 SA-Best Party member Frank Pangallo has called for those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine to have what they do in the community “controlled and restricted”.
Mr Pangallo said that “while people might still have a choice whether or not to get vaccinated, what they can do in the community will need to be controlled and restricted”. “There would need to be a requirement incorporated with QR code information that if you want to travel on public transport, airlines, enter venues, shopping malls, restaurants and cafes, you will need to show you have been vaccinated… It might also have to apply for workplaces.” Mr Pangallo is advocating for the introduction of a ‘vaxport’, which is essentially a vaccine passport to participate within society. He also claimed that Australia is on the “cusp of a health and economic catastrophe”. This is fear mongering at its finest. Other countries are currently trying to implement similar measures. French President Emmanuel Macron is trying to make proof of vaccination or immunity from a COVID-19 infection mandatory in order to “enter cafes, restaurants and a range of other venues” such as museums, galleries and cinemas. However, Mr Macron was forced to walk back some of the proposed measures due to severe backlash from industries and the public. This is before the measures have even been implemented. In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has announced that proof of vaccination will be required to “enter nightclubs and other crowded venues” from the end of September. Again, this has been met with protests from an angry public who are marching for freedom of choice and the right to bodily integrity. In Greece, thousands of people protested in Athens against mandatory vaccination. Cardiologist Faidon Vovolis said that “every person has the right to choose… We're choosing that the government does not choose for us.” Mr Vovolis also questioned the scientific research around masks and vaccines. The key point here is that each individual has the right to choose and should not be punished for this choice. Any form of punishment would be considered coercion, and no one should be coerced into taking a vaccine against their will. In 2021, at the time of writing, there have been six deaths in Australia related to COVID-19, according to the Department of Health. During the same period, there have been four deaths following vaccination, according to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The TGA’s COVID-19 vaccine weekly safety report states that “four were confirmed and three were deemed probable TTS (thrombocytopenia syndrome)” following the AstraZeneca vaccine. There have 9,149,817 doses administered of the COVID-19 vaccine, with 39,077 adverse events reported at a reporting rate of 0.43%. To date, there have been 32,129 cases of COVID-19 with 915 deaths. The chance of an individual testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 is 0.13%, whilst the chance of someone dying from COVID-19 is 0.0036%. The chance of having an adverse event to the vaccine is nearly four times greater than the chance of testing positive to SARS-CoV-2, and nearly 120 times greater than dying from COVID-19. No wonder people are hesitant to take the vaccine. Furthermore, the TGA has granted the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provisional approval. They are not currently fully approved products. The clinical trials for both of the vaccines are not due for completion until 2023. The Minister for Health Greg Hunt declared in February that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Perhaps we should ask Mr Pangallo if he would knowingly participate in a vaccine trial. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the “longer term safety and… duration of vaccine protection” is unknown. What if the vaccine is deemed to be unsafe long term? What will the side effects be? There simply hasn’t been enough time to monitor long-term safety, which typically takes 3-4 years. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that there are other limitations with the submitted data and that the following questions have not yet been addressed:
Mr Pangallo, how can you say that people should be prevented from participating in society by refusing an experimental vaccine with no long-term safety data? Will you be held responsible should people suffer from severe adverse events or die? In the US, nearly 11,000 deaths have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following vaccination, along with over 460,000 adverse events. More deaths have been reported in six months for the COVID-19 vaccine than for all other vaccines in the last 30 years. What’s more, only 1-10% of adverse events are typically reported to VAERS. In the UK, more than 1,400 deaths have been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme, whilst in Europe, over 18,000 deaths have been recorded with EudraVigilence. These numbers are frightening whichever way you look at them. Surely the number of deaths alone should be enough to cause a complete halt to the vaccine roll out. The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that for consent to be legally valid, “it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. Allowing only those who are vaccinated to travel on public transport, airlines, enter venues, shopping malls, restaurants, cafes and workplaces is pressuring, coercing and manipulating people into taking the vaccine. Mr Pangallo is promoting discrimination against those who choose not to take the vaccine. One of our basic human rights is bodily integrity. People are responsible for their own health care decisions, not the government. No government has the right to segregate or discriminate against those who choose not to take a vaccine, especially one with so many questions that have yet to be answered. Mr Pangallo is creating unnecessary fear and alarmism. He is promoting discrimination and segregation, and he is creating a division within society amongst the ‘vaxxed’ and the ‘unvaxxed’. We need our leaders to stand up and take charge, and not succumb to fear mongering. We need our doctors and scientists to show us the real science, rather than promote a product that is creating unimaginable damage throughout the world. We need everyone to stand up and unite as one. We need to protect our freedom of choice, especially our right to medical freedom. Where there is risk, there must be choice.
