The Department of Health website states that one child has died from COVID-19. A male aged 10-19 years. This is the first COVID-19 death in Australia in children, according to official government data.
However, upon further investigation, and as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, the child did not die from COVID-19. The 15-year-old male tragically passed away from pneumococcal meningitis.
As the boy tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, he was subsequently listed as a COVID-19 death. The hospital has confirmed that the “patient was also COVID-positive, however this was not the reason for his admission and was not the cause of death”.
Even NSW Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant confirmed that “he died from pneumococcal meningitis”.
If his cause of death was confirmed not to be COVID-19, why has he been added to the official death toll for COVID-19?
Furthermore, how many other people have died from other causes and have been listed as COVID-19 deaths?
The government continues the sprout the narrative that we must learn to live with COVID-19, and that we will focus on hospitalisations and deaths rather than case numbers. How can we focus on hospitalisations and deaths when the numbers are not being recorded accurately?
Which begs the question, what other data has been manipulated to instil fear into the population?
In spite of the inaccurate recording of data, it is clear that COVID-19 does not impact children. What does impact children is closing schools and impeding their education.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine highlights the importance of keeping schools open.
Sweden took a different approach to almost all other countries in 2020. This included keeping preschools and schools open, encouraging social distancing and discouraging the use of face masks for children.
From March to June 2020, 15 children with COVID-19 were admitted to ICU. 4 had an underlying chronic condition. No child died of COVID-19.
During the same period, less than 10 preschool teachers and 20 school teachers were admitted to ICU with COVID-19.
The study concluded that “despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C (multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children), or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”
Again, no child died from COVID-19 during this time.
Closing schools is not the only thing that negatively impacts children. Locking them inside and stopping them from being active is extremely detrimental to their health.
QJM conducted a systematic review of the literature on the relationship between vitamin D levels, risk and severity of COVID-19 in the paediatric population. This is what the results revealed:
Why are playgrounds closed? Why are sporting activities cancelled? Why aren’t our kids playing outside in the sunshine, which not only helps protect them against COVID-19, but also improves their overall health and wellbeing?
The most frightening aspect of the pandemic for children is the impact on their mental health.
Kids Helpline revealed that suicide rates among Victorian teenagers has “skyrocketed by 184 per cent” from 1 December 2020 to May 31 2021. Teenagers aged 13-18 accounted for 75% of total crisis interventions during this time.
44% of Victorian emergency interventions were responding to a “young person’s immediate intent to suicide”, whilst 31% involved child abuse emergencies.
“Where schools and other community connections may have previously played a role supporting young people at risk of abuse, the extended lockdowns and home schooling may have led to an increase in young people seeking support from us”, said Kids Helpline Project Manager Leo Hede.
The impact of closing schools goes far beyond just education.
Calls to Kids Helpline by children aged 5-9 increased by 80%, duty of care interventions increased by 48% compared to 2019, and referrals to police, ambulance and Child Safety for children at “imminent risk of serious harm” were 46% higher than the previous three months.
These statistics are devasting, heart breaking and incomprehensible. Why are our children being harmed unnecessarily? When is enough, enough?
It’s time to bring logic, common sense and science back into the conversation. Three things that have been sorely missing over the past 18 months.
Children are not at risk from COVID-19. Yet, they are at risk of delayed development, poorer health outcomes and mental health issues, including suicide.
Lockdowns, masks and vaccines are not the answer for children. The answer is to get them back to school, keep them active, and let them simply be kids again.
Tragically, our children may end up being the greatest casualties of the pandemic. We must do everything we can to protect our children before it’s too late.
WA Premier Mark McGowan became the first premier in Australia to introduce domestic vaccine passports.
Travellers entering Western Australia from New South Wales will have to show proof that they have had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. They must also provide evidence of a negative COVID-19 PCR test in the 72 hours prior to departure, and they must comply with the existing quarantine and testing measures.
The new measures will also apply for people arriving from all states and territories that are deemed “high risk” in the future. According to the Western Australian government, a state or territory will be considered high risk if it records an average of 50 COVID-19 cases a day.
Mr McGowan acknowledged that “these are tough measures but they are necessary to protect the state”.
“I think this is actually a template for other states to look at, should they want to put in place measures to protect themselves from the raging outbreak in New South Wales”, said Mr McGowan.
It didn’t take long for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to follow Mr McGowan’s advice.
