before gradually tapering off14:
The recent revelation, forced by a Freedom of Information request, that Pfizer received 42,086 case reports of serious adverse reactions to its COVID-19 vaccine – including 1223 deaths – in just the first 90 days of the worldwide rollout, with thousands more submissions omitted from the report15, reinforces my view (which is backed by international experts in drug safety including Dr Tess Lawrie of the Evidence-based Medicine Consultancy16 and vaccinologist Dr Geert Vanden Bossche17) that these products are unacceptably unsafe.
For comparison, the 1976 swine flu vaccination campaign was halted after only around 30 vaccine-associated deaths were reported18.
2. COVID-19 vaccines do not stop infection with or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and hence cannot end the COVID-19 pandemicDespite the rhetoric of both politicians and public health officials in Australia, the products described as COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection with, nor transmission of, SARS-CoV-2; they merely reduce the symptoms of infection. The evidence that I summarise for you below clearly demonstrates that far from protecting my clients, if I did accept a COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently became infected with SARS-CoV-2, I would present a greater hazard to them than if I developed an infection whilst unvaccinated, since I would be less likely to have any symptoms to warn me that I was ill and should self-isolate, at the point where I was at peak viral load and therefore maximal risk for infecting others.
State and Federal policies on vaccination have been informed by modelling performed by the Doherty Institute. However, this modelling rests on outdated assumptions that have been disproven by more recent and thorough research. Furthermore, the Doherty Institute has misrepresented its data sources for key calculations.
For example, the following table from Doherty’s August modelling update19 estimated that COVID-19 vaccination would reduce the risk of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a fully vaccinated person with a breakthrough infection of the Delta variant by 65%:
However, the “study” referenced in the table caption is actually a letter to the editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (i.e. not subject to normal peer-review processes)20 which drew on a dataset of COVID-19 cases identified in England between 4th January and 28th February 2021, when the Alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 accounted for the overwhelming majority of UK COVID-19 cases. In fact, the Delta variant was not detected in the UK until mid-April 202121. In addition, the authors of this letter stated that “most of the vaccinated index patients in our data set (93%) had received only the first dose of vaccine.” From where, then, does Doherty derive its point estimate for vaccine effectiveness after dose 2? Certainly not from the article that it cites as the source of its calculations!
A peer-reviewed study examining UK contact tracing data, published in The Lancet on October 29, 202122 found that a person who had received a COVID-19 vaccination but developed a breakthrough infection was not less likely to transmit the virus to a household member than an unvaccinated individual; in fact rates of transmission were virtually identical:
“SAR [secondary attack rate] among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% [95% CI 15–35] for vaccinated vs 23% [15–31] for unvaccinated).”
Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study
The difference in risk of infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts of an individual with a Delta strain infection did not reach statistical significance. Overall, vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be just 34%, well below the 50% threshold set by the FDA for approval of a vaccine, and substantially below the Doherty Institute’s projections for the effectiveness of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines against the Delta strain (79% and 60% respectively; see Table S2.1 below). These projections have informed State and Federal government policies, but were based on a study23 of cases identified in Scotland between April 1, 2021 (when the Alpha variant was still dominant in the UK) and June 6, 2021 (when the Delta variant accounted for 80% of cases in which genetic sequencing was performed; it was not until late May that Delta cases outstripped Alpha in the UK)24:
Astonishingly, the Doherty Institute’s latest update to Federal Cabinet, dated 5 November 202125, assumes vaccine effectiveness against infection and onwards transmission of 79% for the AstraZeneca product and 93% for the Pfizer product, in direct contradiction to real-world evidence.

