 For the first time in our proud history, it is a criminal offence to enter the country from overseas, even if you are an Australian citizen. The Morrison government has temporarily banned all flights from India, effectively stopping stranded Australians from returning home.
The federal government have enacted the Australian Biosecurity Act 2015. People who have been in India in the previous 14 days face a fine of up to $66,600 or five years in prison, or both, for returning to Australia. Foreign Minister Marise Payne stated that positive cases who arrive from India are “placing a very, very significant burden on health and medical services in state and territories”. Out of those positive cases, how many have been hospitalised, entered ICU or died? A positive case in hotel quarantine isn’t burdening the health care system. Education Minister Alan Tudge claimed that the Howard Springs facility in the Northern Territory has an “infection rate of 15 per cent, well above the goal of 2 per cent”. Isn’t the purpose of hotel quarantine to protect the community by quarantining those who have the virus? Why does the government have a goal to quarantine 98% of people who are not positive? Inside your Australian passport, it states that the Commonwealth of Australia “requests all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer, an Australian citizen, to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford him or her every assistance and protection of which he or she may stand in need”. This travel ban certainly doesn’t allow citizens to “pass freely without let or hindrance”, nor does it “afford him or her every assistance and protection”. Thankfully, and rightfully, experts are questioning the lawfulness of such drastic measures. Professor Kim Rubenstein from the University of Canberra claimed that “individuals who are stranded might seek to get legal representation to challenge it as unlawful. They would be wise to be speaking to their representatives in Parliament to ask the Senate committee, to, as a matter of emergency, review this measure as appropriate. I think there are serious legal questions the Parliament should be interrogating.” Lawyer Michael Bradley stated that the law requires Health Minster Greg Hunt to consider the least intrusive way of ensuring the quarantine system is not overwhelmed and that “it’s very difficult to say that (Greg Hunt’s) appropriately applied that discretion”. Mr Bradley continued by saying that “there are real question marks about the constitutional validity of this exercise of power”. Liberty Victoria’s president Julia Kretzenbacher says that “we have hotel quarantine to deal with the risk, so in Liberty Victoria’s view the actions taken are not the least restrictive or intrusive way of protecting Australians”. The Australian Human Rights Commission said in a statement that these restrictions on Australian citizens returning from India “raises serious human rights concerns”. “The need for such restrictions must be publicly justified. The Government must show that these measures are not discriminatory and the only suitable way of dealing with the threat to public health. The Commission urges Parliament’s Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 to review these new restrictions immediately. The Commission is approaching the Australian Government directly with its concerns.” The United Nations recently requested that Australia promptly allow two Australian citizens to return from the United States. According to Amnesty International, “Australians have been and are continuing to be harmed, by the government’s slow and bungled approach to getting them home amid the global pandemic crisis. People have been left homeless, unemployed, absolutely penniless, and stressed and anxious.” More than 36,000 Australians are currently stranded overseas, with approximately 9,000 of those in India. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has catastrophically failed in his promise to get all stranded Australians home by Christmas. Human Rights Watch director Elaine Pearson said that Australians have a “right to return to their own country”. “Any such limitations on that right due to public health grounds should be necessary and proportionate. The government should be looking for ways to safely quarantine Australians returning from India, instead of focusing their efforts on prison sentences and harsh punishments for people who are facing desperate conditions and simply trying to return home. This is an outrageous response.” Senator Sarah Hanson-Young tweeted that she is “horrified that the Morrison government thinks this is an acceptable response to the humanitarian crisis in India”. If other countries around the world, with low cases numbers such as Australia, can manage hotel quarantine, whilst still allowing their citizens to return home, why can’t we? We warned about the government’s ability to enact the Biosecurity Act in November 2020. At the time, many people, including members of parliament, either didn’t realise that the Act existed, or they didn’t believe that it would ever be enforced. Here we are six months later and the government have made it illegal for Australian citizens in India to enter the country. What other draconian measures will the government enforce? What precedent does this set? What does this mean for the rest of those Australians stranded overseas? These measures are a violation of our basic human rights. We must not consent to such measures, and must hold our politicians accountable for their actions. Write to your members of parliament to tell them that you do not support such measures. It takes less than 5 minutes to do through our website. Let’s pray for those stranded overseas, especially in India. They are Australian citizens like you and me. We must continue to fight for them, so that they can safely return to the country that they call home.
0 Comments
 The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Archa Fox, a molecular biologist specialising in RNA. That’s quite an ‘expert panel’. Let’s take a look at some of the expert’s answers to the “questions you asked most”.
