 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.
0 Comments
 The ABC released an article on the 28th of February 2021 titled “Your COVID-19 vaccine safety questions, answered by experts”. The article was designed to answer the “questions you asked most” by leading experts in infectious diseases and immunisation. The experts include Professor Kristine Macartney, the director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS), Dr Christopher Blyth, the co-director of the Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, and Dr Archa Fox, a molecular biologist specialising in RNA. That’s quite an ‘expert panel’. Let’s take a look at some of the expert’s answers to the “questions you asked most”.
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  The 2021 Australian Open was certainly a different event than usual. In the midst of a ‘global pandemic’, the Andrews government made the decision to allow around 1,240 players and staff into the state for the tennis tournament. While many healthy Victorians were locked out of their own state due to restrictions and border closers, tennis players from countries with extremely high case numbers like the US and UK, as well as players like Andy Murray and Tennys Sandgren, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, were allowed into the country.
During the tournament, there was an ‘outbreak’ at the Holiday Inn quarantine hotel. The Andrews government announced a strict Stage 4 lockdown for the entire state. Crowds were barred from the Australian Open, refunds were issued and the entire state were not allowed to travel more than 5km from their homes. All the while, the tournament continued on, with the world watching on TV, intermittently broken up by ads from Tourism Victoria encouraging the rest of the country to come and visit a place so unstable, you could get stranded for an indefinite period of time due to snap lockdowns and border closures. Is it any wonder then, that when the tournament wrapped up on Sunday night, the crowd were less than ecstatic? Tennis Australia chair Jayne Hrdlicka took to the stage in front of an international crowd and said, “It’s been a time of deep loss and extraordinary sacrifice for everyone. With vaccinations on the way, rolling out in many countries around the world, it’s now a time for optimism and hope for the future.” This comment was met with a boo that was heard around the world. News.com.au claimed that “whether the stand were full of anti-vaxxers or spectators were simply venting their frustration at how long it’s taken the rollout to start in Australia, their response was impossible to miss”. It sure was! And it didn’t end there, as Hrdlicka went on to thank the Victorian government, saying that “without you we could not have done this”. This was met with an equally harsh response from the angry crowd. After being repeatedly interrupted by the crowd, Hrdlicka lost her composure, coldly stating that “you are a very opinionated group of people”. Given the disproportionate response by the Andrews government, including one of the harshest lockdowns in the world, as well as an experimental vaccine being pushed onto an unsuspecting public, aren’t we within our rights to have an opinion on this issue? The plight of the common people isn’t really something Hrdlicka is concerned about, cutting around 3,000 jobs in her role as Virgin Airlines CEO, and being ousted from her position at A2 milk after paying $19 million in consultancy fees to her former employer, global management firm, Bain and Co. She’s hardly a “woman of the people” who can sympathise with Victorian businesses that are rumoured to have collectively lost $1 billion over the recent five day snap lockdown. If you happen to be scrolling through Twitter, you would be forgiven for thinking that everyone is “disappointed” at the behaviour of the Victorian crowd. “Privileged”, “bonkers”, “disgrace”, “should be ashamed”, “selfish”, “disrespectful” and “nasty” are just a few of the derogatory terms being used to describe the crowd. The people of Australia are waking up to being coerced by the government into taking a vaccine that is new, experimental and rushed-to-market. A vaccine that has bypassed critical animal trials and has no long-term safety data. A vaccine for a virus with a 99.7% survival rate. Part of this glorious incident is being blamed on the winner of the Australian Open, Novak Djokovic, after he said that he “wouldn’t want to be forced by someone to take a vaccine”. Since then, Djokovic has been diagnosed with and recovered from COVID-19 and maintains that his “issue here with vaccines is if someone is forcing me to put something in my body. That I don’t want. For me that’s unacceptable.” Could one blame him? Is it not perfectly acceptable to be able to choose what goes into our bodies? Especially in Australia, a place where we are “young and (supposedly) free”. Our Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, needs to be gently reminded of these words from our National Anthem when he today described the booing as “un-Australian”. Ironically, a few weeks ago he was a great defender of free speech when he criticised twitter for removing Donald Trump and defended MP George Christensen’s