Real-world evidence that COVID-19 vaccines do not protect other people1) A pre-print study of US prisoners26 found no difference in cycle threshold values (an indicator of viral load) between breakthrough infections and infections in unvaccinated individuals; no difference in the length of time that fully vaccinated vs unvaccinated participants tested positive on RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2, and no difference in the duration of viral culture positivity (an indicator that infectious virus is present, as opposed to noninfectious viral particles that linger after infection has resolved) between fully vaccinated vs unvaccinated participants. In other words, vaccinated individuals were equally as likely to infect others as unvaccinated individuals.
2) Likewise, a pre-print study conducted in two demographically-distinct sites in California during the Delta surge27 found no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with the Delta strain of SARS-CoV-2. The authors of the study concluded that:
“A substantial proportion of asymptomatic, fully vaccinated individuals in our study had low Ct-values, indicative of high viral loads. Given that low Ct-values are indicative of high levels of virus, culture positivity, and increased transmission [11], our detection of low Ct-values in asymptomatic, fully vaccinated individuals is consistent with the potential for transmission from breakthrough infections prior to any emergence of symptoms.”
No Significant Difference in Viral Load Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated, Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Groups When Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant
In plain language, the vaccinated are at high risk of infecting other people, whether they display symptoms of COVID-19 or not.
3) A pre-print study conducted by public health officials from the US state of Wisconsin28 reached similar conclusions: fully vaccinated individuals were slightly more likely to have low Ct values (indicating higher viral load) than unvaccinated individuals (68% vs 63%), 95% of low-Ct samples from fully vaccinated individuals contained infectious SARS-CoV-2 vs 88% of low-Ct samples from unvaccinated individuals; and there were no difference in infectious virus titer between groups. Furthermore, “low Ct values were detected in vaccinated people regardless of symptoms at the time of testing”, and “infectious virus was detected in the sole specimen tested from an asymptomatic fully vaccinated individual”. Once again, this study found that vaccinated individuals were at least as likely, if not more so, to infect others as unvaccinated people and that they could do so whilst remaining asymptomatic themselves.
4) A pre-print study using contact tracing data from England29 found that the Pfizer vaccine reduced onward transmission of the virus by 50% at 2 weeks after the second dose, and only 24% at 12 weeks after the second dose. Performance of the AstraZeneca vaccine was even worse: it reduced onward transmission by only 24% at 2 weeks after the second dose, and a mere 2% at 12 weeks after the second dose. In other words, neither product offered effective protection against onward transmission of the Delta even at the point where they are considered to be at the peak of their protective effect.
5) On the other side of the transmission chain, a Swedish study30 found that the vaccine effectiveness of the Pfizer product against becoming infected waned progressively from 92% at days 15-30 after receiving the second dose, to 47% at days 121-180, and from day 211 onwards no effectiveness was detected. Vaccine effectiveness waned slightly slower for the Moderna product, estimated at 59% from day 181 onwards. The AstraZeneca product reached negative efficacy (i.e. caused a 19% increased risk of infection) from day 121.
Selfish vaccinesTo put it bluntly, these are selfish vaccines. The only benefit they offer is to temporarily reduce the risk of developing symptoms of COVID-19 in the person who has received them, but this comes at the cost of the vaccinated person becoming a potential “Typhoid Mary”. That is, the vaccinated person may become infected but remain asymptomatic, potentially shedding infectious virus onto both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, including vulnerable people at high risk of serious COVID-19 illness. By contrast, an unvaccinated person who becomes infected is more likely to develop symptoms of illness which alert them to get tested and to self-isolate, thereby protecting others. And by definition, an unvaccinated person who is not infected is no risk to anyone.
Despite the constant rhetoric that COVID-19 vaccines are our only way out of the pandemic, no country which has achieved high vaccination rates has succeeded in bringing SARS-CoV-2 under control. In fact, a study of 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States31 found that not only did high vaccination rates fail to bring down case counts, but in fact “countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people”. Within the US,
“Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifies 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classified as “High” transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classified as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.”
Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States
Scientists from highly-vaccinated countries are sounding the alarm that vaccinated individuals are driving transmission and warning that scapegoating and stigmatisation of unvaccinated individuals is scientifically wrong and sociopolitically extremely dangerous; see for example Günter Kampf’s letter to The Lancet32 which summarises some of the most recent studies demonstrating the role that vaccinated individuals play in transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to others and concludes that:
“There is increasing evidence that vaccinated individuals continue to have a relevant role in transmission… It is therefore wrong and dangerous to speak of a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Historically, both the USA and Germany have engendered negative experiences by stigmatising parts of the population for their skin colour or religion. I call on high-level officials and scientists to stop the inappropriate stigmatisation of unvaccinated people, who include our patients, colleagues, and other fellow citizens, and to put extra effort into bringing society together.”
COVID-19: stigmatising the unvaccinated is not justified
As an elected representative, you should be gravely concerned that both State and Federal governments are acting on advice derived from modelling from the Doherty Institute which misrepresents its data sources and is completely divorced from the real-world evidence presented by the scientific literature. Furthermore, this poor advice is being leveraged by politicians and health bureaucrats to infringe on the liberties, livelihood and health of your constituents and is feeding increasingly unhinged political rhetoric that is creating deep and potentially dangerous social divisions between vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians.
It should at least pique your curiosity that a substantial proportion of healthcare workers – including doctors, nurses, paramedics, allied and complementary practitioners – do not wish to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Remember that these are people who know how to read scientific literature and are observing first-hand the alarming impact of COVID-19 vaccines on their clients and patients. Ask yourself why so many such people would be willing to give up careers for which they have spent many years training and developing their skills, in order not to have these products forced upon them.
And you should also note that vaccination mandates directly contravene the informed consent requirements of the Australian Immunisation Handbook33, which specify that “for consent to be legally valid… it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.” It goes without saying that the Queensland CHO directive, which denies health professionals the right to earn a livelihood if they do not accept a COVID-19 vaccine, constitutes coercion, and therefore violates the principle of informed consent and renders any consent extracted through such coercion, legally invalid. As I have clearly laid out for you, there is no scientific justification for this violation since COVID-19 vaccines offer no benefit except to the person who receives them, and then only symptomatically and temporarily.
As I have taken the time to explain the reasons for my objection to de facto compulsory vaccination, and to document them with reference to scientific literature, I expect a thoughtful and specific response from you. A pro forma reply is not acceptable and will result in repeated emails, letters and phone calls to your office until I receive a response which specifically answers my key question: Why am I being mandated to receive a COVID-19 vaccine that is not safe and does not prevent me from infecting my clients with SARS-CoV-2?
Yours sincerely
Robyn Chuter
BHSc(Hons), ND, GradDipCouns, Fellow of the Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have provisionally approved the Pfizer vaccine for use in children aged 5-11 years. The roll out will begin on 10 January 2022.
 
Let’s take a look at the facts.
 
According to the Department of Health, at the time of writing, there has been 64,388 cases of COVID-19 in those aged 0-19. Tragically, three children have lost their lives.
 
However, on closer examination, the three children who passed away did so with COVID-19, not from COVID-19. This is an important distinction.
 
According to a report in The Age, a “child aged under 10 years, who died with COVID-19, also had other serious comorbidities”.
 
The article also states that a “15-year-old Melbourne girl who health authorities said had a “a number of health conditions” also died with the virus”.
 
A report in The Guardian claimed that a “teenager from south-west Sydney died in August after contracting pneumococcal meningitis, and while he was also Covid-positive it was not the reason for his hospitalisation or death”.
 
It is clear that all three deaths were due to other causes, and not from COVID-19. Yet, they are listed as COVID-19 deaths on the Department of Health website.
 