Do the vaccines affect fertility? Fertility, pregnancy and breastfeeding are obviously very sensitive and emotional topics, as they not only affect the mother, but the foetus or new born baby as well. Dr Fox states that there is “no evidence to suggest that the vaccine affects fertility” and that there is “no scientific reason to suspect that the vaccines might affect fertility”. Dr Blyth is even more certain when it comes to infertility, stating that “it’s absolutely safe for people planning pregnancy”. According to Dr Joseph Mercola, the “mRNA vaccine triggers your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of the placenta. If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she could become infertile.” Dr Mercola notes that “this is an issue that none of the vaccine studies is looking at specifically”. These critical studies are vital when it comes to the potential of infertility, and it is crucial that we rule out this possibility prior to vaccinating women of child bearing age or younger. Do the vaccines affect breastfeeding? According to Dr Blyth, the “COVID vaccines are safe for anyone breastfeeding. The recommendation is that you can receive COVID-19 vaccines at any time while breastfeeding.” The Consumer Medicines Information (CMI) summary states that “if you are pregnant or breast-feeding, think you may be pregnant or are planning to have a baby, ask your doctor or pharmacist for advice before you receive this vaccine”. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers” has not yet been addressed. The Australian Product Information report states that “it is unknown whether BNT162b2 [mRNA] is excreted in human milk”. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) clearly state in three separate documents that it is unknown if and how the vaccine may affect the mother and/or baby during breastfeeding. Dr Blyth, how can you categorically state that the vaccine is “safe” during breastfeeding when there is no data to support this? This is misleading, and potentially dangerous. Will you be held personally responsible should future data reveal that, in fact, it is unsafe to receive the vaccine whilst breastfeeding? It may prove to be safe, however, at this point in time, that is a question that simply cannot be answered, and we stringently encourage you to retract this incorrect statement. The public’s COVID-19 vaccine safety questions have clearly not been answered by the ‘experts’. We are not being told the truth. The truth is that these vaccines have not been proven to be safe, because there is no long-term safety data. In fact, there is very little data on anything. There are many more questions than answers at this stage. Why are we continually being lied to? The people of Australia deserve better. We deserve to be told the full story, so that we can make an informed decision. Resistance to the vaccine is growing daily because people can see through the lies and deception. We do not consent to being part of a mass population trial. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.  How do we know there won’t be longer-term effects if we’re testing short term?
Professor Macartney explains that it is “extraordinarily rare for any vaccines to show a side effect that develops later after vaccination, such as the following week”. The study mentioned previously in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases shows that “vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, later developing adverse events” and that “some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered”. Another study mentioned above in Frontiers in Immunology claims that the “development of most autoimmune diseases may take 3 to 18 years”. It has continuously been claimed that vaccines don’t cause long-term illness. These studies would suggest otherwise, and this is why long-term safety data is so critical. Dr Joseph Mercola wrote an article describing a number of other pathologies that we have a lack of data on, such as pathogenic priming and antibody dependent enhancement, prion disease and microvascular injury. These pathologies have the potential to cause serious long-term effects, and they must be ruled out prior to vaccinating the general population. Dr Fox weighs into the argument by stating that there are “studies in animals over long periods of time that show they’re fine”. Once again, this is simply not true. A study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity warns that the “failure of SARS and MERS vaccines in animal trials involved pathogenesis consistent with an immunological priming that could involve autoimmunity in lung tissues due to previous exposure to the SARS and MERS spike protein”. In fact, in a number of studies, the animals initially tolerated the vaccine well. However, when they were exposed to the virus, they became severely ill and/or died. Animal studies have shown devastating results to previous coronavirus vaccines, and this is perhaps, one of the reasons why they weren’t conducted prior to human trials. Dr Fox also makes the bold claim that “most of us don’t think too much about getting the whooping cough vaccine or diphtheria vaccine”. Therein lies the problem. We should be thinking about these vaccines. According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, extensive limb swelling, febrile convulsions and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes are some of the reported adverse events associated with the vaccine. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. paints a far worse picture. According to the package insert for Infanrix, one of the pertussis vaccines used in Australia, “the following adverse reactions have been identified during post-approval use”:
How many parents are unaware of this information before deciding to vaccinate their children? How many doctors and nurses refuse to explain the risks associated with vaccination? Dr Fox, it is vitally important that we do think about “getting” vaccines, and that we are aware of the risks prior to vaccinating ourselves and our children. Genetic vaccines are new so have we had enough experience to know they’re safe? Professor Macartney claims that “genetic vaccines are not as new as we think”. Although the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is currently suspended at the time of writing in 23 countries due to blood clotting fears, uses a “recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector”, and is a more traditional vaccine, the Pfizer vaccine is anything but. The Pfizer vaccine uses new mRNA technology, which has never been used in human beings before. We have no data on mRNA vaccines like we do with other vaccines, such as the long-term efficacy and safety. As mentioned previously, animal studies have failed due to illness and death of the animals after exposure to the ‘live’ virus. Research also shows that autoimmune diseases many take many years to develop. Professor Macartney also claims that there are “tens of thousands of people in clinical trials who have received the different types of COVID-19 vaccines and many people vaccinated worldwide with no safety signals occurring”. At the time of writing, according to recent data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the U.S., there have been 25,212 adverse events, 4,930 visits to emergency room doctors, 2,743 hospitalisations, 479 permanent disabilities, and 1,265 deaths following vaccination. It is also important to note that historically, less than 1% of all adverse events are reported to VAERS. Professor Macartney, we are seeing some very concerning reactions to the vaccine around the world. This highlights the importance of clinical trials, as long-term safety needs to be assessed prior to rolling out the vaccine to the general public. These adverse events did not occur during the clinical trials; they occurred during the roll out of the vaccine. Do the vaccines include mercury and other heavy metals? Dr Chris Blyth states that the “vaccines that will be used are free from preservatives and any toxic substances”. The AstraZeneca vaccine contains polysorbate 80, which is a “nonionic surfactant and emulsifier often used in foods and cosmetics”. A study in Springer Open Choice states that polysorbate 80 “appears to be a pharmacologically active compound and has been implicated in a number of systemic adverse events and ISAEs (infusion site adverse events)”. Another study shows that there may be a link between polysorbate 80, and infertility in mice, and that further investigation is warranted. The Pfizer vaccine contains a substance known as polyethylene glycol (PEG), which is used to help transport the mRNA into the cell. Studies have shown that 70% of people develop antibodies against PEG, which has the potential to trigger allergic reactions in those who receive the vaccine. The Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) summary for the Pfizer vaccine states that the vaccine should not be given “if you are allergic to BNT162b2 (mRNA) or any of the ingredients listed at the end of this leaflet”. How many people know what polyethylene glycol is, and how many people know if they are allergic to it? There have already been warnings against receiving the vaccine if you have a known history of anaphylaxis or allergies. Dr Blyth, stating that the vaccines are free from “any toxic substances” is incorrect and we would strongly encourage you to retract this statement.  The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Archa Fox, a molecular biologist specialising in RNA. That’s quite an ‘expert panel’. Let’s take a look at some of the expert’s answers to the “questions you asked most”.
Why can’t we just immunise the vulnerable and leave others to fight COVID with their immune systems? “Everyone knows or cares for someone who is older, or might have had treatment for cancer, or for some other reason will be vulnerable. It’s so important that we think of those people, because if we’re not vaccinated, we’re keeping them at risk”, according to Professor Macartney. Many people will incorrectly assume that if they are vaccinated, they are protected, and that they are protecting others. This is a dangerous and incorrect assumption. “Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report, the following is missing information: “Use in immunocompromised patients; use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease); use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders; (and) interaction with other vaccines”. These people are the most vulnerable, yet there is no data on these demographics. The people who could potentially benefit from the vaccine shouldn’t take it due to a complete lack of data, and the people who don’t require the vaccine are being advised to take it. However, as we know, logic is a rare commodity at the moment. Dr Archa Fox has a different take on this issue. She says that “even if every young person ate well and did exercise and had a strong immune system, if they get infected with the virus, they could still suffer from COVID-19 – some people develop long COVID, and there is mortality in all age ranges, even if you have a strong immune system”. As we know, mortality increases with age for COVID-19. This is primarily due to the fact that as we get older, our immune function decreases, and generally, the incidence of comorbidities increases. Some diseases affect younger people, whilst others affect older people. COVID-19 clearly affects older people. There is also mortality in all age ranges for many different diseases. What has been lost throughout the past 12 months is the advice on how to maintain a healthy immune system, which as Dr Fox mentions, includes eating well and exercising. Fast food restaurants and bottle shops remained open during lockdown, yet people were limited in the amount of exercise they could do. How is this beneficial to our health during a pandemic? Dr Fox continues by explaining that “you’re playing Russian roulette if you’re going to just rely on boosting your immune system to stop getting sick”. Given that we are exposed to millions of viruses every day, wouldn’t it seem like the logical way to stop you from getting sick? Or should we rely on a vaccine for every single disease? A study in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases claims that “autoimmunity and the opposing condition, metabolic syndrome, are well known adverse events caused by vaccines”. The author explains that “vaccines have been found to cause a host of chronic, later developing adverse events. Some adverse events like type 1 diabetes may not occur until 3-4 years after a vaccine is administered.” Instead of relying on eating well and exercising to boost our immune system, Dr Fox is suggesting that we rely on vaccines, which as we can see, may have far more detrimental consequences than the disease