On the 28th of May 2021, Victoria was plunged into another draconian lockdown yet again. Businesses and schools were closed, mental health issues continue to increase exponentially, and domestic violence is rising to frightening new levels. However, according to journalist Jon Faine, we have NO RIGHT to complain. Published in The (left leaning) Age, it comes as no surprise that Jon uses classic virtue signalling to make other left leaning baby boomers, who have done quite well in life, feel bad enough to toe the line and “do the right thing”. The same people who got their degrees for free in the 1970’s and marched for freedom, now drive European cars, own second homes and secretly feel bad about becoming what they swore they would not. So, with the world crashing down around them, it’s time to use the tried and true methods of shame and guilt. Let’s take a look at what we should feel bad about. First up, it’s enjoying coffee, exhibitions, food and concerts for one. Has this man even been to Melbourne? To say that eateries, events and other such “frivolous activities” are not major parts of the economy ignores the $23.4 billion tourism generates every year and the some 232,000 people it employs. It is a particularly tone deaf comment considering that the very day Jon’s article was published, thousands of hospitality and creative entrepreneurs marched at Flinders Street Station, opposing the Victorian Government's disproportionate response to the pandemic, and imploring them to let them get back to work. Tell them the “real economy” isn’t built on “discretionary spending”. And those international students that our universities depend on that you speak of, Jon? They tend to come to Melbourne for its once vibrant food and cultural scene, to either enjoy it or work in it. Without it, Victoria loses around $6 billion dollars. But you’re right, we shouldn’t complain about the Government shutting down our lives and costing the economy almost $27 billion dollars. It is hard to see why Jon believes that these measures are widely supported. The World Health Organisation has condemned lockdowns as a means to control the pandemic, because it disadvantages those at most risk, making the poor people poorer. The very people who Jon wants us to think about, are the most disadvantaged by the lockdowns. Why then should we not use our voices to oppose these measures? Of course, Jon also hits out at those who do not wear masks, saying that they are “not taking the simplest precaution”. Funny that, because there is a slew of evidence that says mask wearing does not protect you at all from the spicy flu. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrates that the “diameter (of a SARS-CoV-2 particle) varied from about 60 to 140 nm”. N95 masks filter out particles 300nm and above. Based on the size of the virus particle alone, masks do not work. Cloth masks are even less effective. The authors of another study in the New England Journal of Medicine explain that “wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection”, and that the “desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic”. Could they be referring to people such as Jon? And lastly, a study in medRxiv states that the “evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19”. In his article, Jon claimed that he would “decline any conversation about how annoying lockdown is” if someone walked around with their mask over their mouth but not their nose. Jon, would you also decline a conversation based on science on how ineffective masks actually are? Of course, what this article is all about, is vaccine refusal. If we have “not bothered” to get our jab or are refusing to do so, then we should forfeit any right to complain about lockdowns because we are not contributing to communal safety. Now, here is where Jon gets it really wrong, because there is not one piece of evidence that suggests that the vaccine stops transmission. Prime Minister Scott Morrison admitted as much by stating that there is not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. Former Chief Medical Officer Professor Brendan Murphy agreed that we could still get COVID-19 and infect others even after receiving the vaccine. And the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has yet to be addressed. There has been no hard scientific evidence presented by governments as to what amount of the population being vaccinated will allow us to open up and go back to normal. And the most glaringly obvious fact is that there is no data that exists to show that these vaccines are safe in the medium or long term. If you want that safety data, it won’t be available until 2023, because, dear Jon, we are the experiment and these vaccines are only provisionally approved. A quick look at the TGA website will show you that, as of the time of writing, these new COVID-19 vaccines have had around 24,500 adverse reactions in the few short months that it has been on the market. So you see Jon, many of us are not complacent or lazy, we have simply done our research and made the decision that it is our body and our choice. Isn’t that what your generation marched about? The freedom to choose, to go out and build businesses and legacies, and to contribute to the economy. This is what Australia is all about. Last we checked, Australia was a place where we could enjoy a great concert, a good cup of coffee, and choose whether we wanted to be a part of the biggest drug trial in human history without fear of shame or ridicule. Australia stands for inclusivity, for freedom and for letting everyone have a go. Shame on you Jon for segregating the nation with your divisive piece. It is you who should be ashamed, not us.