University of Sydney infectious diseases paediatrician Robert Booy said that the “risk of deaths associated with COVID-19 in children and teenagers were extremely low compared even with vaccinated adults… Of the 25 deaths in COVID-positive children and teens up to the age of 16 recorded in Britain until March this year, half of them were in children who had a major medical problem… For example, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy or severe heart and lung disease.”
 
A study conducted in Germany and published on the preprint server MedRxiv found that “SARS-CoV-2-associated burden of a severe disease course or death in children and adolescents is low”.
 
“The lowest risk was observed in children aged 5-11 without comorbidities. In this group, the ICU admission rate was 0.2 per 10,000 and case fatality could not be calculated, due to an absence of cases.”
 
Another study conducted in Sweden and published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrated a “low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic”.
 
Children are not at risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from SARS-CoV-2. Vaccinating children against COVID-19 is completely unwarranted and unnecessary.
 
The Australian Product Information for the Pfizer vaccine shows that the Phase 2/3 trial (Study C4591007) included 2,268 children aged 5-11, of which 2,158 were followed up for at least two months after the second dose.
 
Of these 2,268 children, 3 in the vaccine group and 16 in the placebo group developed COVID-19, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 90.7%, according to the New England Journal of Medicine. This is known as relative risk reduction.
 
On closer inspection, 19 children out of 2,268 developed COVID-19, which equates to 0.8% of the total number of participants. The absolute risk reduction of the COVID-19 vaccine for those aged 5-11 is 1.9%. This is the actual efficacy of the vaccine, and is a more accurate measure of an individual’s overall risk.
 
Not only is the vaccine unwarranted given the mild nature of SARS-CoV-2 in children, it is also ineffective at preventing mild to moderate disease.
 
However, the most disturbing statement in the Australian Product Information is this:
 
“THE SAFETY EVALUATION IN STUDY C4591007 IS ONGOING.”
 
A vaccine, which is still in the clinical trial phase until July 2024, according to National Institutes of Health (NIH), and which uses technology that has never been used on a mass population previously, is being injected into children with unknown longer-term safety.
 
This is completely unforgiveable. This defies all reason and logic. The vaccine should never have been provisionally approved for children aged 5-11 based on this data.
 
According to the Australian Product Information, “the most frequent adverse reactions in children 5 to <12 years of age that received 2 doses included injection site pain (>80%), fatigue (>50%), headache (>30%), injection site redness and swelling (>20%), myalgia and chills (>10%)”.
 
The following adverse reactions from post-market experience were derived from spontaneous reports and the “frequencies could not be determined and are thus considered as not known”:
 

• Anaphylaxis and hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritis, urticaria, angioedema)
• Myocarditis and pericarditis
• Diarrhoea and vomiting
• Pain in the extremity (arm)
• Extensive swelling of the vaccinated limb

 
The New England Journal of Medicine summarises the safety and efficacy in children aged 5-11 as follows:
 
“Limitations of the study include the lack of longer-term follow-up to assess the duration of immune responses, efficacy, and safety. However, longer-term follow-up from this study, which will continue for 2 years, should provide clarification. This study was also not powered to detect potential rare side effects of BNT162b2 in 5-to-11-year-olds.”
 
What dystopian nightmare are we living in?
 
Let that sink in.
 
The longer-term follow-up “should provide clarification” and the study was “not powered to detect potential rare side effects”.
 
What if the longer-term follow up provides clarification that the vaccine is unsafe for use in children? It will be too late. The damage will have already been done.
 
We have seen from post-market assessment that serious adverse reactions are occurring in children aged 12-17, especially myocarditis and pericarditis.
 
According to the TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report, there have been 137 cases of suspected myocarditis and 109 cases of suspected pericarditis in those aged 12-17 following vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine.
 
“We have observed a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals for Comirnaty (Pfizer). The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety at the World Health Organization has recently stated that current evidence suggests a likely causal association between myocarditis and the mRNA vaccines.”
 
A study in Clinical Infectious Diseases demonstrated a “significant increase in the risk of acute myocarditis/pericarditis following Comirnaty vaccination among Chinese male adolescents, especially after the second dose”.
 
“The overall incidence of acute myocarditis/pericarditis was 18.52… per 100,000 persons vaccinated.”
 
In other words, 1 in every 5,400 children. The clinical trial for those aged 5-11 only had 2,268 participants. This sample size is not large enough to detect an adverse event such as myocarditis or pericarditis.
 
Another pre-print study in MedRxiv concluded that “post-vaccination CAE (cardiac adverse event) rate was highest in young boys aged 12-15 following dose two. For boys 12-17 without medical comorbidities, the likelihood of post vaccination dose two CAE is 162.2 and 94.0/million respectively. This incidence exceeds their expected 120-day COVID-19 hospitalisation rate at both moderate (August 21, 2021 rates) and high COVID-19 hospitalisation incidence.”
 
Why are we putting children at risk of a serious heart condition, along with other severe side effects, for a virus that they have almost no chance of dying from?
 
And finally, this article in the British Medical Journal.
 
“The number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19 – considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid – would be extraordinarily high”.
 
“Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events.”
 
“There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against covid-19 – the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown.”
 
Enough is enough. It’s time to stand up.
 
We need to protect our children, for they are our future.

​By Dr Daniel Niemiec

By - Robyn Chuter

As I have mentioned in previous posts (see here and here), we are currently living through the most all-encompassing psychological operation (PSYOP) in human history.
You might remember from my post 3 weeks ago,
“Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”
Psychological operations (United States)
One of the most insidious and pervasive elements of the COVID-19 PSYOP is the notion, enthusiastically promulgated by the lamestream media, that the slew of biosecurity theatrics that has been inflicted on the public – including mass quarantining of healthy people, business and school closures, curfews, wearing of facemasks by people in the community, “social distancing” and closure of international and domestic borders – is backed by scientific evidence.
The fact that no country’s painstakingly-referenced pandemic preparedness plans, including those of Australia, the UK, the US , and Europe, recommended such measures speaks volumes.