It will be a requirement for essential workers who need to cross into Queensland from New South Wales to be vaccinated. Ms Palaszczuk said that “we are extremely concerned about the possibility of this virus coming into Queensland so we will take every precaution we possibly can”.
Which begs the question, who qualifies as an essential worker? Does earning an income and supporting your family make you essential? Does paying your mortgage and children’s school fees make you essential? Does running a business to support the economy make you essential? We are all essential. The country wouldn’t operate without each and every one of us playing our part and contributing to society.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison publicly supported the introduction of domestic vaccine passports by saying “I think that's very consistent with what the national plan is seeking to achieve”. However, he stopped short of saying they would be a permanent fixture.
“It’s a decision for now because borders exist now… The whole point of getting to higher and higher levels of vaccination – in particular when we get to 80 per cent – is that’s when we’re saying goodbye to lockdowns... When there are no lockdowns there should be no borders… We’re not running a mandatory vaccination program… In specific cases, we may seek to do that for public health reasons. But otherwise, that’s just not how we do things in Australia.”
Let’s see if he is true to his word.
Perhaps Mr McGowan and Ms Palaszczuk, along with Mr Morrison, should look at the data coming out of various countries with high vaccination rates.
At the time of writing, according to Our World in Data, 81% of the eligible population in Iceland are vaccinated, with 75% fully vaccinated. However, the Intensive Care Unit at the National University Hospital is in danger of being overwhelmed due to an increased in COVID-19 cases.
73 people were hospitalised, with approximately 67% fully vaccinated. 23 people were in the emergency department, with 17 fully vaccinated and 6 unvaccinated. Out of these people, 6 out of the 11 patients in ICU were fully vaccinated. Approximately two-thirds of the current cases are in people who have been vaccinated.
The Prime Minister has stated that lockdowns and border closures will ease when 80% of the population is vaccinated. Perhaps he should look at what is happening in Iceland with 80% of the population vaccinated.
In Singapore, 77% of the population is vaccinated, with 71% fully vaccinated. In the most recent outbreak in July, out of 1,096 locally transmitted cases, 44% were in fully vaccinated people, 30% were in partially vaccinated people and 25% were in unvaccinated people. 1% was unknown.
If Mr McGowan or Ms Palaszczuk believe that the vaccine will prevent cases in their states, they better think again. The data clearly shows that the vaccine is ineffective at preventing someone from developing COVID-19.
Israel, often considered the testing ground due to their quick roll out of the Pfizer vaccine, is also experiencing a spike in cases. So far, 68% of the population is vaccinated, with 63% fully vaccinated. Recent data shows that 84% of the cases in those above the age of 19 were in fully vaccinated individuals.
In Massachusetts in the US, there was a recent outbreak of 469 cases according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC. 69% of eligible residents were vaccinated against COVID-19, yet 74% of the cases occurred in fully vaccinated people.
Why do our politicians and health officials continue to ignore the data? Can it be any more obvious?
The TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that a “correlate of protection has yet to be established” and that the “duration of protection” is unknown.
What is known is that the vaccine is ineffective at protecting against COVID-19. If this is the case, how can Mr McGowan and Ms Palaszczuk require people to have had at least one dose of the vaccine to cross the state border to WA and QLD from NSW?
It is also known that the effectiveness is significantly lower after the first dose compared to the second. This sets a dangerous precedent for other states to follow.
Why are people being prevented from earning an income for refusing to inject a product into their body with no long-term safety data?
Why are families being separated from each other for choosing not to take a vaccine with more adverse events in 6 months than for all other vaccines in 30 years?
Why are people not being allowed to say goodbye to dying loved ones for choosing not to be part of a mass population experiment?
Whether you choose to take the vaccine or not is your choice. The point is it should remain a choice.
What no one has the right to do, including the Prime Minister and state premiers, is coerce, force or pressure people into taking an experimental injection, and restricting their liberties and freedoms if they refuse to do so.
We cannot let this continue any longer. It’s time to stand up Australia. Enough is enough.
After the TGA provisionally approved the Pfizer vaccine for children 12-15 years of age, Health Minister Greg Hunt stated that the vaccine will likely be available to children from October, with vaccines to be administered in schools and medical centres.
“All the available advice is they are likely to open it up to kids and school-based vaccinations with every state and territory,” Mr Hunt said. “It will be this year, and it’s likely to commence in the last quarter, if not earlier.”
The government continue to ignore the evidence.
An article in the British Medical Journal explains how COVID-19 is mild and serious sequelae are rare in children.