0 Comments
 Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has announced that Qantas will launch an incentives program from July to encourage people to get vaccinated. The program will also include anyone who has already received the vaccine.
In a recent interview, Mr Joyce said that “we are looking at giving 1000 points flight vouchers, credits and we are going to offer ten mega prizes, at least one for each state and territory, where a family of four get unlimited travel on the Qantas and Jetstar network, anywhere in the network for a year”. “We are trying our best to help with this vaccine rollout – it will be retrospective and will include anyone who has already been vaccinated and will apply to anybody that is vaccinated until the end of 2021.” This announcement comes after Mr Joyce’s comments in late 2020 that “future international travel will require compulsory vaccinations”, and that Qantas will be “changing terms and conditions for travel”. It seems that Qantas isn’t the only company incentivising the experimental injection. In the US, New Jersey was offering a “shot and a beer” for those who received their first dose in May, whilst Detroit is giving out “$50 prepaid cards” to anyone who drives a resident to a vaccine site. Meanwhile in Maryland, state employees are being offered a “$100 payment” for being vaccinated. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts is offering a free doughnut a day for the rest of the year with proof of vaccination. Which is ironic given that people with comorbidities such as obesity are at far greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than those who are healthy. In Cleveland, Chagrin Cinemas were offering free popcorn, whilst Market Garden Brewery were offering 10-cent beers. In gets worse. In Arizona, Mint Dispensary were offering free cannabis, whilst Greenhouse of Walled Lake were offering a free pre-rolled joint. If the vaccine doesn’t get you, the drugs most certainly will. Some of the other companies offering incentives in the US include AT&T, Instacart, Target, Trader Joe’s, Chobani, Petco, Darden Restaurant, McDonald’s and Dollar General. This is despite the fact that there has been over 4,400 deaths reported to the VAERS database in the US following vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine. However, it appears that Ohio is the place to be. Governor Mike De Wine announced that there will be five lucky winners of a cash prize of $1 million. That’s right. You could win a million dollars for simply rolling up your sleeve and taking an injection that bypassed critical animal trials. Hopefully these lucky people will actually get to enjoy their prize money. Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly has stated that Australia needs to look at “as many incentives as we can” to increase vaccination rates. Part of this plan is vaccine passports. Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently announced his intentions to develop vaccine passports to allow people to travel domestically without the need for quarantine if they come from a known ‘hotspot’. This was met with severe backlash, not just from the public, but also from state premiers and even his own colleagues. The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. Could incentives be considered as coercion? It is difficult enough for people to find the truth amongst the government and media propaganda, let alone have incentives thrown their way to ‘push them over the line’. If we were in the midst of a global pandemic so severe that we had to shut our international borders, quarantine every returning traveller for 14 days in a hotel, lockdown cities for days or weeks at a time, costing the economy billions of dollars and countless livelihoods (and lives), mandate masks in and outside, and force thousands, if not millions, of people to get tested, even when healthy, why do we need to incentivise the vaccine that is supposed to be our ‘ticket’ to freedom? If this pandemic was a deadly as we are made to believe, and the vaccine was safe and effective as we have been repeatedly told, then wouldn’t people be rushing out to get it? We have seen the effects of the recent lockdown in Victoria, and how there has been a surge in people receiving the vaccine. Was this done intentionally? Are our governments using draconian lockdown measures to pressure people into taking the vaccine? Campaign Edge owner Dee Madigan claimed recently that “the only way to get through to people now is through a scare campaign… Or the other way to do it is to offer people incentives.” Why do people need to be scared into taking an injection with no long-term safety data for a virus with a 99.8% survival rate in those under the age of 70? This most certainly is pressuring, coercion and manipulating people into receiving the vaccine. The fear campaign has been running wild since the beginning of the pandemic. According to German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, the “sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told”. Dr Joseph Mercola refers to the pandemic as a “casedemic” due to the constant fear around the number of ‘cases’. Cases are not a measure of severity when it comes to a disease. The government and media have continuously created fear around people who are a ‘positive case’, regardless of whether they are infectious or not. This is especially true for Australians returning from overseas. The TGA’s most recent report on the number of reactions post-vaccination is nothing short of horrifying. Since the beginning of this year, there has been 1 death due to COVID-19. However, during the same period of time, there has been 210 deaths reported after receiving the vaccine, along with 22,031 adverse events. Given that Australia is on track to record more deaths post-vaccination than from COVID-19 itself, why should we be incentivised into taking an experimental injection that quite clearly does more harm than good? The vaccine does not provide immunity or prevent transmission. There was no statistical significance in the clinical trials to show that it prevents severe illness, hospitalisation or death. Yet, there have been thousands of adverse events and deaths reported post-vaccine in countries all over the world. The media needs to stop lying to us, and the government needs to stop the rollout of the vaccine immediately. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Not incentives.  Australia slammed shut its international border in March 2020. Since that time, Australia has had one of the strictest border measures in the world. Residents have been banned from leaving the country, and international arrivals have been capped for the majority of this time. There are over 36,000 Australian citizens still currently stranded overseas.