However, most people don’t want to plough through hundreds of pages of government documents to find out what “science says”; they’d rather hear it from a scientist.
But which scientist should they listen to? Well, as 60 Minutes producer Gerald Stone was fond of opining, “If there’s a flood, the only person you want to interview is Noah”. And Noah, in this case, would be Dr Donald Henderson.
Donald Ainslie Henderson MD, MPH, was the man credited with designing the strategy that eradicated smallpox from the world. The self-described “disease detective” also worked on poliomyelitis eradication, served as an adviser on bioterrorism to several US presidents, and published extensively on viral illnesses including influenza, ebola and dengue.
Unfortunately, we can’t interview Henderson on the global response to COVID-19, as he died in 2016 at the age of 87. However, we can do the next best thing, which is to read an extraordinarily important article that he authored ten years before his death.
In the early years of the twenty-first century, Henderson became concerned that a small coterie of computer scientists and public health officials, none of whom had any experience in managing outbreaks of infectious disease, was attempting to replace the evidence-based strategies that he had helped develop during his long and illustrious career, with primitive, myopic and non-evidence-based approaches to infectious disease containment such as large-scale quarantine, travel restrictions, prohibition of social gatherings and community masking.

In his 2006 paper, ‘Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza‘, Henderson systematically demolished the arguments for all of these containment measures, pointing out that not only was there either a lack of evidence for their effectiveness, or direct evidence of their ineffectiveness, but that each measure would inevitably have unintended consequences, or as he described them, “secondary social and economic impacts”.
Even if containment measures were shown to have a small benefit – for example, a temporary slowing of viral transmission – Henderson painstakingly explained that the negative consequences on public health and social and economic activity would far outweigh those trivial benefits.
“Disease mitigation measures, however well intentioned, have potential social, economic, and political consequences that need to be fully considered by political leaders as well as health officials.”
Henderson’s conclusion is eerily relevant to the situation we find ourselves in today:
“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. Strong political and public health leadership to provide reassurance and to ensure that needed medical care services are provided are critical elements. If either is seen to be less than optimal, a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
And now, we find ourselves in the very jaws of the catastrophe which Henderson so presciently foretold, 15 years ago:

• Normal social functioning has been severely disrupted through prolonged closure of schools, many workplaces, gyms, cafes, bars, churches, social and sporting clubs and most other venues for human interaction, as well as inconsistent and frankly nonsensical restrictions on the size of gatherings in people’s homes and even outdoors, in public places.
• Politicians and public health officials have fomented unwarranted terror of SARS-CoV-2 infection (which for most people poses an extraordinarily small risk to health and life), as well as inciting division by scapegoating and stigmatising individuals who have made the informed decision to decline an experimental medical treatment which does not prevent infection with, nor transmission of, SARS-CoV-2 and therefore offers no community benefit.
• The provision of medical care has been compromised in multiple, equally egregious ways. Firstly, the denial of evidence-based early treatments for COVID-19 has resulted in the needless suffering of people who, had they received home treatment, could have reduced their risk of hospitalisation and death by 85%. Secondly, diagnosis and treatment of non-COVID-related illnesses was impeded by the large-scale switch to telehealth and the cancellation of elective procedures. And thirdly, the president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Roderick McRae, has effectively called for the denial of medical treatment to people who question the dominant narrative on COVID-19 despite Australia’s public health system being funded by everyone who pays income tax in this country – or who did, until they were sacked or had their small business shut down because of the diktats of power-drunk “public health officials” who have no understanding of what public health actually is.

It’s difficult to imagine a more comprehensive failure of public health policy than the one we’re embroiled in.

And just when you think it couldn’t possibly get any worse, we have – drum roll please – the Omicron variant.
Countries around the world are rushing to out-stupid each other by suspending flights and barring arrivals from countries in which the – supposedly – new scariant has been detected, despite the fact that it has already been detected in California, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Austria, the United Kingdom and here in Australia, which means it is already successfully spreading across the globe, rendering border closures utterly pointless.
As D. A. Henderson pointed out 15 years ago:
“Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective. The World Health Organization Writing Group concluded that ‘screening and quarantining entering travelers at international borders did not substantially delay virus introduction in past pandemics . . . and will likely be even less effective in the modern era.'”

But if your aim was to generate panic in the financial markets and coerce people who don’t want to take ineffective and dangerous experimental medical treatments into accepting them on pain of economic and social destruction, the last thing you would want to do is to adhere to scientifically-sound principles of infectious disease management.
You also wouldn’t want to publicise the fact that of the four cases infected with the Omicron scariant who were detected in Botswana, the country in which the scariant is believed to have emerged, all four were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. So much for the unvaccinated being “human petri dishes” brewing up new variants of SARS-CoV-2. As Geert Vanden Bossche has been pointing out for months, vaccination during an active pandemic drives the phenomenon known as viral immune escape, favouring the dominance of strains of the virus with mutations that evade vaccine-induced immunity.
And you wouldn’t want to listen to a doctor in South Africa who has actually treated patients infected with the Omicron scariant and who describes their symptoms as “very, very mild”, with none requiring hospitalisation.
And you absolutely, categorically would never want to give air time to a Russian virologist (based at the Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology which produced the Russian Sputnik V COVID-19 injection), who points out that there’s absolutely no evidence that the Omicron scariant is any more dangerous than previous variants – in fact, quite the contrary – and that its high mutation load could actually spell the end of the pandemic:
“We already see Omicron has many mutations, more than Delta. More than thirty-thousand in a single gene of its spike protein. This is too many, and it means the virus has an unstable genome. As a rule, this sort of infectious agent becomes less dangerous, because evolutionarily, an overwhelming number of mutations leads to a weakening of the virus’s ability to cause disease.”
​
New Omicron variant could spell end for Covid-19 pandemic – top Russian scientist
So, what should be our response to the emergence of the Omicron scariant (aside from a giant yawn, that is)? Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association and a practising GP based in Pretoria, has some sensible advice:
“It’s all speculation at this stage. It may be it’s highly transmissible, but so far the cases we are seeing are extremely mild… Maybe two weeks from now I will have a different opinion, but this is what we are seeing. So are we seriously worried? No. We are concerned and we watch what’s happening. But for now we’re saying, ‘OK: there’s a whole hype out there. [We’re] not sure why.’”
South Africa accuses UK and others of ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to new variant
While you’re waiting for some actual science to emerge rather than the fear-porn peddled by the presstitutes, bollockticians and corruptocrats, you could always play anagrams with the name of the new scariant – “I C moron” and “moronic” are my personal favourites – or learn the Greek alphabet and speculate about what happened to Nu and Xi. Y’all have fun now!