“Despite ‘long covid’ recently garnering increased attention, two large studies in children show that prolonged symptoms are uncommon and overall similar or milder in children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to those with symptoms from other respiratory viruses.”
“The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) estimates put the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children 0 to 17 years old at 20 per 1,000,000. Hospitalisation rates are also very low, and have likely been overestimated.”
“Furthermore, a large proportion of children have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The CDC estimates 42% of US children aged 5 to 17 years have been infected by March 2021.”
“Given that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust immune response in the majority of individuals, the implication is that the risks COVID-19 poses to the paediatric population may be even lower than generally appreciated.”
Professors Robert Booy and Russell Viner support these claims in their article in Insight Plus.
“Children have a very low rate of severe complication or death. It is striking that for each child death from COVID-19 in the US (about 400 in total), more than 1,500 adults have died (>600,000 deaths). The UK has had over 100,000 deaths in adults; there were just 25 child deaths in the year to March 2021, a rate of about two for every million children.”
The numbers simply don’t add up. It has been well documented since the beginning of the pandemic that children are at the lowest risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. Why is there even a consideration to vaccinate children?
The British Medical Journal authors continue by explaining the unknown risks of the vaccine.
“A large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown. Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000 in men ages 16 to 24.”
“Furthermore, the long-term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown.”
Adverse events continue to rise in the US in children aged 12-17 years. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there have been 15,741 adverse events, including 947 serious events and, tragically, 18 deaths.
There have been 2,323 reports of anaphylaxis, 406 reports of myocarditis and 77 reports of blood clotting disorders.
These numbers alone should cause the entire vaccine roll out to cease.
Deakin University’s chair of epidemiology Catherine Bennett claims that “now we have delta we can see how many children are impacted and how central schools are to the spread of the virus. If we don’t vaccinate school-aged children, as soon as we have virus in the community it will end up in a school and spread quickly if this remains a largely unvaccinated group.”
However, according to the British Medical Journal, “school teachers are more likely to get SARS-CoV-2 from other adults than they are from their students. The contribution of schools to community transmission has been consistently low across jurisdictions.”
This has been the case in many countries around the world, so why are our premiers and health officials rushing to vaccinate children?
Professors Robert Booy and Russell Viner ask another pertinent question.
“Why are children so resistant? Aren’t vaccine-preventable diseases meant to be the special scourge of children?”
Likely explanations included “better innate immunological resilience, cross-protection from prior exposure to other respiratory coronaviruses and higher adaptive immunity”.
“This resilience of healthy children begs the question of whether they need to be routinely vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK says they don’t.
“JCVI does not currently advise routine universal vaccination of children and young people less than 18 years of age”.
“At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. Until more safety data have accrued and their significance for children and young people has been more thoroughly evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.”
A precautionary approach would seem like a sensible and logical idea, two things that have been sorely missing throughout this pandemic.
Another question to ask is could the impact on herd immunity of vaccinating children be of substantial benefit to adults?
Modelling by the Peter Doherty Institute suggests not. According to Professors Booy and Viner, “routine vaccination of well teenagers aged 12–15 years adds little to the reduction in COVID-19 transmission through the community”.
The following question may be the most important question of all.
“Should children be vaccinated with newly developed COVID-19 vaccines when direct (acute COVID-19 and long COVID-19) and indirect (herd immunity) benefits are very limited, and when their long term safety and immunogenicity are still to be determined?”
The simple answer is no.
“Further, how can informed consent be well informed, with the unavoidable uncertainty over longer term (1 year or more) safety?”
It can’t be.
The answers to these questions seem so obvious, yet our government bureaucrats and health officials continue their relentless push to vaccinate children.
Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Clearly they do not.
Children have already suffered at the expense of adults. Lockdowns, school closures, mask wearing, quarantine, isolation, and more. This has had a detrimental impact on their education, socialisation, development and mental health.
Yet, despite the lack of long-term efficacy and safety data, and the minimal risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death, reports are emerging that Moderna is eyeing off Australia as a potential location for a COVID-19 vaccine trial on children aged 6 months to 12 years. This must be stopped immediately.
With regards to vaccinating children to protect adults, the British Medical Journal sums it up by stating that “this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events”.
“Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.”
“There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against COVID-19 – the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown.”
Our children are not lab rats and they are not to be experimented on. We need to do everything we can to protect our children.
It’s time to stand up and unite for our future generations.