0 Comments
 “We need to stop this madness.”
These are the prophetic words of Gigi Foster, a professor with the School of Economics at the University of NSW. She wrote a brilliant article recently for the Sydney Morning Herald titled “Stop this human sacrifice: the case against lockdowns”. NSW recently followed Victoria’s lead with premier Gladys Berejiklian plunging much of the state into yet another lockdown. Queensland has done the same, and South Australia and Western Australia have enforced varying restrictions. Parts of the Northern Territory were also been placed into a snap lockdown. Gigi explains that these policies come at an enormous cost. “These costs include the loss of happiness due to loneliness from social isolation, the crowded-out healthcare for problems other than COVID, the long-term costs to our children and university students of disrupting their education, and the economic losses that have shuttered businesses, damaged whole sectors, increased equality, and will depress our spending on everything from roads to hospitals for years to come. Deaths from causes other than COVID may well result.” And result they have. In an article titled “Self-harm alarm”, Susie O’Brien explains that “data from Kids Helpline shows 16 per cent of calls from children aged 5 to 12 are related to suicide concerns and self-harm and 26 per cent of calls from those aged 13-18. The national service received 13,000 suicide-related contacts in 2020, with 1150 callers presenting with an immediate suicide issue. More than one-third of contacts requiring intervention from emergency services involved suicide.” Kids Helpline virtual services manager Tony Fitzgerald said that “calls in all categories had soared during Covid-19, and the demand had continued this year. There are long-term effects from last year, even with our youngest kids who are struggling to cope with their anxiety on top of everyday pressures.” The government are putting the lives of our children at risk for a virus that has claimed one life in 2021. This is an absolute disgrace. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper explains that “it is possible that SIP (shelter-in-place) policies increased deaths of despair due to economic and social isolation effects of SIP policies”. This includes deaths due to drug overdoses, homicides and unintentional injuries. The paper states that “existing studies suggest that SIP policies led to a reduction in non-COVID-19 health care, which might have contributed to an increase in non-COVID-19 deaths. For example, one study in the United Kingdom predicts that there will be approximately an additional 3,000 deaths within five years due to a delay in diagnostics because of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Further to this, “it is possible that SIP policies do not slow COVID-19 transmission” and “prior studies find only a modest effect of SIP policies on mobility”. The paper also claims that it is “unclear whether modest reductions in mobility could slow the spread of an airborne pathogen”. This last point is one worth noting. According to the authors, the only countries in which they observed a fall in the trajectory of excess deaths were Australia, New Zealand and Malta. All are island nations, which have geographical advantages. “In every other country, we observe either no visual change in excess deaths or increases in excess deaths.” Gigi Foster explains that “lockdowns also carry immediate costs of suffering (such as declines in mental health due to loneliness) and long-run costs in many dimensions, which a cost-benefit analysis would reveal”. “Our government owes its people a transparent reading on all excess deaths during SIP orders – that is, lockdowns – and a full costing of its lockdown policies that counts both deaths and suffering.” The government are still yet to provide a cost-benefit analysis of lockdowns more than 15 months into the pandemic. This is information should be made public. As citizens, we have the right to know how our elected officials can make such drastic decisions that have enormous consequences for all of us. An open letter written to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) highlights the disproportionate response in relation to lockdowns. The authors state that “not only are lockdowns historically unprecedented in response to any previous epidemic or pandemic in American history, but they are not so much as mentioned in recent guidance offered by the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention”. The authors continue by saying that “given the gravity of the decisions being made, we cannot ignore the possibility that the entire “science” of COVID-19 lockdowns has been a fraud of unprecedented proportion, deliberately promulgated by the Chinese Communist Party and its collaborators to impoverish the nations who implemented it”. China was the first country to enforce draconian lockdowns in Wuhan in January 2020. They never existed prior to this. Donald Henderson, who is widely accredited for eradicating smallpox, explains that “experience has shown that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted”. After nearly 18 months, it is clear that lockdowns do more harm than good. Gigi Foster sums it up this way. “What is going on here is not the fight of our lives against a fearsome pestilence. It is politicians willingly sacrificing their people’s welfare, hoping the people see their actions as a sufficient offering. It’s the modern analogue of killing virgins in the hope of getting a good harvest.” “We need to stop this madness. Right now, we need to focus our attention and protection on the people in our population who are actually vulnerable to serious effects of this virus. We need to buy medicines and establish treatment protocols that work to reduce the severity of COVID symptoms, while offering vaccinations to anyone in vulnerable groups who wants them – with no compulsion, and no tethering of population vaccination rates to border openings.” “The good news is that much of the world seems to be waking up to the fact that shelter-in-place directives are tantamount to a ritualistic human sacrifice. They’re losing their religion, slowly but surely.” This sounds like a common-sense approach, yet common sense is not so common these days. Lockdowns don’t work. If they did, there would be no need to continually lock down. They only cause harm. People should not be denied the right to see family and friends, earn a living, run a business, access health care, go to school and travel. These are basic human rights. We have the right to decide how much risk we take on, not the government. How many more lives will be lost as a result of lockdowns? We need to stop this madness.  Sophie Aubrey wrote an article recently in the Sydney Morning Herald titled ‘How anti-vaxxers are weaponizing pregnant women’s fears’.