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

 BY: Robyn Chuter

So You've had your 2 shots of COVID-19 “vaccine”, you’ve got your vaccine passport, and you’re ready for your life to go back to normal. The old normal, that is – where you get to go the pub with your mates, fly interstate to see your rellies for Christmas, and send your kids back to school – not the pathological “New Normal”.
You poor, deluded soul. You are now on the COVID jab treadmill… and good luck getting off it.
The Kirby Institute at the University of New South Wales (which, as a matter of complete coincidence, has received lots of lovely grant money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), has warned the NSW government that unless it can get a third “booster” dose of COVID jabs into the arms of its adult population, as well as jabbing 80% of children aged 5-11 by early 2022, and continuing to aggressively trace contacts of so-called “cases” of COVID-19 (most of whom never develop any symptoms), the state “may face code black conditions in February 2022”. Code black, for those not in the know, is when intensive care unit (ICU) capacity is exceeded.
Hmmm, that sounds like a slight change in messaging, does it not? It seems like just weeks ago that the bollockticians and corruptocrats were promising Australians that all they had to do to “end the pandemic” and “win back their freedoms” (because it’s not like you have any inherent rights as a human being, is it?) was to take their two shots.
And what is the Kirby Institute’s dire prediction of code black catastrophe based on? Modelling. What’s modelling, you may be wondering? The good folk at the Kirby Institute are glad you asked, and most keen to educate you on what a truly fabulous thing it is:
“Modelling is a science used to predict future outcomes under various conditions. Infectious diseases modelling is a long-established science that is helpful for informing policy decisions in public health.”
Modelling Update of NSW Roadmap for the Delta epidemic 2021-2022

Except that modelling has been consistently, comprehensively, laughably wrong throughout the entire COVID-19 panicdemic – and well before that:
“Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, consideration of only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects, and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures… Failure in epidemic forecasting is an old problem. In fact, it is surprising that epidemic forecasting has retained much credibility among decision-makers, given its dubious track record.”
Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed
But to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the Kirby Institute are determined to keep battering the people of New South Wales (and anyone else who will listen) with their giant modelling sledgehammer.
Except they admit that they left something out of their model. Nothing important, mind you. You really don’t need to know about it, I’m sure. But if you insist, they’ll tell you:
“We did not model waning of vaccine induced immunity, which will begin to show effects by February 2022 and coincide with the epidemic peak.”
Modelling Update of NSW Roadmap for the Delta epidemic 2021-2022
Wait, what? That seems to be a rather significant omission to me. I wonder why they left waning immunity that would coincide with the epidemic peak out of their model?
Perhaps they’ve read this study from Sweden, which used actual data – what a concept! – instead of tendentious modelling, to chart the effects of COVID-19 vaccines on the risk of developing the disease.
The study tracked over 1.6 million Swedes, comprising 842 974 pairs of individuals, one of whom had received either the Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca COVID-19 jab, while the other – matched for age and sex – had not. Participants were followed up from 12 January to 4 October, 2021.
Two outcomes were studied: the occurrence of symptomatic infection (which could be as mild as common cold-type symptoms) and the occurrence of severe COVID-19 disease and death.
For prevention of symptomatic infection,
“Effectiveness peaked at day 15-30 (92%; 95% CI, 91-93, P<0·001) and declined marginally at day 31-60 (89%; 95% CI, 88-89, P<0·001). From thereon, the waning became more pronounced, and from day 211 days onwards, there was no remaining detectable effectiveness (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07).”
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study
In other words, the jabs were very good at preventing infection for about two months, but after 7 months they didn’t offer any protection at all.
For those at highest risk of getting seriously ill – people aged over 80 – protection against infection waned even faster:
“At day 61-120, effectiveness declined to 50% (95% CI, 30-64, P<0·001) among individuals aged >80 years.”
Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study
The jabs were also dramatically less effective in men (who suffer higher rates of serious illness and death from COVID-19) than women, falling to 17% effectiveness from day 181 while women retained 34% effectiveness.

Effectiveness varied between the three different jabs:

• The Moderna shot was the best performing out of the three, retaining 59% effectiveness after 180 days of follow up.
• The Pfizer jab declined to 47% effectiveness at day 121-180, and zero effectiveness from day 211 and onwards.
• The AstraZeneca jab proved to be a total lemon, increasing the risk of symptomatic infection by 19% from day 121 and onwards.