tweets supporting the former President. What has changed since Mr McCormack? Are the people of Victoria less worthy of a voice? According to the website of Premier Daniel Andrews, “the values all Victorians should live by – one law for all, freedom to be yourself, discrimination is never acceptable, a fair go for all and that it is up to all of us to contribute”. Are we only to “contribute” when we agree with those in power? Is it only okay to “be yourself” when blindly accepting the mass media narrative? Is it only okay to discriminate and divide the people and call them “un-Australian” for exercising their free speech when you are the deputy prime minister? At the 2021 Australian Open Men’s Singles Final on Sunday night, the people of Australia took a stand and said enough is enough. They said no to an experimental vaccine and yes to medical freedom. And the best part was that the entire world got to see it!  The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) recently granted provisional approval to Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd for its COVID-19 vaccine, whilst Prime Minister Scott Morrison has indicated that the vaccine will be rolled out across the country from the end of February. According to the Department of Health, quarantine and border workers, frontline health care workers, and aged care and disability care staff and residents will be amongst the first to receive the vaccine.
In a recent interview, John Skerritt, the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, explained that the TGA has “done the same amount of work” in a shorter period of time as they would for the approval of other vaccines. There is no doubt that many people have been working around the clock to develop and approve the COVID-19 vaccine in record time. However, one thing that doesn’t change is the length of time that is required to adequately assess the efficacy and safety of a vaccine. There is no way to speed this process up because it simply takes time. Mr Skerritt highlighted this point himself. “What we don’t have, which we often have with other vaccines, is an indication of whether the vaccine will last for a year, three years, forever.” According to the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report, the “duration of protection is not yet known and is to be assessed in the ongoing trial”. There is currently no data that suggests that the vaccine will provide protection from COVID-19 beyond two months. Mr Skerritt continues by stating that “we also don’t know how well the vaccines prevent transmission.” The ongoing trial is every person that receives the vaccine between now and January 2023 when the trial is due for completion. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that a vaccine is a “product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting that person from that disease”. Immunity means that “you can be exposed to it (a disease) without becoming infected”. According to the TGA, the Pfizer vaccine doesn’t provide immunity nor does it stop transmission of the virus. One could argue that the Pfizer vaccine by definition is not actually a vaccine at all. And if it isn’t a vaccine, then exactly what is it? The idea of herd immunity is that enough people will develop immunity to a particular disease either naturally or through vaccination in order to protect those that are most vulnerable to the disease, and to protect those that are unable to receive a vaccine against the disease. If it is not yet known if the COVID-19 vaccine provides immunity or prevents transmission, how is it possible to protect those that are most vulnerable? According to Mr Skerritt, the “information on how long the vaccine will last will take some years to develop.” In the meantime, we are all expected to take the experimental vaccine without knowing if it will protect us or those around us from COVID-19. Mr Skerritt continues by explaining that “even the very serious safety effects that arise tend to happen 4-6 weeks after the first shots.” We are seeing a number of very serious reactions to the vaccine in many countries around the world, including a number of deaths within days or weeks of taking the vaccine. Many of these deaths have occurred in aged care facilities, which according to the Federal Government, will be the first in line to receive this experimental vaccine. Why is it then, that when someone has a severe reaction or dies within 2-3 weeks of having the vaccine, governments and pharmaceutical companies state that there is no correlation between the vaccine and the reaction or death, given that Mr Skerritt stated that “serious effects” can occur 4-6 weeks after the vaccine is administered? The Therapeutic Goods Administration are “expecting a final decision to made during the month of February” regarding approval of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine. According to Mr Skerritt, the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines “appear to be good vaccines, and both are supported by large amounts of data… Both have good data on how effective they are, both have a good safety record… For some things we don’t know, but the safety evidence is pretty thorough.” The Australian Public Assessment Report, which was compiled by the TGA and is freely available on their website, certainly contradicts these statements. The Australian Public Assessment Report states the following: “In addition to the unknown longer term safety and unknown duration of vaccine protection, there are other limitations with the submitted data. The following questions have not yet been addressed:
The Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines are quite clearly not supported by large amounts of data. The Swiss medical regulator recently announced that they were not approving the AstraZeneca vaccine for use due to a “lack of data to reach conclusions on the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine”. This follows other European countries France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland in advising people over a certain age not to take the AstraZeneca vaccine. Will the TGA follow the lead of these European countries by requesting more data before provisionally approving the vaccine? In his interview, Mr Skerritt was asked what the worst-case scenario would be. One would assume that the worst-case scenario would be severe adverse events or even deaths as a direct result of the vaccine. Mr Skerritt answered this question by saying that the “worst-case scenario will be that there’s very low take up of the vaccines”. Does the government really care about our health or do they simply care about profits? The government continually reiterates that their draconian measures are in place to protect our health. Does the same apply when it comes to vaccines? Will the TGA remove the provisional approval should the vaccine prove to be ineffective or unsafe? Will they refuse to approve vaccines that lack the required efficacy and safety data? There is already a high level of scepticism when it comes to taking the COVID-19 vaccine, and given the lack of data so far, it is completely justified. We have the right to ask questions and demand answers, especially when it comes to our health and the health of our children.  The Corman-Drosten Review Report is an external peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect for SARS-CoV-2 that reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level. The report was compiled by 22 scientists who have demanded that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted.
Dr Michael Yeardon, the ex-Pfizer Vice President and one of the authors of the report, explains that the “first and major issue is that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China”. Dr Yeardon continues by clarifying that the “functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard”. “The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” Dr Yeardon highlights that it is a “significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct (cycle threshold) value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.” The report states that if “someone is tested positive by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” Furthermore, Dr Yeardon explains that the “Ct (cycle threshold) value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses… The test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important.” As Dr Yeardon clearly explains, “these are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” Dr Kevin Corbett, an independent research consultant and health scientist with over 30 years’ experience, is another one of 22 scientists demanding that the Cormen-Drosten paper be retracted. He explains that “every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test. When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.” “In the fish market, it’s like giving you a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish’. It could be any fish… The Corman-Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is, it’s a code. So, it’s ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in… This is basically a computer virus.” Dr Corbett continues by explaining that “there are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten paper… But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science’. There is nothing at the centre of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality… There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July… where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate’. Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had (COVID-19) to begin with… The PCR test is full of holes, the whole thing.” The authors of the Corman-Drosten Review Report also found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance”. “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.” The authors conclude by stating that “the decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.” “It is not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.”  A 28-year-old physician who was part of the AstraZeneca Phase 3 clinical trial in Brazil died on the 15th of October 2020.Initial reports did not specify whether the participant received the COVID-19 vaccine or the placebo vaccine, however it was later reported that the participant received the placebo vaccine. The placebo vaccine being used in the clinical trial is an approved, on-the-market meningitis vaccine.