A number of health officers and politicians have stated recently that we have to abandon our “fortress” approach and look at reopening our borders. However, it comes with a catch. We must all be vaccinated. Victorian Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton recently stated that “we all need to step up to get vaccinated in order to open up Australia to world travel and arrivals so that our education sector, tourism sector and all of the other kinds of compassionate reasons for us to see family and friends overseas can come to the fore.” Professor Sutton said that we are at a “critical juncture where we need to make a call on letting it (the virus) run”, rather than trying to eliminate it completely. As we have seen around the world, elimination is not achievable. Former Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Nick Coatsworth addressed the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons’ during their annual scientific meeting, where he had this to say: “We once again have a responsibility as a profession to calmly reassure the community that vaccines must be taken up when they are offered, that waiting is not a valid option either individually or for the public health, and that ultimately when we allow COVID-19 back on our shores and it circulates in our community, that we are prepared and comfortable for that to happen.” NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian claimed that NSW “need to do around 10 million jabs to get the majority of our population vaccinated” in order to reopen borders. Victorian MP Tim Wilson said that the country risked becoming a “hermit outpost” with the ongoing border closures, whilst New South Wales MP David Sharma stated that there were “real and significant costs, economic and personal, to keeping borders closed”. Even the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg acknowledged that “you can’t eliminate the virus”, yet the government has forecast international borders to reopen during the middle of 2022. Well, at this stage. Dr Coastworth stated that “the (medical) profession can help the community have a stronger, higher appetite for risk by reassuring them of the effectiveness of the vaccine, the importance of getting vaccinated and the (benefits) of having a vaccinated immune population”. Physicians for Informed Consent have produced a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine risk statement. One of the questions asked is whether the COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safer than COVID-19. Here is the answer. “The extent to which the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is effective and safer than COVID-19 is not known. The clinical trial indicates that in subjects 65 to 74 years old, the vaccine may be only 53% effective, and in subjects 75 years or older, the age group that comprises about 60% of all COVID-19 deaths, the vaccine may be 0% effective; also, in children age 16 to 17 the vaccine may not be effective. The clinical trial did not have enough statistical power to measure the vaccine’s ability to prevent hospitalisations and deaths, and the trial did not assess if the vaccine prevents asymptomatic infection or spread (transmission) of the virus.” “Severe adverse events in the vaccine group occurred in 1 in 91 subjects in the Pfizer clinical trial. The CDC has recorded that 1 in 43 vaccinated subjects was unable to perform normal daily activities and required medical attention. Furthermore, for people 15 to 34 years of age, the clinical trial did not include enough subjects to be able to show that the vaccine is safer than the disease, and because the clinical trial observation period lasted only two months, the incidence of long-term side effects from the vaccine for any age group is not known.” At the time of writing, the chance of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is 0.11%, whilst the chance of dying from COVID-19 is 0.0035% in Australia. For those under the age of 70, the survival rate is 99.8%. However, the chance of having an adverse event from the vaccine is 0.67%. That is six times higher than even testing positive to the virus, let alone dying from COVID-19. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US quite clearly shows that that the vaccine is not safe. Over 4,000 deaths have been reported following the COVID-19 vaccine, and that’s only in the last six months. Nearly 200,000 adverse events have been reported, and typically only 1-10% of adverse events are actually reported on VAERS. The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. Allowing people to travel only if they have been vaccinated is not acting in accordance with the criteria for valid consent. From the moment the borders snapped shut and there was talk of a vaccine, it was clear that the federal and state governments would use travel as a way to coerce people into receiving the experimental injection. Does this mean that people who choose not to take the vaccine simply won’t be allowed to travel? Isn’t this coercion and manipulation? Travel must not be used as a lure for people to take the vaccine. They must be provided with all of the information, and allowed to make an informed decision. Continue to ask questions. Continue to seek more information. And continue to share this information with others. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently stated that “international borders will only open when it is safe to do so”, and that we “still have a long way to go, and there are still many uncertainties ahead”. Mr Morrison also claimed that he “doesn’t see an appetite” for Australia opening its borders, and that he intends to be “cautious” with the vaccine rollout.