For prevention of hospitalisation and death, vaccine effectiveness (for any vaccine) was 89% at day 15-30, falling to 74% by day 121-180, with no detectable effectiveness from day 181 onwards.
Here’s how that waning effectiveness looks, first for prevention of symptomatic infection (notice how the black line drops below 0 at 240 days [8 months], indicating increased risk of infection, and continues to slope downward suggesting that the increased risk of infection will get worse over time):
And next for prevention of serious illness and death (notice how the black line is heading downwards towards zero effectiveness):

While the authors of the study used their findings to press for booster shots, that’s not working out so well for the countries that have already pressed a third (or even fourth) dose on their beleaguered populations. Israel and Gibraltar both suffered spikes in infections and deaths soon after they began rolling out booster shots, and oddly enough, the peaks in new cases in each age group occurred in the exact order in which boosters were administered:
Do you understand now? The “vaccines” have not, will not and cannot “end the pandemic”. They are, for all intents and purposes, useless:
In two months’ time, those of you who are “fully vaccinated” will lose your vaccine passports – and the so-called “freedoms” they grant you – unless you take your booster shot. The COVID-19 vaccine treadmill is going to keep running endlessly until you choose to get off it.
And the only way this nightmare ends is when we – all of us – make it stop, by refusing to cooperate with any of the nonsensical biosecurity theatre – lockdowns, masking, PCR tests, QR codes, contact tracing, experimental injections, medical apartheid, and vaccine passports – that has spectacularly, comprehensively failed to “stop the spread” and “end the pandemic”.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-treadmill

By  Robyn Chuter

“Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”
Psychological operations (United States)

I’m far from the first person to point out that the international response to the emergence and spread of SARS-CoV-2 has many elements of a psychological operation (PSYOP).

From the obviously faked videos of people abruptly collapsing in the streets in Wuhan (my personal favourite is the guy at 38 seconds into the compilation; you’d think the people behind this farce would stump up the yuan to pay decent actors, for god’s sake), to the invocation of the 1918-19 “Spanish flu” (which had a death rate over four times as high as SARS-CoV-2 and disproportionately affected young, healthy people with their whole lives ahead of them, resulting in far more years of healthy life lost than our current plague, whose median age of death is higher than average life expectancy), to the hyperbolic claims of overflowing hospitals (helped along by CBS’s creative repurposing of footage from a COVID-19 ward in Bergamo, Italy) while record numbers of health care workers were being furloughed or laid off due to the failure of the promised apocalypse to materialise, to the social media frenzy over a photo of piles of coffins of COVID-19 victims in Italy… which turned out to be from the 2013 sinking of a boat full of African refugees, to the mass media frenzy over mass graves on Hart Island, New York… which turns out to have been the burial place for unclaimed body in that city since 1869… yes folks, it’s been a veritable tutti frutti of PSYOPs of every imaginable flavour.
While most of these flavours had a short shelf-life and hence rapidly disappeared from the COVID-19 ice cream stand, there’s been a few perennial favourites. And among them, “long COVID” deserves a special mention.

Australia’s taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the ABC, has provided breathless (pun intended) coverage of the bogeyman of persistent post-viral symptoms after recovery from COVID-19 since July 2020. It has relentlessly barraged its hapless audience with horror stories of debilitating fatigue, a brain fog “that’s difficult to quantify”, shortness of breath and chest pain ever since (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).
To be clear, post-viral syndrome is nothing new. Over the course of my 25 years in clinical practice, I’ve seen scores of clients who suffered persistent symptoms after recovering from a wide variety of infections, including influenza, glandular fever and Ross River fever. An abnormal immune response to the initial viral infection is believed to be the cause of the fatigue, pain, muscle weakness and cognitive impairment that may linger on for weeks, months and even years.

But the spectre of “long COVID” has, from the start, been invoked to push a particular narrative about SARS-CoV-2: that this virus with an infection fatality rate no worse than a bad flu is actually an existential threat to humanity, whose spread must be stopped in order to save young people from a tsunami of brain damage.
And furthermore, even young people who are at statistically zero risk of dying from SARS-CoV-2 infection must receive experimental injections in order to save them from the threat of long COVID.
(For a while there, the ABC was even peddling the notion that getting jabbed could cure long COVID, even though the lead author of the tiny [44 participants, all of whom had been hospitalised for COVID-19 – that is, they were pretty seriously ill], as-yet-unpublished study hastened to point out that the “small overall improvement in Long Covid symptoms” that participants reported after receiving a jab were just as likely to be attributable to the placebo effect. Desperate much, Aunty?)
Oddly enough, despite the medical experts interviewed by the ABC clearly stating that the risk of long COVID is higher in older people who suffered more severe initial illness (see here and here, and confirmed here), the public broadcaster only seems to manage to find young people, most of whom had mild illness, to feature in its heartstring-tuggers about the travails of COVID long haulers (see here, here and here).

There are just a few teensy weensy widdle pwoblems with this whole long COVID narrative:

1. Long COVID is so poorly-defined and quantified that it’s impossible to assess its threat level and therefore to calculate a risk-benefit ratio for vaccination aimed at preventing it;
2. Most people who believe they have long COVID never actually had COVID in the first place;
3. Cognitive tests and brain scans find that people who report persistent brain fog after recovering from COVID-19 don’t actually have anything wrong with them; and
4. COVID jabs don’t prevent people from getting long COVID if they suffer a breakthrough infection.

But yeah, aside from that, it’s a perfectly sound story.
1. Estimates of the prevalence of long COVID are all over the mapOur beloved Aunty tells us that long COVID “affects between 2.3 per cent to 76 per cent of people who get COVID-19″.