The victim was a physician working with COVID-19 patients at three hospitals, and allegedly died from complications arising from an infection with the SARS-Cov-2 virus. Questions are now being asked as to whether a physician was a suitable candidate for the vaccine trial given his exposure to patients with the virus, which would have put him at risk for a much higher viral load than usual. According to The Vaccine Reaction, it is not known if “the participant had underlying health conditions that placed him at high risk for COVID-19 complications. There is also no information about the timeline between his potential exposure relative to receiving the meningitis “placebo” vaccine injection or between injection and death. No details are yet known about the cause of death, aside from the attribution to “complications of COVID-19” and it is not known whether he mounted any type of antibody or other immune system response to the coronavirus infection.” The Vaccine Reaction stated that “there is little information about the type of meningococcal vaccine “placebo” the physician was given in the trial and a potential interaction between his apparent SARS-Cov-2 viral infection and the administration of a meningitis vaccine that could have caused a serious adverse response”. Given that AstraZeneca is one of the leading candidates in the world for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine, wouldn’t it seem critically important that we have the answers to these questions? In particular, will a potential COVID-19 vaccine interact with the many other vaccines that children and adults are required to take? AstraZeneca’s Phase 3 clinical trial was suspended in September due to a severe adverse reaction in one of its participants. The participant developed transverse myelitis, which is inflammation of the spinal cord, and results in pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Only one-third of people have a full or near-full recovery, with the seriously affected suffering permanent impairments that impact their ability to perform ordinary tasks of daily living. The trial continues to remain on hold in the US pending an investigation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is important to note that the AstraZeneca AZD1222 vaccine uses a genetically engineered adenovirus that causes common cold symptoms in chimpanzees and contains the genetic material of the SARS-Cov-2 virus surface spike protein. “No adenovirus-based vaccine has been successfully developed for uses in humans, and questions have been raised about the approach.” The tragic death of this 28-year-old physician raises serious concerns. Did the participant die after receiving the meningitis vaccine, a vaccine that is part of the National Immunisation Program Schedule in Australia and administered to children at 12 months of age? Aren’t we led to believe that this vaccine is safe and effective? If this vaccine can have such devastating consequences in a 28-year-old, what are the consequences in children with developing immune systems? Which raises another question, why is the trial using a meningitis vaccine in the placebo group rather than an inert saline solution? And why is the trial continuing in Brazil and the UK, whilst it is still on hold in the US? The Morrison government has already stated that they plan to make the vaccine as “mandatory as possible” should a vaccine become available. AstraZeneca is developing a vaccine that has never been successfully trialled in humans, it is being rushed to market, and no long-term safety or efficacy studies have been completed. Would you feel safe taking this vaccine? Would you feel safe with your children taking this vaccine? Where there is risk, there must be choice.  “On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for the EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).”
“Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.” The doctors state that the testing of the vaccine on humans is unethical because the risk of disease or possible vaccine benefit cannot be determined with certainty, due to many different PCR tests of highly varying quality. They continue by demanding that the risks already known from previous studies must be excluded through means such as animal studies. There are a number of major concerns according to Dr. Wodarg and Dr Yeadon. One of those concerns is the formation of “non-neutralizing antibodies”, which can result in antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This means that these antibodies can cause an exaggerated immune response if a person is confronted with the “wild” virus. Experiments were conducted on cats, whereby they initially tolerated the vaccine. However, after they were exposed to the wild virus, they eventually died. Previous vaccine efforts against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have revealed similar findings. A study conducted on ferrets showed a robust antibody response to the vaccine, but when the ferrets were challenged with the wild virus, they all became severely ill and died. This is a serious concern and one that should be thoroughly investigated before a vaccine is rolled out. Another concern regarding the vaccine is the potential to cause infertility in females. The mechanism behind the vaccine is that is produces antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain “syncytin-homologous proteins”. These proteins are essential for the formation of the placenta. If the vaccine triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1, it could result in “infertility of indefinite duration” in vaccinated women. Furthermore, syncytin-1 is not only present in females, it is also present in male sperm as well. The risks of sterility apply to not only vaccinated females, but to vaccinated males as well. Due to the short nature of the current trials, it is impossible to determine whether the vaccine will cause sterility in men and women. The Pfizer vaccine contains a substance known as polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against PEG. This means that 70% of people can develop an allergic, and potentially fatal, reaction to the vaccine. Yes, you read that right. 