itself. Another study in Frontiers in Immunology explained that determining “whether cross-reactivity between COVID-19 and human tissue can lead to autoimmune disease development either from the infection or directly from vaccination” is an enormous task because “development of most autoimmune diseases may take 3 to 18 years”. The study continues by stating that “cross-reactive relationships between viral infection and vaccinations have also been found with hepatitis B and myelin proteins leading to multiple sclerosis, human papillomavirus and nuclear proteins leading to systemic lupus erythematous (SLE), coxsackievirus and islet cell proteins leading to type 1 diabetes, etc”. According to the authors, “the possibility of future autoimmune disease is daunting and very real”. Given the complete lack of data on the vaccines, are we instead playing “Russian roulette” by taking the vaccine, rather than boosting our immune system? Dr Fox also claims that the “studies coming out now suggest transmission of the virus will be greatly reduced by the vaccinated”. Perhaps Dr Fox is referring to two new studies that made headlines recently, that are yet to undergo peer review. One study found that the Pfizer vaccine reduced infections by 89.4%. However, the study did not directly measure transmission. Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Institute, stated that the “testing rates were such a hodgepodge, I don’t know how you can make any conclusions about how much the vaccine cut transmission in Israel, let alone assigning a number as concrete as 89.4 percent”. The Australian Public Assessment Report clearly states that “viral transmission” has not yet been addressed. Have approvals and testing been rushed through? Dr Fox mentions that “what would previously take five years took one”. This may be true, however, the average time taken to develop a vaccine is 10-12 years. What happened to the other 6-8 years? She continues by stating that “our vaccines have had the full approval process, not emergency authorisation like in some countries”. This is factually incorrect, and we would strongly advise Dr Fox to retract this statement. According to the TGA, both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have been granted provisional approval. This is different to full approval. Provisional approval is valid for two years, and is subject to strict conditions, such as the requirement that the pharmaceutical companies continue to provide the TGA with information on long term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment. The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Fact Sheet for the Pfizer vaccine also states that the “Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine” is an “unapproved product”.  The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Isn’t it better to risk COVID than take a new vaccine? Professor Macartney claims that “these vaccines have been so incredibly well studied” and that it is “amazing what we’ve been able to learn because of the mass participation of people in these trials and roll-out”. At least Professor Macartney and Health Minister Greg Hunt are on the same page, after Mr Hunt recently acknowledged that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. The Pfizer clinical trial enrolled approximately 44,000 people in the Phase 2/3 study, of which 37,586 participants were followed for a median of just 60 days! Out of the 37,586 participants, only 170 ‘contracted’ COVID-19, which was enough participants to satisfy the criteria of ‘bad outcomes’. That’s right, two months! The Pfizer clinical trial is due for completion in January 2023. The “more than 200 million doses” that Professor Macartney is referring to are people who are unknowingly engaged in the ongoing clinical trials. The Australian Public Assessment Report clearly states that the long-term safety is “unknown”. Politicians, doctors and scientists have been spruiking the effectiveness and safety of these vaccines for months. How can the vaccines be considered safe when the long-term safety is unknown? To be considered safe, we must not only have data on short-term safety, we must also have data on long-term safety as well. How can Professor Macartney say that these vaccines have been “so incredibly well studied” when the follow up period was only two months? Given that the Pfizer vaccine is using new mRNA technology, it would seem even more imperative to conduct long-term studies to adequately assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of this particular vaccine. Can I wait and see while others take it? Professor Macartney explains that “we will only succeed in stopping this pandemic if most of the population is vaccinated”. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, a “correlate of protection has yet to be established”, and the “duration of protection is not yet known”. If the vaccine does not provide protection, and it does not stop transmission, how will it stop the pandemic Professor? Professor Macartney continues by claiming that “we quite simply need to get a lot of people protected against serious disease through vaccination”. This may be true, if COVID-19 were in fact, a serious disease. At the time of writing, Australia has had 29,075 COVID-19 cases and 909 deaths. According to the Department of Health, 58 deaths occurred in people under the age of 70. That equates to 6% of the total deaths. 25,280 cases (87%) occurred in people below the age of 70. In Australia, if you are below the age of 70, your chance of survival is 99.8%. This does not account for those with co-morbidities, or for the fact that the majority of cases are mild or asymptomatic, and therefore, the number of people who would have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2 would be significantly higher. Of the 909 deaths, 685 (75%) occurred in aged care facilities out of a total of 2,051 cases. 33% of people that contracted SARS-CoV-2 in aged care passed away with COVID-19. This trend has occurred in many countries around the world. To put these numbers in perspective, 4,124 people died in Australia from influenza and pneumonia in 2019, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We don’t vaccinate the entire population for influenza, and nor should we for COVID-19, which for the majority of people, is a mild disease.  