Wait, what? That’s one hell of a range! How can you even begin to think sensibly about whether you’d rather take an experimental jab that is at least 5 times more likely to lead to your premature demise than COVID-19 itself or run the risk of natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 (for which safe and effective early treatments for those at high risk of severe illness are available), when no one knows whether long COVID afflicts one in fifty or three out of four people who get infected… or any random number in between?
To add to the confusion, when the ABC interviewed Professor Gail Matthews, lead investigator of the ADAPT study which found that about 20% of Australian COVID-19 patients had some type of long COVID, they quoted her as asserting – I kid you not – that
“The only things that predict it [the propensity to develop long COVID] are the severity of the initial illness… they tend to be older, to be men and have co-morbidities, and the other factor that predicted whether you were more likely to get long COVID was being female.”
Hang on a minute, Prof Matthews. Did you just say that either being a man or being female predicts one’s likelihood of developing long COVID? That doesn’t leave many people out, does it?
2. Believing you had COVID when you actually didn’t is more likely to lead to long COVID symptoms than actually having had COVIDStrap yourself in, this one’s a doozy.

A study just published in JAMA Internal Medicine asked 26 823 adults from the population-based French CONSTANCES cohort whether they believed they had experienced COVID-19, and whether they had experienced any of the most frequently-reported physical symptoms of long COVID – sleep problems, joint pain, back pain, muscular pain, sore muscles, fatigue, poor attention or concentration, skin problems, sensory symptoms (pins and needles, tingling or burning sensation), hearing impairment, constipation, stomach pain, headache, breathing difficulties, palpitations, dizziness, chest pain, cough, diarrhoea, anosmia (loss of the sense of smell), and “other symptoms” – on a persistent basis since their supposed bout with the rona.
The researchers also used an antibody test to determine whether participants had actually had SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Here’s what they found:

“Persistent physical symptoms 10 to 12 months after the COVID-19 pandemic first wave were associated more with the belief in having experienced COVID-19 infection than with having laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.”
Association of Self-reported COVID-19 Infection and SARS-CoV-2 Serology Test Results With Persistent Physical Symptoms Among French Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Or, in plain English, people who falsely believed they had experienced COVID-19 were more likely to have “long COVID” than people who actually had COVID-19.

Notice how people who believed they had experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection were more likely to experience gastrointestinal symptoms, fatigue, impaired attention or concentration, headache, breathing difficulties, palpitations, chest pain and cough, regardless of whether they’d actually had it?
After mutual adjustment for belief and serology, the only persistent symptom that was actually more common in people who had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was anosmia, which is a well-known feature of actual COVID-19:
Oh, and by the way, 58% of participants (average age 49, so not exactly spring chickens) who had serological evidence of infection with SARS-CoV-2 didn’t think they had been sick in any way. Boy, this rona sure is a fearsome virus.

3. What brain damage?
Although “our ABC” was more than happy to fan the flames of moral panic over “the impacts of COVID on children’s brains”, and brain imaging showed some short-term changes in grey matter in recovered COVID-19 patients, there is simply no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection poses any such risk in children; “long COVID” simply doesn’t exist in children or teens despite the constant media squawking to the contrary.
For that matter, when adults who complained of persistent neurocognitive symptoms (impaired attention, memory, and multitasking abilities, word-finding difficulties, and fatigue) as part of “long COVID” were put through a battery of neuropsychological tests and some fancy-schmancy brain imaging, no significant abnormality was found:
“Cognitive testing showed minor impairments only on single-patient level approximately six months after the infection, whereas functional imaging revealed no distinct pathological changes.”
Neuropsychological profiles and cerebral glucose metabolism in neurocognitive Long COVID-syndrome
The authors concluded that fatigue, rather than persistent cortical dysfunction, may be responsible for long COVID.

4. COVID jabs don’t prevent long COVID in breakthrough infectionsPretty much every country that manages to persuade a high proportion of its citizens to get jabbed enters what Alex Berenson has dubbed “the happy vaccine valley” – a transient dip in COVID-19 cases and deaths, followed by a sharp resurgence as the transient, partial protection conferred by these leaky vaccines wears off. It’s happened in the UK, Israel, Denmark and Germany, among others.
So it can reasonably be expected that everyone will eventually get infected with SARS-CoV-2, as the virus transitions from epidemic to endemic.
And that makes this six-month follow-up study of almost 10 000 people who developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections (i.e. infections after being “fully vaccinated”) worth paying attention to.
Not only did being “fully vaccinated” offer no real protection against serious outcomes of infection in people aged over 60 (you know, the only age group that’s actually at any statistically meaningful risk of severe illness), it also failed to prevent long COVID in any age group.
The study authors also noted that protection against serious outcomes of infection was strongest in the early phase of follow-up. Hello, happy vaccine valley. Be seeing you soon, unhappy vaccine plateau.

Defending yourself against PSYOPsIt’s an unfortunate fact that PSYOPs are part of modern life, and as such, it’s important to have a toolkit to recognise and defend yourself against these “campaigns for your mind”. I highly recommend reading this article in its entirety, but here’s a quick summary:

1. Be alert for the telltale signs of a PSYOP, in particular constant repetition of a key idea or meme. (Side note: watch out for portrayals of long COVID slipped into upcoming television and film productions; that’s what the ‘Educating Audiences on COVID-19 Vaccines’ summit of the Writers Guild of America has instructed its members to do.)
2. Think like your enemy: if you wanted to persuade another person to believe or do something that you wanted them to believe or do, how would you go about it?
3. Cultivate a widely divergent list of specialist sources, and read what the experts on a subject read rather than the dumbed-down mass market version. And yes, that includes the gosh-darned ABC.
4. Beware the mob. If most people believe it and if it can be reduced into a soundbite or chant, it’s probably wrong.
5. Don’t jump to conclusions. First impressions are often incorrect.
6. Question authority. Always. Enough said.
7. Consider the other side. Remain open to new information that contradicts your pre-existing beliefs.
8. Detox your mind. PSYOPs work on stressed minds, so get out in nature, enjoy your hobbies or go for a walk.