The article began with the line “the vaccines are safe”. This line was part of an illustration posted by the Australian College of Midwives to encourage midwives to get vaccinated. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine, the long-term safety is “unknown”. No long-term safety studies have been conducted. There simply hasn’t been enough time. Short-term safety does not equate to long-term safety. Claiming that the vaccines are safe is a lie. They might end up being safe long-term, but at this stage, as the TGA clearly states, that is completely unknown. The Australian College of Midwives posted a second image saying “don’t hesitate, just vaccinate”. Given that no long-term safety data exists, this alone should be enough to make pregnant women, and everyone else for that matter, hesitate. What if the long-term safety data reveals that the vaccines are indeed unsafe? What would the long-term effects be on the pregnant mother and her child? This, again, is all an unknown of course. The Australian Public Assessment Report states that “vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers” has not yet been addressed. This report was published in January 2021 and is yet to be updated. An article on the Pfizer website titled ‘The facts about the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine’ states that the “available data on the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy”. A recent document by the Department of Health states that “real-world evidence has shown that Comirnaty (Pfizer) is safe for pregnant women and breastfeeding women”. It also claims that “pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19” and that “their babies also have a higher risk of being born prematurely”. “Real-world evidence is available from a study of over 35,000 pregnant women who had an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. This study did not find any side effects specific to pregnant women or their babies. However, it is still possible that there are very rare side effects that would not have been detected in this study.” Perhaps this study missed the ‘real-world’ evidence reported to various adverse event reporting systems around the world. The reports are as shocking as they are horrific. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US shows that “as of June 4, 2012 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 666 reports of miscarriage or premature death”. In the UK, the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme reveals that the “total number of miscarriages now stands at 94 alongside 1 report of a tragic premature baby death, 6 reports of foetal death and 2 reports of stillbirth”. According to EudraVigilance, the adverse event reporting system in Europe, as of June 19, under the heading ‘pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions’, 390 adverse events were reported following the Pfizer vaccine, 256 reports following the Moderna vaccine, 229 following the AstraZeneca vaccine and 9 following the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. That is a total of 884 reported adverse events. These are the cases that have actually been reported. Typically, 1-10% of adverse events are reported to VAERS, and this number is likely to be similar in other countries. In Australia, at the time of writing, there have been 8,010 cases of COVID-19 in females between the age of 20-49, which encompasses predominantly those of child bearing age. Within this same age bracket, there have been zero deaths. Not a single female of child bearing age has died in Australia from COVID-19. Why would a pregnant female choose to place herself at risk of suffering an adverse event to her or her unborn child when her risk of death is zero? According to Ms Aubrey, “women are more likely than men not to want a COVID-19 vaccine. More specifically, women in their 30s – child-bearing age – are most likely to hold safety concerns.” And rightfully so. Women typically make the majority of the health care decisions within a family, and they are more inclined to do their research on particular topics, such as vaccines. Another article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Katina Curtis explains that “young women, migrants and Indigenous Australians will be given the hard sell on the coronavirus vaccine”. Why does the government need to “sell” the vaccine? If the pandemic was as bad as we are made to believe, and the vaccine was going to help get us out of it, why would you have to sell it? Shouldn’t people be lining up to take it? They are not by the way, with around 4% of the population fully vaccinated. Federation University’s Dr Naomi Smith claimed that the standard pregnancy fears are being “weaponized”, whilst Ms Aubrey explains that the “anti-vaccination activists commonly sit in sectors of the wellness realm where a natural lifestyle reigns and essential oils and organic food are sold as curative”. Perhaps if more people sat in the “wellness realm where a natural lifestyle reigns”, Australia wouldn’t have a health care system that is often at capacity, and where ischaemic heart disease is the