By Dr Judy Wilyman
The proof that no virus is required to diagnose a ‘case’ of COVID disease is provided in the recently updated standardised surveillance case-definition of COVID19 disease (2021). This definition is discussed later in this article which provides you with the knowledge of why an asymptomatic person for COVID19 (a flu-like illness), in countries with good public health infrastructure, is not a risk to the community. In fact, they are beneficial to creating the herd immunity needed to live in harmony with these viruses: as we have done for the last seventy years with all flu-like illnesses.
Background to my Research:
My global newsletter Vaccination Decisions has enabled me to contribute my university research to the vaccination debate for the last eight years. However, this came to an end on 10th October 2020 when Mailchimp censored my newsletter by disabling my account. Did you know that Mailchimp has been in partnership with the US CDC since 2018?
In 2015 I completed a PhD investigating the reasons for the decline in deaths and hospitalisations (risk) to infectious diseases by 1950 in Australia – and in all developed countries. This included an investigation into the role that vaccines played in this decline.
I set up this newsletter in 2012 when I recognised that this public interest science was being suppressed from public debate in all the official channels. This is the result of powerful industry-lobby groups in Australia (and globally) that are influencing all media outlets and research institutions.
Due to this global newsletter my PhD has now been downloaded thousands of times and in March 2020 my book, “Vaccination: Australia’s Loss of Health Freedom”, became available just as everyone globally was being locked down.
The Reversal of the Traditional Measures for Controlling Infectious Diseases
In 2020-21 all the traditional measures for controlling infectious diseases were reversed for the first time in history by the World Health Organisation (WHO). This organisation, that is advised by the corporate-public partnerships in the GAVI alliance, including the Federation of Pharmaceutical Companies, falsely claimed that healthy (asymptomatic) people are a ‘risk’ to the community if the virus is identified in their body.
This was stated by the WHO scientists in March 2020 even though the WHO had no data to base this claim on in March 2020. Remember, this novel Coronavirus 2019 (SARS-Cov-2) only appeared in January 2020 and there was no evidence provided to support the statement that healthy people without symptoms were a risk to the community. It was being assumed that a positive PCR result, a test that cannot diagnose disease, indicated an asymptomatic 'case' of disease.
This assumption has led to journalists and health departments reporting healthy people as a ‘case’ of disease in 2020-21, wildly inflating the risk from this alleged new flu virus in the media. This false assumption has led to healthy people being locked up in quarantine for two weeks as well as to the unnecessary masking of healthy people, social distancing and isolating of the elderly.
The mainstream media is not required to list the symptoms of the ‘cases’ of disease they are reporting, and this has enabled the government to hide this fact. This allows the media to frighten the public with cases of disease that are healthy people (no symptoms), and deaths that are elderly people with co-morbidity, that die with the flu every year. The difference is that this year, the media is reporting these deaths - normally you do not hear about them.
The fact that the WHO did not have any evidence in March 2020 to support the claim that ‘asymptomatic’ people are a risk to society, is provided by Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, on 8 June 2020 (at 34.07 – 34.52 mins), only three months after the 'pandemic' was declared. This WHO spokesperson appears to understand the traditional measures of controlling infectious diseases because she states that you isolate the people with symptoms and trace their contacts to prevent transmission.
However, even though she states that asymptomatic transmission is ‘very rare’, because the WHO doesn’t have any data to claim otherwise, she concludes that the WHO still advises that ‘some people without symptoms can still transmit the virus on.’ (CheckYourFact 2 December 2020)
The flaw in this WHO statement is that there is a difference between transmitting the virus and transmitting disease. Whilst the virus can be passed on from a sub-clinical infection this does not lead to disease in the majority of cases in countries with good public health infrastructure.
Infection only leads to disease when there are poor environmental conditions or poor host characteristics. Hence, asymptomatic people do not transmit disease in the population, they transmit infection that is mostly beneficial when good conditions exist: asymptomatic 'cases' generate natural herd immunity.
This is the reason why the WHO changed the definition of 'herd immunity' in December 2020. It was to claim that only vaccine created herd immunity would be successful with COVID19 disease. This was claimed without any risk-benefit data for the COVID19 vaccine: this drug had not been trialled in humans in December 2020.
The WHO changed this definition without providing any scientific evidence to support the claim that 'vaccines can create herd immunity' and without any scrutiny from the scientific community. Therefore, the claim has not been validated and it has been done to support the WHO’s desired outcome; to make the world reliant on vaccines.
Viruses are around us all the time and we do not need to eradicate them to live without disease. This is because viruses on their own cannot cause disease: the cause of disease from infectious agents is multifactorial.