A number of European countries have recently suspended the rollout out of the AstraZeneca vaccine due to fears that the vaccine may be linked to blood clots, some instances of which have resulted in death. Denmark, Iceland and Norway recently halted the use of the vaccine, with Austria and Italy also suspending the use of the vaccine due to concerns with certain batches. Germany, France and the Netherlands are other European countries to also stop the rollout of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan said that it is “clearly time” for Australia to do the same and halt the rollout of the vaccine until further investigations are carried out. In a recent interview, Mr Canavan said that we should “heed these concerns that European countries have”, and that they are “obviously doing it through legitimate concerns” given that case numbers are far greater in these countries than here in Australia. The Senator discussed how Australia “does not face and imminent risk of coronavirus spread, and surely the prudent approach here is to suspend our rollout and take heed of the evidence that will emerge in coming months”. When asked about the TGA, he said that he doesn’t believe that they are “infallible”. Mr Canavan rightly pointed out that the “European health regulators… view should be heeded and listened to in our country as well”. After all, the AstraZeneca vaccine that is being rolled out in Europe is the same vaccine that is being rolled out in Australia. He went on to say that he doesn’t “think that the issues that face Europe are fundamentally different to ourselves, at least in terms of the impact of giving it to human beings”. Mr Canavan stated that Europe are saying that they have “serious concerns” and that “we’re not just talking about a few countries now, we’re talking about Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Ireland… all suspending their rollout”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) is “urging countries not to panic as Europe’s biggest nations suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine”. When questioned on the WHO’s position, Mr Canavan responded by saying that he doesn’t “have a lot of faith in the WHO. They were saying there was no human-to-human transmission about a year ago, and got it clearly wrong.” This isn’t the first thing that the WHO have gotten wrong. In January 2020, the WHO recommended that the cycle threshold be set at 45 cycles for the RT-PCR test. However, 12 months later, they admitted that the cycle threshold has been set too high and that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed”. Mr Canavan finished by saying that the “UK and Australia are about the only health authorities now saying that there’s not a concern with the AstraZeneca” vaccine. The U.S. have “yet to approve AstraZeneca as well”. Despite Mr Canavan’s call for the AstraZeneca vaccine to be suspended, Australia’s Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly maintains that the vaccine is safe and effective. Mr Kelly stated that “as noted by the European Medicines Agency, the action taken by several European countries is a precautionary measure so that a full investigation can be rapidly conducted”. Dr Margaret Harris, a spokeswoman for the WHO, said that the “panel had taken the position that the jab should continue to be administered, while an investigation of cases of these thrombo-embolic events is ongoing”. If the investigation finds that the AstraZeneca vaccine is indeed causing blood clotting disorders, will it finally be suspended or even ceased permanently? Or will there be another excuse to continue rolling out a vaccine that has been developed in 6-12 months with no long-term safety data? We are only experiencing a handful of cases of COVID-19 a day in Australia. There has not been a COVID-19 death in Australia for months. Yet, there are grave concerns with a rushed-to-market vaccine. We are in the unenviable position whereby we can take an even more cautious approach with the vaccine. Member for Hughes Craig Kelly stated on Twitter that “it’s reckless & unconscionable for our health officials to continue to push the AstraZeneca vaccine after Germany, France & Spain suspended its use. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle ‘first do no harm’? Safety first!” The Australian Public Assessment Report for the AstraZeneca vaccine clearly states that the long-term safety data is “missing information”, and that there are “significant concerns about the robustness of the data. The study design was not entirely fit for purpose to evaluate efficacy in high risk groups, there is insufficient data about dosing, and there were a number of patients lost to efficacy analysis.” Alarm bells were ringing loud and clear, even before the vaccine was rolled out to the general population. How many more warning signs have to appear for our government to stand up and take notice? How many adverse events, and potentially deaths, have to occur before we say enough is enough? The Swiss Medical Regulator decided not to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine for use due to a lack of data. The list of countries suspending the AstraZeneca vaccine is growing, and now includes smaller European countries Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxembourg, as well as Asian countries Indonesia and Thailand. It is time for Australia to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine until conclusive evidence proves a link between the vaccine and blood clots does not exist. We are not guinea pigs. We do not consent to taking part in the “largest vaccination trial ever”, as Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt stated recently. These mass vaccination trials must cease immediately, and our government needs to start looking after the health and wellbeing of its citizens properly.  The New Daily published an article recently criticising Clive Palmer’s COVID-19 vaccine newspaper advertisements that appeared in The Australian and The Western Australian newspapers. The article titled, “Fact-checking Clive Palmer’s ‘dangerous’ vaccine ads”, takes issue with Mr Palmer being “very concerned by the emergency use of this vaccine on the general population”. The author states that “this is an incorrect claim, with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration running a full approval process on both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca – not an emergency use authorisation, as other nations around the world have enacted”.