leading cause of death. Perhaps more people would have a strong immune system that could fight off a virus such as SARS-CoV-2, which is less deadly than influenza for those under 60. Who would have thought that living a naturally healthy lifestyle was a bad thing? The COVID-19 vaccines are novel, they are still in the clinical trial phase, and they have been rushed to market. No long-term safety studies exist, and they don’t provide immunity or prevent transmission. Everyone has the right to be hesitant about the vaccine, but none more so than pregnant women, given it affects not only them, but their unborn child. Losing an unborn or new born child is one of the most heart breaking and traumatic events any parent could ever go through. No one should ever be experimented on, least of all pregnant women. There are two lives at stake, including that of a child. There is mounting evidence that the spike protein is transferred to the baby through the mother’s breast milk. There is also mounting evidence that the spike protein is the toxin, the very thing doing the damage to the body. How safe are the vaccines really? To all of the pregnant women, stand strong and stand in your power. Ask questions and follow your intuition. You ultimately know what is best for you and your baby. It is your body and it is your choice.  On 28 June 2021, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that the COVID-19 vaccine will be mandatory for all residential aged care workers. The decision was made at an emergency National Cabinet meeting between state and territory leaders. All aged care workers are expected to have their first dose by mid-September.
“This is something we wanted to see and so tonight we received the advice that would enable us to go forward with that measure”, Mr Morrison said. “Imposing on a person the requirement to have a vaccine or not be able to work in a particular sector is something that no government would do lightly and as a result we have been considering this matter for some time now based on the best possible medical advice.” It would be interesting to know who the government received their advice from, and what evidence they have to support this decision. In August 2020, Mr Morrison initially claimed that the vaccine will be “as mandatory as possible” before back tracking on his comments. He followed this with “it’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine”. “There are no mechanisms for compulsory… I mean, we can't hold someone down and make them take it”, Mr Morrison said at the time. It appears that they will just lose their job instead. Perhaps we should have seen this coming. In January 2021, Mr Morrison stated that the Australian Health Primary Protection Committee (AHPPC) are “not recommending (mandatory vaccinations for aged care staff)”. However, the Prime Minister did not rule out making the COVID-19 vaccine compulsory “in the future”. It seems that day has arrived. Chief advocate for National Seniors Australia Ian Henschke said back in January that “if it turns out the vaccine does prevent transmission, I would think it would be a no-brainer to make it mandatory”. Guess what Mr Henschke? It doesn’t. The Prime Minister has even said so himself, claiming that there is not yet “considerable evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. In fact, the clinical trials were not even designed to measure it. According to a study in the Lancet journal, “these considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.” One only has to look through the clinical trial data to discover this. In the Pfizer clinical trial, “confirmed COVID-19 cases were determined by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and required at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease… The symptoms included: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.” Yet, we are repeatedly told that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces severe illness, hospitalisation and death. It was never measured during the clinical trials. In the UK, the death rate from the ‘Delta’ variant is “six times higher among those who were fully vaccinated for two weeks or longer than those who never received a shot”. “Twenty-six people died among 4,087 who were fully vaccinated 14 days or more before testing positive for the Delta COVID variant. This equates to a death rate of 0.00636 percent, which is 6.6 times higher than the rate of 0.000957 deaths – or 34 deaths among 35,521 positive Delta cases among the unvaccinated.” Fully vaccinated people are also being hospitalised in the UK at a higher rate than unvaccinated people. So much for the vaccine being effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine, the “longer term safety and duration of vaccine protection is unknown… vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission (has not yet been addressed)… a correlate of protection has yet to be established… (and) vaccine immunogenicity cannot be considered and used as a surrogate for vaccine protective efficacy at this stage”. Furthermore, the vaccine still hasn’t been granted full approval by the TGA, and the clinical trials are not due for completion until 2023. Given the complete lack of data on both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, how could the government mandate the vaccine for anyone, regardless of which sector they work in? The Australian Immunisation Handbook states that a vaccine must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation. Forcing someone to take a vaccine, especially an experimental one, so that they can keep their job is most certainly coercion. If the government mandates the vaccine for aged care workers, who will be next? Doctors and nurses? Health care practitioners? Pilots and flight attendants? Where does it end? There have already been 31,641 adverse events reported to the TGA as of the time of writing, including “318 reports of death in people who have been recently vaccinated”. In the US, there have been 6,113 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and in Europe, 15,472 deaths have been reported to EudraVigilance. Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA) chief Sean Rooney said that “part of doing all we can to protect older Australians in care is to consider mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for aged care workers – assuming is it safe to do so and with appropriate exemptions”. Given the data from the TGA, VAERS and EudraVigilance, it most certainly is not safe to do so. Dr Maria O’Sullivan from Monash University Faculty of Law explained that the “overriding consideration is whether it necessary and whether it’s proportionate”. To date, there has been one death in Australia due to COVID-19 in the first six months of this year. How is mandating a new vaccine with no long-term safety data “proportionate”? Bodily autonomy is one of our inalienable rights as a human being. We should not be pressured, coerced or manipulated into taking an experimental vaccine that has been rushed to market. We most certainly should not lose our job and our income for refusing to do so. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Enough is enough. It is time to end this madness and cease the vaccine rollout immediately.  Mark Kilian and his wife Anneli were recently granted permission to enter the country from the US by the Australian Border Force and NSW Health. Mark’s father has terminal cancer and is on the verge of dying. Mark had arranged for a private charter plane to fly them from Sydney, where they landed from the US, to the Gold Coast, where Mark’s father is in hospital.
At the last minute, Queensland Health rejected their request for an exemption to leave hotel quarantine in Sydney, blocking them from entering Queensland. As Mark stated, “the direct result of Queensland’s decision is denying me the right to say goodbye to my father. It strikes me as unbelievably cruel for this situation.” You would be hard-pressed to find someone who disagreed. According to Queensland Health, “the public health risk with international travellers is significant and the risk of COVID-19 transmission to Queensland is high”. The thing is both Mark and Anneli are fully vaccinated with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines respectively. The Pfizer vaccine is ‘meant’ to be 95% effective, and the Moderna vaccine 94% effective. If the COVID-19 vaccine is as effective as the government claims it to be, what risk are Mark and Anneli posing to the Queensland community? Aren’t they protecting the community by being fully vaccinated? Isn’t this what the government has been saying all along? ‘Get vaccinated to protect yourself and your community’. Unfortunately, Mark and Anneli are not alone. Moe and Sarah Haidar returned to Australia last month from Qatar where they had been living and working. They were meant to fly to Melbourne, but unfortunately their flight was cancelled. Instead, they flew to Brisbane six weeks later. At the time, Sarah was heavily pregnant. During her 30-week check-up, scans revealed complications and Sarah underwent an emergency caesarean section on the 1st of June. If this wasn’t traumatic enough, Moe and Sarah were separated from their baby and were only allowed to see him via video call. According to Moe, “she went through the procedure and they took him instantly… She didn’t have seconds with him, not even a glimpse and she didn’t know what he looked like, they just took him.” This is heartbreaking. What sort of a world are we living in when a parent cannot see their child after they give birth? Once again, Queensland Health through Health Minister Yvette D’Ath and Chief Health Officer Jeannette Young denied the couples request for an exemption from hotel quarantine. And once again, both Moe and Sarah were fully vaccinated prior to arriving in Australia. If the young couple are fully vaccinated, and the vaccine is effective, why were Moe and Sarah denied access to their newborn son? Does the government know something that we don’t, or are they lying to us? In a recent Senate Estimates, Senator Malcolm Roberts asked the following question to Secretary of the Department of Health Dr Brendan Murphy: “Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?” Dr Murphy answered with a simple “yes”. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, and that “a correlate of protection has yet to be established”. The Prime Minister himself even claimed that there was not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. Yet, the government continues to claim that the vaccine is effective. If it was effective, why couldn’t a son see his dying father, or a couple see their new born baby? If you search a little deeper, you will actually find that the vaccine isn’t that effective after all. A recent study in the prestigious Lancet journal showed that the actual effectiveness is basically nothing. According to the study, “vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR) – i.e., the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine – which is expressed as 1-RR.” Basically, it measures the vaccine group versus the placebo group. The relative risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 95%, and for the AstraZeneca vaccine it is 67%. These are the quoted efficacies of the two vaccines currently in use in Australia. The study continues by stating that “although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population”. The absolute risk reduction is a far more accurate measure within society. “ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs.” The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%, whilst for AstraZeneca it is 1.3%. This is the actual effectiveness of the vaccines. Could you imagine the government trying to promote a vaccine with such a low efficacy? What’s more, we have been told that the COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death. This is what the Lancet study had to