“All I know is once you let (COVID-19) back in again, you cannot get it out. You’ve crossed that threshold. We continue to roll out the vaccination program, over the course of this year, and in the meantime, I intend to be cautious, it’s in my nature.” It may be in Mr Morrison’s nature to be cautious, but how does this help the 36,000 Australians stranded overseas? Nearly 5,000 of these people are considered vulnerable. And this doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of Australians currently living abroad as expats who are unable to return home to see their family and friends. The United Nations human rights committee requested that Australia promptly allow two Australian citizens to return home from the US last month. More recently, an Australian citizen stranded in India launched a lawsuit against Health Minister Greg Hunt following the travel ban on flights from India, and the threat of fines of up to $66,600, or five years imprisonment, or both. However, here is the most important thing. The Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, stated that there was not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. There it is. Our own Prime Minister finally acknowledging that the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission. If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why are we being told repeatedly that we need to take it to protect our loved ones, those who are more vulnerable, and the community in general? If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why do we need a vaccine passport? A vaccine by definition provides immunity and prevents transmission. If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why is it being labelled as a vaccine to begin with? Finance Minister Simon Birmingham echoed Mr Morrison’s comments by saying that there are “uncertainties around aspects of the vaccine rollout including the duration of effectiveness of vaccines, what it means in relation to other variants of COVID”. The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the “duration of protection is not yet known”. It also says that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, and that “a correlate of protection has yet to be established”. This report was published in January 2021, and it clearly states that the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The clinical trials were not designed to detect transmission prevention. The government has known this information all along, so why wasn’t it made public? Is it possible that even less people would choose to take the vaccine if they knew that it didn’t prevent transmission? Health Minister Greg Hunt recently weighed into the discussion on reopening the international borders. In a press conference, Mr Hunt said, “Is travel an incentive for people to be vaccinated? Absolutely.” He also stated that people who have been vaccinated will have an “easier passage out and easier passage in” with regards to travelling in and out of the country. Why does the government need to incentivise the vaccine? If the pandemic was as bad as they make it out to be, and the vaccine was safe and effective, why are people not lining up to take it? Why does the government need to convince people of its benefits? Wouldn’t people naturally take it to protect their health and the health of those around them? In NSW, six travellers who returned from overseas, all of whom were fully vaccinated, tested positive for the virus. The vaccine does not provide immunity. The Australian Public Assessment Report and the data from the clinical trials confirms this. In fact, the data from the clinical trials for the Pfizer vaccine showed no statistical significance in preventing COVID-19 seven days after the second dose. MP’s Craig Kelly and George Christensen have already signalled that they will oppose the introduction of a vaccine passport. There are currently 17 states in the US who have either signed executive orders, or who are in the process of signing executive orders, to ban vaccine passports. Mr Christensen stated that vaccine passports would “segregate Australians into haves and have nots”, labelling them as “discriminatory”. He has asked his followers on social media to “push back for the sake of freedom”. We should all support Mr Kelly and Mr Christensen in their fight to ban vaccine passports. One of our basic human rights is the right to travel, and those who choose not to take the vaccine should not be punished for doing so. Vaccine passports would remove this basic human right. It is time to stand up and take back our freedoms. Our government have been elected to serve us, not the other way around. Many of our freedoms have already been stolen from us. Will our right to travel overseas to see loved ones, to work, or to experience the world be next? Join us on our Stand Up Australia tour. Visit www.standupnowaustralia.com.au for more information.  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.  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. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
June 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
Home
|
Truth Day
|
Connect
|
News
|
© Copyright 2020 Vaccine Choice Australia Privacy Policy