The article states that the ad “contains factual inaccuracies” and that the “TGA does not have an ‘Emergency Use Authorisation’ pathway for COVID-19 vaccines. Australia has issued a formal regulatory approval for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.” The author is correct in pointing out that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is running an approval process. However, the crucial point to note here, which leads to Mr Palmer’s concerns, is that this approval process is currently ongoing. The TGA have only granted PROVISIONAL approval for both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. Full approval has NOT yet been granted. In their official media release regarding the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, the TGA states: “Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for (Pfizer and AstraZeneca) to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment.” Granting provisional approval confirms that the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is still under investigation, particularly in the longer term. This reasonably validates Mr Palmer’s concern that the vaccine rollout has been rushed, and that there is the same inherent risk to Australians receiving the jab, as there would be for any patient participating in an ongoing clinical trial. This notion was reaffirmed by Australian Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt, who stated recently in an interview with ABC news that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Mr Palmer did not claim that the vaccines have been granted ‘emergency use authorisation’, as they have been in the U.S. This would be an incorrect statement, as they have been granted provisional approval. Mr Palmer also states that the “simple fact is that we don’t have one-year safety data, three-year safety data or five-year safety data for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine”. Mr Palmer is correct. We do not have this data. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the long-term safety is “unknown”. Normal vaccine development takes 10-12 years, whilst these vaccines have been rushed to market in 6-12 months. The Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA technology, which has never been used in a vaccine for humans previously. Mr Palmer, along with every other Australian, should be questioning whether these vaccines are indeed safe, not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term. The article also takes issue with an advertisement Mr Palmer placed specifically in The West Australian newspaper, requesting readers to “ask Mark McGowan” why the government had “provided pharmaceutical companies with an indemnity from injury or death”. The article claims Mr Palmer is “wrong” to request the Western Australian constituency to question their state Premier, because it was the “Federal Government that inked deals with vaccine manufacturers and provided the indemnity”. Surely the question of who inked the indemnity deal is insignificant compared to the fact that pharmaceutical companies are indemnified against liabilities that could result from the use of this experimental treatment that is still currently undergoing clinical trials? Mr Palmer should be applauded for having the courage to publicly question these rushed-to-market vaccines, and he should be congratulated for requesting long-term safety data before the vaccine is rolled out to the general population. Like Mr Palmer, we should all be demanding long-term safety data before we choose whether or not to receive the vaccine. We should be made aware of the risks of taking the vaccine, and it should be acknowledged that we will not be able to pursue legal action against the pharmaceutical companies should we or a family member suffer from a serious adverse event or death as a result of the vaccine. These ads are far from dangerous. They are merely asking simple questions that the government is unable to answer. Where there is risk, there must be choice.  The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recently released the Consumer Medicine Information (CMI) summary for the Pfizer COMIRNATY COVID-19 vaccine. The CMI summary starts by stating that “this vaccine is new or is being used differently”. The Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA technology, which has never been used in human beings previously. This would render it as “new”. What is concerning, however, is that the CMI states that it is being used “differently”. What exactly does this mean, and how is it being used differently? Health Minister Greg Hunt stated in a recent interview that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Is this what they mean by being used “differently”? Do they mean that anyone who receives the vaccine prior to January 2023, which is the estimated completion date for the Pfizer clinical trial, will be a human guinea pig? We certainly deserve an explanation as to how the vaccine is being used differently.
The CMI summary continues by stating that “this approval has been granted on the basis of short term safety and efficacy data. Evidence of longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and vaccination in the community continues to be gathered and assessed.” As mentioned previously, the Pfizer clinical trial is due for completion in January 2023. In his interview, Greg Hunt outlined that “above all else, safety, safety, safety” was the government’s primary concern, as it should be. We have heard many prominent government officials, include Prime Minister Scott Morrison, categorically state that the vaccine is effective and safe. How can one say that the vaccine is safe, without long-term safety data? The vaccine may well be safe in the short term, but we have no long term data to definitely classify it as safe. Ruud Dobber, a member of (AstraZeneca’s) senior executive team, stated that “this is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side effects”. Although this is a different vaccine, it has also been provisionally approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and has a similar lack of data compared to the Pfizer vaccine. If the vaccine is showing side effects in four years, will the government then deem it unsafe? It will be too late by then, and the damage would have already been done. Under the heading “Why am I being given COMIRNATY?”, the CMI states that “COMIRNATY is a vaccine given to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in adults and adolescents from 16 years of age and older… COMIRNATY works by triggering your immune system to produce antibodies and blood cells that work against the virus, to protect against COVID-19 disease.” This is in direct contrast to the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report, which states that a “correlate of protection has yet to be established. The vaccine immunogenicity cannot be considered and used as a surrogate for vaccine protective efficacy at this stage.” The TGA is a government organisation that has produced the Australian Public Assessment Report and the Consumer Medicine Information. One report states that the Pfizer vaccine does not provide protection, yet the other one says that it does. In fact, the Pfizer clinical trials “specify that they do not even test for immunity”. This would indicate that the vaccine does not provide immunity, and that the TGA and the