say. “These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalisation, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.” There we have it. The vaccine does not provide immunity, it does not prevent transmission, it is not effective, and it does not prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Why is the government pushing a new, experimental and rushed to market vaccine that is still currently in the clinical trial phase with an efficacy of approximately 1% for a virus that has a 99.92% survival rate for those under the age of 60? A son has been prevented from saying goodbye to his dying father, and a young couple have been denied access to their new born child. The government does not have the right to do this. It is time to stand up. We must not allow this to continue. How many people have already been placed in this heart breaking position, and how many more will continue to be? How would you feel if it was your mother or father, or your son or daughter? Join us at www.standupnowaustralia.com.au to get involved and stop the totalitarianism that has gripped our country and the world.  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.  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 New Daily published an article recently criticising Clive Palmer’s COVID-19 vaccine newspaper advertisements that appeared in The Australian and The Western Australian newspapers. The article titled, “Fact-checking Clive Palmer’s ‘dangerous’ vaccine ads”, takes issue with Mr Palmer being “very concerned by the emergency use of this vaccine on the general population”. The author states that “this is an incorrect claim, with Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration running a full approval process on both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca – not an emergency use authorisation, as other nations around the world have enacted”.
The article states that the ad “contains factual inaccuracies” and that the “TGA does not have an ‘Emergency Use Authorisation’ pathway for COVID-19 vaccines. Australia has issued a formal regulatory approval for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine.” The author is correct in pointing out that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is running an approval process. However, the crucial point to note here, which leads to Mr Palmer’s concerns, is that this approval process is currently ongoing. The TGA have only granted PROVISIONAL approval for both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines. Full approval has NOT yet been granted. In their official media release regarding the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, the TGA states: “Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for (Pfizer and AstraZeneca) to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment.” Granting provisional approval confirms that the safety and efficacy of the vaccines is still under investigation, particularly in the longer term. This reasonably validates Mr Palmer’s concern that the vaccine rollout has been rushed, and that there is the same inherent risk to Australians receiving the jab, as there would be for any patient participating in an ongoing clinical trial. This notion was reaffirmed by Australian Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt, who stated recently in an interview with ABC news that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Mr Palmer did not claim that the vaccines have been granted ‘emergency use authorisation’, as they have been in the U.S. This would be an incorrect statement, as they have been granted provisional approval. Mr Palmer also states that the “simple fact is that we don’t have one-year safety data, three-year safety data or five-year safety data for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine”. Mr Palmer is correct. We do not have this data. The Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the long-term safety is “unknown”. Normal vaccine development takes 10-12 years, whilst these vaccines have been rushed to market in 6-12 months. The Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA technology, which has never been used in a vaccine for humans previously. Mr Palmer, along with every other Australian, should be questioning whether these vaccines are indeed safe, not just in the short-term, but also in the long-term. The article also takes issue with an advertisement Mr Palmer placed specifically in The West Australian newspaper, requesting readers to “ask Mark McGowan” why the government had “provided pharmaceutical companies with an indemnity from injury or death”. The article claims Mr Palmer is “wrong” to request the Western Australian constituency to question their state Premier, because it was the “Federal Government that inked deals with vaccine manufacturers and provided the indemnity”. Surely the question of who inked the indemnity deal is insignificant compared to the fact that pharmaceutical companies are indemnified against liabilities that could result from the use of this experimental treatment that is still currently undergoing clinical trials? Mr Palmer should be applauded for having the courage to publicly question these rushed-to-market vaccines, and he should be congratulated for requesting long-term safety data before the vaccine is rolled out to the general population. Like Mr Palmer, we should all be demanding long-term safety data before we choose whether or not to receive the vaccine. We should be made aware of the risks of taking the vaccine, and it should be acknowledged that we will not be able to pursue legal action against the pharmaceutical companies should we or a family member suffer from a serious adverse event or death as a result of the vaccine. These ads are far from dangerous. They are merely asking simple questions that the government is unable to answer. Where there is risk, there must be choice.  On the 23rd of February 2021, Alan Jones hosted a segment on Sky News titled: “Government at risk of undermining its vaccination program.”