70% of people could develop a potentially fatal reaction to the vaccine. If alarm bells weren’t already ringing by now, they should be. The authors argue that the short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects of the vaccine. The average duration of vaccine development is 10-12 years. The Pfizer vaccine has been developed in 6-12 months. In 2009, the swine flu pandemic swept across the world. A vaccine was rushed to market without the usual safety studies being completed. The vaccine caused narcolepsy in 1,000 adults and children across Europe, resulting in chronic fatigue, difficulty sleeping at night, night terrors, hallucinations and a range of mental health problems. In 2014, the UK government was sued for £60 million by patients who suffered brain damage as a result of taking the swine flu vaccine. Lawyer Peter Todd stated that the “victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication”. The Pfizer vaccine has NOT been tested on “children, pregnant women, people taking medications and individuals with comorbidities”. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2 December 2020, there have been 249,570 deaths in the US involving COVID-19. 89 of these deaths were in children under the age of 15. That equates to 0.036% of the total deaths in the US involving COVID-19. Children are the least affected demographic of contracting SARS-CoV-2 and dying from COVID-19. The UK Government’s regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine for COVID-19 states that the “safety and efficacy of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in children under 16 years of age have not yet been established”. Why do children need the vaccine when they are the least likely to contract the virus, let alone die from it? There is very limited data on the number of pregnant women that have either contracted SARS-CoV-2 or died from COVID-19. In fact, ABC News just reported that a woman in Singapore who was infected with COVID-19 when she was pregnant has given birth to a healthy baby boy with antibodies. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), it is still unclear if a “pregnant woman with COVID-19 can pass the virus to her foetus or baby during pregnancy or delivery”. If we don’t have clear information, there is no way to know if a vaccine will affect the foetus or baby. It’s worth noting that studies have never been conducted on the effects of any vaccines on pregnant women and their unborn babies. Furthermore, a study published by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information showed “spontaneous abortion was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28 days”. The study went on to say that “evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited”. Thankfully the UK Government’s regulatory approval of Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine for COVID-19 states that the “COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy” and that “pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination”. The website also states that the vaccine should “not be used during breast feeding” because it is “unknown” if the vaccine is excreted in human milk. It is critical that these safety studies are conducted prior to rolling out a vaccine, especially when it comes to the health of a pregnant woman and her unborn baby. People taking medications and individuals with comorbidities are amongst the most vulnerable when it comes to dying with COVID-19. These are the people that the government is trying to protect with lockdowns and vaccines. According to the CDC, the average number of comorbidities for each death with COVID-19 is 2.6. This demographic of people already has a compromised immune system. It is therefore imperative that proper safety studies are conducted on this group of people prior to giving them a vaccine. Shockingly, no safety studies on this vulnerable group have been conducted. There are many other grave concerns when it comes to the Pfizer vaccine trials:
The BioNtech/Pfizer vaccine has been approved for emergency use in the UK and is being rolled out this week. 800,000 doses are due to arrive, with a total of 40 million doses ordered. This is despite the fact that Pfizer have not even finished analysing their data, let alone it being peer-reviewed by independent scientific bodies. Dr Wodarg and Dr Yeadon are experts in their chosen fields. We, as well as governments all across the world, need to listen to them. The Pfizer vaccine is using new, experimental and highly controversial mRNA technology, which has not only bypassed critical animal studies, it has never been approved for use in human trials, even though it has been attempted for the last three decades. It is impossible to ensure this vaccine is safe, especially given that so many questions remain unanswered? How can the public possibly feel comfortable receiving a vaccine without proper safety studies being conducted? Would you feel confident if your children were to receive this vaccine with an inherent lack of data on the potential adverse reactions? Would you feel reassured with your elderly parents or grandparents receiving the vaccine when their immune systems are already compromised, and with a vaccine that could potentially trigger an even stronger immune reaction if they do happen to contract the virus? Where there is risk, there must be choice. We have the right to medical freedom, to body autonomy and to make our own health care decisions. Governments do not have the right to take this away from us. We must stand united and fight for our medical freedom. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
May 2021
Categories |
RSS Feed
Home
|
Truth Day
|
Connect
|
News
|
© Copyright 2020 Vaccine Choice Australia Privacy Policy