Australian government are misleading the Australian public. Following this, the CMI states that “you should not be given COMIRNATY if you have had an allergic reaction to any of the ingredients in COMIRNATY”. One of the ingredients in the vaccine is polyethylene glycol (PEG), which is used to transport mRNA into the cell. It is estimated that up to 70% of Americans are allergic to PEG. How would someone know if they are allergic to PEG, given that most people would never have heard of it? Should we all get tested before we receive the vaccine to assess for an allergy to PEG? There have been a number of severe allergic reactions to the vaccine around the world, and it would appear that PEG is the culprit. No studies have been done on this, despite our repeated calls for such studies prior to the roll out of the vaccine. According to the CMI, you should check with your doctor if you have had “a severe allergic reaction or breathing problems after any other vaccine or after being given COMIRNATY in the past, fainted following any needle injection, a severe illness or infection with high fever, a weakened immune system or are on a medicine that affects your immune system, a bleeding disorder, bruise easily or are on a blood thinning medicine”. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that the following information is missing: “Use in immunocompromised patients… Use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease)… Use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders… Interactions with other vaccines”. There is absolutely no data on these groups of people. Should people that fall into these categories be advised not to take the vaccine until further data is collected? What will the side effects be for these people? Where is the short and long-term safety data? This is highly dangerous, incredibly unethical and medically negligent. The CMI initially stated that the vaccine will be administered to “protect against COVID-19 disease”. Further into the summary, it now states that “as with any vaccine, COMIRNATY may not fully protect all those who receive it and it is not known how long you will be protected”. Does it protect us or not? Now the CMI is contradicting itself. Furthermore, the CMI summary explains that you must “talk to your doctor if you have any other medical conditions, take any other medicines, or are pregnant or plan to become pregnant or are breastfeeding.” The Australian Public Assessment Report clearly states that the “use in pregnancy and while breast feeding” is also considered “missing information”. In the UK, those that are planning to conceived within two months, those who are pregnant, or lactating mothers are advised not to have the vaccine. However, Health Minister Greg Hunt has stated that “for women who are considering being pregnant, they should feel free to take the vaccine”. There is no data on this group of women. COVID-19 has affected such a miniscule minority of pregnant women worldwide, that the risk of taking the vaccine outweighs the risk of developing COVID-19 during pregnancy. “Check with your doctor or pharmacist if you are not sure about what medicines, vitamins or supplements you are taking and if these affect, or are affected by, COMIRNATY.” The Australian Product Information states that “no interaction studies have been performed” when it comes to interactions with other medicines. Once again, how can the Australian government, the TGA, the Prime Minister and the Health Minister claim that this vaccine is safe when these studies have yet to be conducted? A large portion of the Australian population take some form of medication, and many of these people have co-morbidities. These vital studies need to be conducted before you can label this vaccine as safe. Finally, the CMI summary states that “other side effects not listed here may occur in some people”. Other side effects? What are the other side effects? Are they mild or severe side effects? Are they short or long term side effects? Are they neurological or cardiovascular? We simply don’t know as they are not listed. Informed consent requires that all known side effects be made available to the patient, so that they can make an informed decision on the benefits versus the risks prior to consenting to treatment. This is clearly not being done as it should be, and is a gross breach of best medical practices. It is time that the Australian government came clean and owned up to their lies and deception. The vaccine may be proven to be safe, however, one cannot definitively state that it is currently safe with so much data unavailable. It is little wonder that more and more Australians are refusing the COVID-19 vaccine. We have the right to decide what we inject into our bodies and the bodies of our children. The government do not have the right to coerce or manipulate people into taking an unproven and experimental vaccine. Medical freedom is one of our basic human rights, and where there is risk, there must be choice.  On the 23rd of February 2021, Alan Jones hosted a segment on Sky News titled: “Government at risk of undermining its vaccination program.”
In this 8-minute clip, he addressed the “stack of” lethal comments provoked by a prior segment where he interviewed anti-vaxxers ahead of airing the now infamous documentary by Jane Hansen, which was on its way to the screen. Alan goes on to explain that “this is why we must sensibly address those who have concerns of vaccinations”. The voices of those opposed are becoming louder. At the presentation ceremony for the Australian Open Tennis, Jane Hrdlicka, the President of Tennis Australia, was booed for a long time when she talked about the world entering a new phase of positivity because of vaccination. This was broadcast live across the globe, removing any ability for a media coverup. It is becoming evident that the majority are not aligned with the government and media rhetoric. Alan Jones advised that he is pro-vax, stating that he rolls his sleeve up for the flu shot every year and “will be rolling it up for this one”. However, he admitted that we cannot ignore the powerful sentiments of people who are suspicious of the propaganda in relation to these vaccines. He states that “the government have turned a blind eye to contrary opinion, they have in fact tried to silence those who express such opinions. People have been banned from social media from arguing well researched views on vaccination.” He states that the text-in line was “on fire” following the interview with Jane Hansen last Thursday night. People wanting more debate, and angry that reservations about the vaccines are being dismissed as simply “anti-vaxxers”. Mr Jones states very clearly, “I am saying the government is at risk of undermining the whole vaccination program by conducting a one-sided government edict saying, ‘everyone must roll up their sleeve and get the jab otherwise no travel unless you’ve had the vaccine, or you’re not welcome in your place of work unless you’ve had the jab’. I have said all along, as have others, the only way through this is via debate. We’ve had none. When you seek to shut down every opposing view, it only raises suspicions.” He goes on to read some of the comments that were written in, one of which said, “Come on Alan, there’s a vast difference between an anti-vaxxer and a regular person who is questioning the validity and safety of a rushed