In this 8-minute clip, he addressed the “stack of” lethal comments provoked by a prior segment where he interviewed anti-vaxxers ahead of airing the now infamous documentary by Jane Hansen, which was on its way to the screen. Alan goes on to explain that “this is why we must sensibly address those who have concerns of vaccinations”. The voices of those opposed are becoming louder. At the presentation ceremony for the Australian Open Tennis, Jane Hrdlicka, the President of Tennis Australia, was booed for a long time when she talked about the world entering a new phase of positivity because of vaccination. This was broadcast live across the globe, removing any ability for a media coverup. It is becoming evident that the majority are not aligned with the government and media rhetoric. Alan Jones advised that he is pro-vax, stating that he rolls his sleeve up for the flu shot every year and “will be rolling it up for this one”. However, he admitted that we cannot ignore the powerful sentiments of people who are suspicious of the propaganda in relation to these vaccines. He states that “the government have turned a blind eye to contrary opinion, they have in fact tried to silence those who express such opinions. People have been banned from social media from arguing well researched views on vaccination.” He states that the text-in line was “on fire” following the interview with Jane Hansen last Thursday night. People wanting more debate, and angry that reservations about the vaccines are being dismissed as simply “anti-vaxxers”. Mr Jones states very clearly, “I am saying the government is at risk of undermining the whole vaccination program by conducting a one-sided government edict saying, ‘everyone must roll up their sleeve and get the jab otherwise no travel unless you’ve had the vaccine, or you’re not welcome in your place of work unless you’ve had the jab’. I have said all along, as have others, the only way through this is via debate. We’ve had none. When you seek to shut down every opposing view, it only raises suspicions.” He goes on to read some of the comments that were written in, one of which said, “Come on Alan, there’s a vast difference between an anti-vaxxer and a regular person who is questioning the validity and safety of a rushed vaccine for a spurious illness, that we are being coerced into getting if we want to maintain our God given freedoms.” The vaccines are being touted as the only way out for Investment and Jobs, pointing out that there are only 39 cases of coronavirus in Australia. Last year when Alan Jones mentioned herd immunity may be the best way out of the pandemic – “all hell broke loose. Coronavirus cases in America have fallen by 77% over the past six weeks, you don’t need to be a cynic to suggest that no medication would slash cases by that figure. Experts are saying that natural immunity from prior infection might be more common than is measured by testing.” “Professor Marty Makary, an American surgeon, a New York Times Best Selling Author, and John Hopkins Health Policy Expert, argues today that vaccines don’t explain the steep decline in coronavirus cases over the past six weeks because vaccination rates were then low, and that they take weeks to kick in. He is predicting actually that Covid-19 will be mostly gone by April and that 55% of Americans would now have natural immunity from prior infections, that is herd immunity.” Alan goes on to state, “Now remember I’ve said all along that 99% of all cases were mild, so even though someone wasn’t tested (and of course millions haven’t been who have had it), that triggers natural immunity. Professor Makary acknowledges that people are now getting vaccinated and that 15% of Americans so far have received the vaccine. He makes the point and I quote, ‘Many experts, politicians and journalists are afraid to talk about herd immunity. Herd immunity is the inevitable result of viral spread and vaccination.’” Alan closes with, “To all my viewers from last Thursday night who were very critical, your texts were welcome, and generally your criticisms were valid. It’s a pity government doesn’t listen to legitimate criticism but instead, want to silence it”. One can log onto any government social media page and see that the silent majority is now making the most noise. People are standing up. There is power in numbers, and the pro-choice movement have the numbers, even though the TV and newspapers are spurting a very different narrative. “In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a critical act.” – George Orwell. We must not be afraid to disagree. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always. For more information on how you can push back against forced medical interventions, please visit www.vaccinechoiceaustralia.com.au First C19 vaccine reaction in Australia: Anaphylaxis is not an acceptable side effect of any drug3/4/2021  Today Nine News reported that a Gold Coast Health Worker has suffered anaphylaxis after receiving their first dose of the Pfizer Covid 19 vaccine. The unidentified health worker was still in intensive care at the time of writing.