This is where the GAVI/ WHO partnerships have deceived the public in 2020. Scientists have known since 1950 that viruses mostly cause sub-clinical infections, that never develop disease symptoms, due to improvements in public health infrastructure and nutrition.
It is these sub-clinical infections that resulted in herd immunity in the population of developed countries by 1950/60. This led public health officials to claim that ‘infectious deaths fell before widespread vaccination was implemented’ (Fiona Stanley, Australian of the Year for Public Health, 2003). Even smallpox was not controlled until after 1950 when isolation of cases with symptoms, and case-tracing strategies played a significant role in the decline of this disease.
The fraudulent claims that are being made by the WHO are effectively manipulating public behaviour because the corporate-sponsored mainstream media and big tech companies are working together to censor public debate.
If this was a conspiracy theory, as the mainstream media would like you to believe, I would have hoped that the industry-lobby groups who petitioned to have my PhD removed in 2016 - after it was published on the University website – were successful. But they weren’t.
The University stood by this thesis because it provided the evidence to support the fact that global health policy is being designed by a collaboration of industry-partners. This is also supported by the extreme censorship of many doctors, scientists, and activists also providing this evidence to you in 2021. Science is only validated when it stands up to scrutiny from the community, so human health is at serious risk until we have this scientific debate.
The proof that no virus is required to diagnose a ‘case’ of COVID disease is provided in the recently updated standardised surveillance case-definition of COVID19 disease (2021). This definition includes:
i) You don't need to have a positive test to be counted as a case of COVID-19. Anyone with certain symptoms who has spent at least 15 minutes within 6 feet of "a probable case of COVID-19," OR is a "member of an exposed risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak or during high community transmission," and who does not have "a more likely diagnosis" is counted as a COVID-19 case.
ii) Any death certificate that lists COVID-19 "as an underlying cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death," with or without any laboratory evidence of COVID-19, is counted as a COVID-19 death.
iii) The symptoms to be counted as a case of ‘COVID-19 disease’ include the acute onset or worsening of at least two of the listed symptoms or signs in this updated document. However, what is not mentioned in the document is that all the listed flu-like symptoms are caused by hundreds of other infectious and non-infectious agents, and no proof is required by the doctor to diagnose the symptoms as being caused by the SARSCOV-2 virus.
By Dr Judy Wilyman
This article describes how the medical-industry paradigm has provided false and misleading information about vaccines to global populations for decades. Through its control of the education system, both doctors and research institutions, and through the mainstream media, it has been working towards this outcome for over three decades. This has resulted in agnotology: populations that are ignorant of the real risks and benefits of vaccines. In addition, I will provide evidence that there is no legitimate public health purpose for coercive vaccination because governments have not adopted these laws in any Health Actwith scientific evidence to support them.
Over the last 70 years the national immunization programs (NIP) of all countries have expanded as the World Health Organization (WHO), advised by the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiatives (GAVI), took control of the design of Global Health Policies. In Australia, as in many countries, this program expanded to include recommendations for 16 vaccines (~52 doses) in the NIP for children 0-14 years of age.
In 2016 Australia mandated the NIP in Social Services policies, but not in any Health Act in Australia. This allows the Australian Prime Minister to claim that ‘vaccines are not compulsory’ even though social services programs and businesses can coerce parents with their jobs, childhood education, welfare benefits, and travel. In other words, parents must ‘choose between using a drug or having the capacity to live in society. Is this a real choice?
These policies were implemented in Australia in 2016 under the title ‘Choices for Families’. In other words, as the government removed choices for families, they promoted the policy to Australians as creating choices for families.
These coercive vaccination policies have not been implemented in Australia in any Health Act because the government has not provided any scientific evidence to validate coercive vaccination policies as being for a legitimate public health purpose. If there is no health law to validate coercive vaccination, then governments are breaching all International Human Rights Covenants and medical ethics with these policies in social services legislation.
These social services policies remove parents right to welfare benefits, jobs, education, and travel. That is, they are losing their inalienable right to live in society without any scientific evidence being provided by the Australian government in any Health legislation. In addition, neither doctors nor their patients are informed of the ingredients of vaccines and the risk of chronic illness that appears months or years after the vaccine is given.
Did you know that antibiotics are in most vaccines? Many people are allergic to antibiotics, and using any vaccine carries the serious risk of anaphylactic shock to this and many other vaccine ingredients. Are you being informed of this before you give consent to the vaccination of your baby or yourself?