Final noteI’m not by any means dismissing the idea that long COVID may occur; as mentioned above, I’m very familiar with postviral syndrome.
Dr Bruce Patterson has identified changes in the activity of monocytes (a type of white blood cell) in people experiencing persistent symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and has developed testing and treatment protocols to address these immune system abnormalities.

No one’s suffering should be dismissed. However, there’s a long and inglorious history of pathologising human suffering for profit, and the reification of “long COVID” is a veritable Swiss Army knife of memetic warfare.
Forewarned is forearmed.

https://robynchuter.substack.com/
https://empowertotalhealth.com.au/

​Two of Australia’s biggest sporting codes, the AFL and NRL, have succumbed to medical apartheid.
 
The AFL has made vaccination compulsory for all of its players.
 
The NRL has “issued a directive to clubs that left the mandating of vaccinations in their respective hands”.
 
The Canterbury Bulldogs have informed their players and officials that they expect them to be fully vaccinated. Bulldogs general manager Phil Gould said that “those with the ability to make a difference also have an obligation to do so and at the Bulldogs we take our community responsibility really seriously”.
 
If they took their responsibility ‘really seriously’, they would do their research properly and see the devastation that the vaccines are causing. They would encourage medical freedom, and they would support freedom of choice. They would stand up to tyranny and inspire children and adults around the country to do the same.
 
Several brave players have spoken out against vaccine mandates, including Nelson Asofa-Solomona (Storm), Luke Thompson (Bulldogs), John Asiata (Bulldogs), Dylan Walker (Sea Eagles), Api Koroisau (Panthers) and Jason Taumalolo (Cowboys).
 
Asofa-Solomona posted the following on social media: “Front line nurses speaking out. Ask the question, why are they willing to lose their job to not get the juice? What are they seeing that we don’t see?”
 
Front line nurses are speaking out because they witness firsthand the significant adverse events presenting in hospitals. Adverse events such as myocarditis, anaphylaxis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, blood clots, strokes and many other neurological, cardiovascular and immunological conditions. We should be listening to the nurses, not shunning them.
 
The NRL have even gone as far as to create segregation within clubs. They have reportedly “told clubs to designate separate eating and bathroom areas for players who are yet to receive two jabs”.
 
“The protocols also restrict players who are unvaccinated or have only had one jab from using indoor gyms, public transport and going to the pub. Additionally, they cannot have visitors at their home or attend other households.”
 
What sort of world are we living in? When did being healthy pose a danger to society?
 
The vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus. This alone should put an end to all vaccine mandates. A vaccinated person is just as likely to transmit the virus as an unvaccinated person.
 
A preprint study found that there was “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta”.
 
“Our study is consistent with other recent reports showing similar viral loads among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in settings with transmission of the Delta variant.”
 
“A substantial proportion of asymptomatic, fully vaccinated individuals in our study had low Ct-values, indicative of high viral loads.”
 
Another study in the Lancet showed that “fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings, including to fully vaccinated contacts”.
 
A study in the European Journal of Epidemiology demonstrated that “at the country-level, there appears to be no discernible relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days. In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.”
 
Different states and territories have issued different sets of rules.
 
NSW have banned unvaccinated players from training with teammates until December 15 or when the state is 95% vaccinated. However, in QLD, all players can partake in pre-season training while adhering to NRL protocols, but that could change on December 17 when the state opens its borders.
 
Meanwhile, in the ACT, all players can partake in pre-season training while adhering to the NRL protocols, but in VIC, unvaccinated players cannot partake in any team activities.
 
This is another sign that vaccine mandates are purely political and not based on health, science or any semblance of logic.
 
When asked about their club’s vaccination status by Fox Sports, all clubs were willing to share this information except for the Canberra Raiders and New Zealand Warriors. Fox Sports and nearly all of the NRL clubs are obviously unaware that a person’s vaccination status is a private medical record and sharing this information is a breach of privacy and confidentiality.
 
The Canberra Raiders stated that “we won’t be commenting on player vaccination rates”, whilst the New Zealand Warriors said that player vaccination rates “is not information we will make available”.
 
At least these two clubs have some understanding of privacy laws.
 
AFL and NRL players are young, fit and healthy men. They are generally at no risk of developing severe illness, requiring hospitalisation or dying from COVID-19.
 
According to Stanford University Professor John Ioannidis, the infection fatality rate (IFR) for those aged 20-29 is 0.014%, and for those aged 30-39, it is 0.031%. In other words, players aged 20-29 have a survival rate of 99.986%, whilst those aged 30-39 have a survival rate of 99.969%.
 
To put this into perspective, all of these players have more chance of dying in a car accident than they do of dying from COVID-19. Should they be banned from driving too?
 
The NRL and AFL have sold their souls to medical fascism. They are participating in medical apartheid, and for that, they should be truly ashamed.
 
Players, like everyone else in society, have the right to choose what they put into their bodies, and they, like everyone else, should not lose their jobs, incomes and careers because of that choice.
 
This is especially true for a product with no long-term safety data, and more reported deaths from this one vaccine than all other vaccines in the past 30 years, as shown by the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US.
 
It’s time to wake up Australia. We are being run by totalitarian governments and organisations that have no regard for an individual’s health or safety.
 
There are already reports surfacing of athletes suffering from cardiac arrest and death in other countries following vaccination. With myocarditis presenting at alarming rates in younger males, are we going to see our sporting stars suffering from heart issues whilst training or playing?
 
To the AFL, NRL and other sporting codes, and to all of the players and officials, you have the power to stop this discrimination and segregation. You are role models for many young men and women in this country. They look up to you. Many follow your every move.
 
It’s not too late. Do the right thing and say no to medical apartheid. Not only for yourselves, but for the entire country.