This is not ok. The very short article goes on to explain “Anaphylaxis has been identified as a possible side effect from any vaccination.” Yes – you read that right. Anaphylaxis is a listed side effect of any vaccine. If you read the vaccine inserts, you will note anaphylaxis listed under adverse events. We encourage our readers to go click on these (perhaps the very common MMRII for example, which is given to infants), do a word search (ctrl+f) for anaphylaxis, it is right there for all to see. Why is it acceptable to have a death-inducing reaction to a vaccine, when the risk of death from the disease the vaccine is trying to protect you from is so minimal. In the case of Covid19 we are talking about a fatality rate of less than 0.05%. The answer is, it is NOT acceptable. Not for a Covid-19 vaccine, not for any vaccine. The harsh reality is that there is no long-term safety data for any Covid 19 vaccine. We simply do not know that it is safe – that is the bottom line. The article also goes on to state that “Gold Coast Health advise that you must not get a COVID-19 vaccine if you have had a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of the same COVID-19 vaccine or any kind of anaphylaxis after exposure to any ingredient of the vaccine”. So let’s take a look at the ingredients in the Pfizer vaccine, you know, just to check and see if we are allergic to any of them: The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine includes the following ingredients: mRNA, lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2 [(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-Distearoyl-sn-glycero-3- phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose. It is safe to assume that most human beings have never tried mRNA DNA by injection seeing as though it has never before been approved for human use until now under “emergency authorisation”. A quick research into the rest of the ingredients would leave even the most scientific laymen among us absolutely horrified. Does our government really think Australians are a bunch of simpletons who will just blindly line up for this type of untested, unapproved, and as we see now, potentially fatal product? All to simply reduce the severity of symptoms for a virus which most people don’t even know they have had until they get a PCR test? Shame on anyone who underestimates the grit of an Aussie. Let’s circle back to the MMRII vaccine as an example that has gone through the extended and proper development process for an approved, on-the-market product. Below is the complete list of adverse reactions detailed in the MMRII vaccine insert by Merck & Co. Worth noting this vaccine is administered to infants and toddlers in multiple doses, often before any allergens to the child are discovered, and long before that child can even speak. “The following adverse reactions include those identified during clinical trials or reported during postapproval use of M-M-R II vaccine or its individual components. Body as a Whole: Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability. Cardiovascular System: Vasculitis. Digestive System: Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea. Hematologic and Lymphatic Systems: Thrombocytopenia; purpura; regional lymphadenopathy; leukocytosis. Immune System: Anaphylaxis, anaphylactoid reactions, angioedema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm. Musculoskeletal System Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia. Nervous System: Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS); acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia. Respiratory System: Pneumonia; pneumonitis; sore throat; cough; rhinitis. Skin: Stevens-Johnson syndrome; acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritus; injection site reactions (pain, erythema, swelling and vesiculation). Special Senses — Ear: Nerve deafness; otitis media. Special Senses — Eye: Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; conjunctivitis. Urogenital System: Epididymitis; orchitis.” We share this list in full to demonstrate that we simply do not have this long-term safety data for any Covid 19 vaccines. Here at VCA we encourage our readers to research for themselves and are happy to provide support and links to information. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always. For more information on how you can push back against forced medical interventions, please visit www.vaccinechoiceaustralia.com.au |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
July 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
Home
|
Truth Day
|
Connect
|
News
|
© Copyright 2020 Vaccine Choice Australia Privacy Policy