Please consider whether you want the substances listed below injected into the tissues of your newborn infant before its body systems are fully developed – including the blood brain barrier.
The 'new norm' in children's health since coercive vaccination policies were implemented in the 1990's (when doctors were paid in Australia for each vaccine that was administered), includes - allergies, anaphylaxis, Kawasaki's Disease (vasculitis), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), autoimmune disorders (diabetes, childhood rheumatoid arthritis, arthritis, multiple sclerosis etc.), thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), autism, speech delay, neurological disorders, encephalopathy, meningitis, ADHD, cancers, and many more that have increased in direct correlation to the vaccination program - a plausible cause of this illness . Whilst correlation is not causation a fundamental principle of evidence-based medicine is investigating all correlations before a drug is declared safe and effective to consumers.
This lack of investigation allows doctors and governments to claim, 'we don't know what causes these illnesses' and 'it would have developed anyway.’ Here is further evidence of the possible causal link between vaccines and autism. Here is the evidence that the CDC cannot support its claim that vaccines do not cause autism.
Your doctor will also inform you that the illness is 'just a coincidence' after vaccination because the Australian government and vaccine manufacturers have never funded a causality study that would prove this association. That is, a study that uses an inert placebo in the unvaccinated trial group to prove the safety of each vaccine over an appropriate long-term period: a period that includes the delay in the appearance of these diseases (5-10 years), or even the safety of combining 16 vaccines in the human body. That is, governments are assuming they are safe without any hard evidence to prove it. This is called ‘undone science’ and it is described in my PhD thesis.
Governments don’t have to prove the safety of these drugs because the pharmaceutical companies received indemnity for any vaccine product in the US Congress in 1986. The pharmaceutical companies needed to get indemnity in the 1980’s because they were paying millions of dollars in compensation every year for deaths and injuries due to vaccines. Does this evidence support the claim that vaccines are a ‘life saving drug’?
This removal of liability was achieved by deliberately creating fear to influence Members of Congress and the public at the time. Since 1986, as a result of this indemnity for vaccine manufacturers, governments have misused the precautionary principlein the design of vaccination policies. The precautionary principle was designed to protect the public’s health in the design of government public health policies. This principle can only protect ‘health’ in these policies if the onus of proof of harmlessness is on the proponent of the technology and not the public. However, since 1986 the onus of proof of harmlessness has been reversed to put the onus of proof on the public. In this format, it is protecting industry-interests in government policies, and not the public's interest of health because any evidence the public provides can be ignored.
This is the case even though the public has been informed that vaccination policies are designed to 'protect community health'. The community is trusting the government to be carrying out its duty of care to its citizens in protecting health in the design of public health policies. Yet by reversing the onus of proof, and by allowing serious conflicts of interest in government vaccine advisory boards, the government is protecting the industry-interests of profits in these policies. This is described more fully in my article ‘Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety.’
Despite the medical industry's knowledge that hundreds of chronic illnesses are linked to our genes (epigenetics), doctors, governments, and the media have been downplaying the risks of vaccines and exaggerating the benefits for decades.
This is how the indoctrination of the population has occurred, which strives for every individual to believe vaccines are only beneficial. A situation that is now leading to people taking the COVID ‘vaccine’ (for which there is no proven benefit and many proven risks) and even though the new genetic technology has never been tested in human clinical trials. Plus, in the small animal studies that were done, all the animals died upon re-exposure to wild coronaviruses. This is called Pathogenic Priming or a hyper-immune response. The effects of pathogenic priming are more clearly explained by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler PhD and Robert F Kennedy Jnr in this article ‘Pfizer COVID Vaccine Trial Shows Alarming Evidence of Pathogenic Priming in Older Adults.’
For thirty years the public has been educated with false and misleading health information from the industry-medical paradigm and from the mainstream media. The result is agnotology – a society that has been educated to be ignorant about the risks and benefits of vaccines.
Below are some of the common components of traditional vaccines that are not inert substances that doctors, and consumers are not informed about before vaccines are given:
Antibiotics: Neomycin, Polymyxin, Gentamicin, Kanamycin
Foreign Protein includes:
Human Foetal Cells
Chick embryo Cells and Bovine Serum
Recombinant Human Albumin (genetically engineered DNA)
Thimerosal (50% mercury compound) (flu vaccine multidose vials & infanrix-hexa & hep B 2013)
Borax ('sodium borate' - causes infertility and is found in HPV vaccines and hep A)
Polysorbate 80 - causes infertility
Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team