vaccine for a spurious illness, that we are being coerced into getting if we want to maintain our God given freedoms.” The vaccines are being touted as the only way out for Investment and Jobs, pointing out that there are only 39 cases of coronavirus in Australia. Last year when Alan Jones mentioned herd immunity may be the best way out of the pandemic – “all hell broke loose. Coronavirus cases in America have fallen by 77% over the past six weeks, you don’t need to be a cynic to suggest that no medication would slash cases by that figure. Experts are saying that natural immunity from prior infection might be more common than is measured by testing.” “Professor Marty Makary, an American surgeon, a New York Times Best Selling Author, and John Hopkins Health Policy Expert, argues today that vaccines don’t explain the steep decline in coronavirus cases over the past six weeks because vaccination rates were then low, and that they take weeks to kick in. He is predicting actually that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April and that 55% of Americans would now have natural immunity from prior infections, that is herd immunity.” Alan goes on to state, “Now remember I’ve said all along that 99% of all cases were mild, so even though someone wasn’t tested (and of course millions haven’t been who have had it), that triggers natural immunity. Professor Makary acknowledges that people are now getting vaccinated and that 15% of Americans so far have received the vaccine. He makes the point and I quote, ‘Many experts, politicians and journalists are afraid to talk about herd immunity. Herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination.’” Alan closes with, “To all my viewers from last Thursday night who were very critical, your texts were welcome, and generally your criticisms were valid. It’s a pity government doesn’t listen to legitimate criticism but instead, want to silence it”. One can log onto any government social media page and see that the silent majority is now making the most noise. People are standing up. There is power in numbers, and the pro-choice movement have the numbers, even though the TV and newspapers are spurting a very different narrative. “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a critical act.” – George Orwell. We must not be afraid to disagree. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always. For more information on how you can push back against forced medical interventions, please visit www.vaccinechoiceaustralia.com.au First C19 vaccine reaction in Australia: Anaphylaxis is not an acceptable side effect of any drug3/4/2021  Today Nine News reported that a Gold Coast Health Worker has suffered anaphylaxis after receiving their first dose of the Pfizer Covid 19 vaccine. The unidentified health worker was still in intensive care at the time of writing.
This is not ok. The very short article goes on to explain “Anaphylaxis has been identified as a possible side effect from any vaccination.” Yes – you read that right. Anaphylaxis is a listed side effect of any vaccine. If you read the vaccine inserts, you will note anaphylaxis listed under adverse events. We encourage our readers to go click on these (perhaps the very common MMRII for example, which is given to infants), do a word search (ctrl+f) for anaphylaxis, it is right there for all to see. Why is it acceptable to have a death-inducing reaction to a vaccine, when the risk of death from the disease the vaccine is trying to protect you from is so minimal. In the case of Covid19 we are talking about a fatality rate of less than 0.05%. The answer is, it is NOT acceptable. Not for a Covid-19 vaccine, not for any vaccine. The harsh reality is that there is no long-term safety data for any Covid 19 vaccine. We simply do not know that it is safe – that is the bottom line. The article also goes on to state that “Gold Coast Health advise that you must not get a COVID-19 vaccine if you have had a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of the same COVID-19 vaccine or any kind of anaphylaxis after exposure to any ingredient of the vaccine”. So let’s take a look at the ingredients in the Pfizer vaccine, you know, just to check and see if we are allergic to any of them: The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine includes the following ingredients: mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3- phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose. It is safe to assume that most human beings have never tried mRNA DNA by injection seeing as though it has never before been approved for human use until now under “emergency authorisation”. A quick research into the rest of the ingredients would leave even the most scientific laymen among us absolutely horrified. Does our government really think Australians are a bunch of simpletons who will just blindly line up for this type of untested, unapproved, and as we see now, potentially fatal product? All to simply reduce the severity of symptoms for a virus which most people don’t even know they have had until they get a PCR test? Shame on anyone who underestimates the grit of an Aussie. Let’s circle back to the MMRII vaccine as an example that has gone through the extended and proper development process for an approved, on-the-market product. Below is the complete list of adverse reactions detailed in the MMRII vaccine insert by Merck & Co. Worth noting this vaccine is administered to infants and toddlers in multiple doses, often before any allergens to the child are discovered, and long before that child can even speak. “The following adverse reactions include those identified during clinical trials or reported during postapproval use of M-M-R II vaccine or its individual components. Body as a Whole: Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability. Cardiovascular System: Vasculitis. Digestive System: Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea. Hematologic and Lymphatic Systems: Thrombocytopenia; purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; leukocytosis. Immune System: Anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, angioedema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm. Musculoskeletal System Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia. Nervous System: Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia. Respiratory System: Pneumonia; pneumonitis; sore throat; cough; rhinitis. Skin: Stevens-Johnson syndrome; acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritus; injection site reactions (pain, erythema, swelling and vesiculation). Special Senses — Ear: Nerve deafness; otitis media. Special Senses — Eye: Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; conjunctivitis. Urogenital System: Epididymitis; orchitis.” We share this list in full to demonstrate that we simply do not have this long-term safety data for any Covid 19 vaccines. Here at VCA we encourage our readers to research for themselves and are happy to provide support and links to information. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always. For more information on how you can push back against forced medical interventions, please visit www.vaccinechoiceaustralia.com.au |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
May 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
Home
|
Truth Day
|
Connect
|
News
|
© Copyright 2020 Vaccine Choice Australia Privacy Policy