 South Australian Chief Public Health Officer Nicola Spurrier published a video recently asking South Australians, “what are you waiting for?”
This question was directed at those who are yet to take the COVID-19 vaccine. “South Australians have done a great job at keeping our state safe from COVID-19. Now it’s time to get vaccinated, because here are the facts.” “COVID-19 vaccines have been tested, reviewed and approved in exactly the same way as all other vaccines. They’re close to 90% effective in reducing symptoms and preventing hospitalisation and death. Vaccines do not have late onset side effects and COVID vaccines are no different.” Let’s fact check the first statement. “COVID-19 vaccines have been tested, reviewed and approved in exactly the same way as all other vaccines.” According to the John Hopkins University of Medicine, “a typical vaccine development timeline takes 5 to 10 years, and sometimes longer, to assess whether the vaccine is safe and efficacious in clinical trials, complete the regulatory approval processes, and manufacture sufficient quantity of vaccine doses for widespread distribution”. It is true that this process has been sped up somewhat by people and organisations investing more money than usual in the development process, which enables more people to do more work and use more resources. The clinical trial phases are occurring at the same time, when the phases normally happen one after the other. It’s also easier for scientists to assess whether the vaccines are working due to the large number of COVID-19 cases worldwide, and more people have been willing to take part in clinical trials. Scientists worked out the virus’s genetic sequence early on in the pandemic, and they shared this information with other scientists. Companies also manufactured the vaccines prior to the clinical trials finishing. The John Hopkins University of Medicine explains that the “Phase 3 trials may take six to nine months to allow early assessment of safety and efficacy, particularly if conducted in areas with a high risk of infection, but with follow-up continuing for two years or more to assess long-term safety and efficacy”. According to the Australian Public Assessment Report, “from the perspective of vaccine efficacy, a 2 month median follow up is considered as the shortest follow up period to achieve some confidence that any protection against COVID-19 is likely to be more than short lived. The duration of protection is not yet known and is to be assessed in the ongoing trial”. The Phase 3 clinical trials were not conducted over 6-9 months, which is considered to be an accelerated time period. They were completed over a 2 month period. Furthermore, the Australian Public Assessment Report clearly states that the longer term safety is “unknown”. One thing we can’t speed up is time. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, the estimated study completion date for the Pfizer vaccine is May 2023, whilst the estimated study completion date for the AstraZeneca vaccine is February 2023. That’s right. The vaccines are still considered to be in the clinical trial phase. Professor Spurrier, the COVID-19 vaccines have NOT been “tested, reviewed and approved in exactly” the same way as all other vaccines. VERDICT – FASLE Let’s fact check the next statement. “They’re close to 90% effective in reducing symptoms and preventing hospitalisation and death.” Pfizer’s clinical trials boasted an efficacy of 95%, whilst Moderna was 94% and AstraZeneca was 67%. However, if we look a little closer, this is measuring relative risk reduction. A more accurate measure is absolute risk reduction. A study published in the Lancet shows that the actual efficacy is “1·3% for the AstraZeneca-Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna-NIH… and 0·84% for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines”. A study conducted in Qatar and published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “BNT162b2-induced protection against SARS-COV-2 infection appeared to wane rapidly following its peak after the second dose”. “Estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in the first 2 weeks after the first dose. It increased to 36.8%... in the third week after the first dose and reached its peak at 77.5%... in the first month after the second dose.” “Effectiveness declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20% in months 5 through 7 after the second dose. Effectiveness against symptomatic infection was higher than effectiveness against asymptomatic infection but waned similarly. Variant-specific effectiveness waned in the same pattern.” Another study from Israel, also published in the New England Journal of Medicine, stated that “BNT162b2-induced protection against SARS-COV-2 infection appeared to wane rapidly following its peak after the second dose, but protection against hospitalization and death persisted at a robust level for 6 months after the second dose”. The most damning study of all is a preprint study that was just released, which concluded that “these data demonstrate a substantial waning of antibody responses and T cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, at 6 months following the second immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Notably, a significant proportion of vaccinees have neutralizing titers below the detection limit.” After six months, antibodies were no longer detectable. Furthermore, a reduction in severe illness, hospitalisation and death was never measured in the initial clinical trials, as highlighted by the Lancet. “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.” Pfizer’s Six Month Safety and Efficacy Data highlights something even more disturbing. The clinical trials show a 0.13% reduction in severe illness, a reduction in hospitalisation was never measured, and the reduction in death was 0.002%, which is not statistically significant. Currently in Singapore, with 84% of the population fully vaccinated, 58% of cases in hospital, 39% on oxygen supplementation, and 41% in ICU are fully vaccinated. The death rate per capita has now surpassed the world average for the first time. To say that the vaccine is “90% effective in reducing symptoms and preventing hospitalisation and death” is factually incorrect. VERDICT – FALSE Finally, let’s fact check the final statement. “Vaccines do not have late onset side effects and COVID vaccines are no different”. There were no reports of myocarditis during the initial clinical trials, yet around the world, many people, especially young males, are suffering from myocarditis and pericarditis. According to the TGA’s Weekly Safety Report, “our analysis of Australian data indicates there is a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated individuals for Comirnaty (Pfizer)”. There have been 1,008 cases of suspected myocarditis or pericarditis so far. The youngest case reported was in a 12 year old, who has absolutely no risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. The cells of the heart do not regenerate, putting additional stress on the heart over a person’s lifetime, which may have severe or potentially fatal long-term consequences. Dr J. Bart Classen published a study examining the risk of prion disease from RNA-based vaccines. Wikipedia describes prion disease in the following way. “Prions are misfolded proteins with the ability to transmit their misfolded shape onto normal variants of the same protein. They characterise several fatal and transmissible neurodegenerative diseases in humans and many other animals.” Dr Classen explains that the “concern is raised that the RNA based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19”. “This paper focuses on a novel potential adverse event mechanism causing prion disease which could be even more common and debilitating than the viral infection the vaccine is designed to prevent. While this paper focuses on one potential adverse event there are multiple other potential fatal adverse events as discussed below.” “Autoimmunity and the opposing condition, metabolic syndrome, are well known adverse events caused by vaccines. COVID-19 infections are associated with the induction of autoantibodies and autoimmune disease making it more than plausible a vaccine could do the same.” “Others working in the field have published additional support that COVID-19 vaccines could potentially induce prion disease. Authors found prion related sequences in the COVID-19 spike protein which were not found in related coronaviruses.” Prion disease is an often fatal neurodegenerative disease. It is critical that this possibility is ruled out prior to rolling out a vaccine. If this does indeed occur, for many it will simply be too late. Autoimmune disease can take many years to develop, and there are still question marks on the long term safety during pregnancy and on fertility. Vaccines have been proven to have late-onset side effects. VERDICT – FALSE As we can clearly see, Professor Spurrier has made a number of claims that either require further investigation, or can simply be refuted. It is reckless, irresponsible and negligent as the South Australian Chief Public Health Officer to make such claims. This type of behaviour needs to cease immediately, along with the roll out of the vaccine. Professor Spurrier, we demand an immediate retraction of these statements, and recommend that you resign as the South Australian Chief Public Health Officer effective immediately.
4 Comments
 No wonder the country is in turmoil with premiers like Mark McGowan running our states and territories.
The WA Premier suggested recently that protestors should “grow a brain”. He even asked, “What are they protesting about?” Surely, he can’t be serious, can he? Mr McGowan continued by saying that “we’re not in lockdown. We’re in a free community, free society. I think they’re just out there because they’re trying to cause trouble, they’re the sort of people who’d like to cause trouble.” Ask the residents of New South Wales and Victoria if they’re in a “free society”. This just goes to show how delusional Mr McGowan really is. Unlike our Prime Minister and state premiers, the rest of the country is united and many people realise that we are all in this together. The residents of WA are hurting now for those in other states. Many have family and friends that have suffered through some of the longest lockdowns in the world. People are protesting against closed state borders that have prevented them from seeing loved ones. People are protesting for those who have lost jobs, businesses and income. People are protesting for those who are suffering from mental health issues as a result of the restrictive measures. And people are protesting for Australian citizens stranded overseas who have been forgotten about by their government. These are just a few of the reasons why people are protesting. “The alternative is when or if we get outbreaks, more people will get sick, and more people die, and our hospitals have more and more pressure applied… If you’re a health professional, you should understand the value of being vaccinated”, said Mr McGowan. Is this why many health professionals are walking off the job? They can see that the vaccine is neither safe or effective. They would prefer to give up their careers rather than take an experimental product. The Western Australian government recently announced that “100 per cent of healthcare workers and health support workers who worked in public and private hospitals and public health service facilities would be fully vaccinated”. Many health care workers are opposed to the vaccine for a variety of reasons. The long-term safety and duration of protection is unknown, vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission has not yet been addressed, and a correlate of protection has yet to be established. This is according to the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report. Furthermore, the Pfizer Six Month Safety and Efficacy Data showed a 0.13% reduction in severe illness, a reduction in hospitalisation was not measured, and a reported 0.002% reduction in death is not statistically significant. Data out of some of the most highly vaccinated countries in the world isn’t any better. At the time of writing, 82% of the population in Singapore is fully vaccinated. However, the case numbers, severe illness, hospitalisations and death continue to rise. Singapore is experiencing record case numbers, with a 7-day average of 1,697 cases. At the peak of the first wave in April 2020, the highest case number recorded was 1,426. In 2020, Singapore recorded 29 COVID-19 deaths. In 2021, that number is 56. 55% of those in hospital, 44% of those requiring oxygen supplementation and 44% of those in ICU are fully vaccinated. In the UK, 50% of the cases of the Delta variant were in the unvaccinated for those under the age of 50, whilst only 9% of the cases were unvaccinated for those 50 years and older. In terms of deaths, 65% were unvaccinated under 50, whilst only 25% of those 50 years and older who passed away were unvaccinated. Given the rushed nature of this vaccine, and the fact that it is still in the clinical trial phase with no long-term safety data, one can understand why people, particularly health care workers, refuse to take the vaccine. Further evidence was released recently regarding viral transmission. A preprint study found that there was “no significant difference in cycle threshold values between vaccinated and unvaccinated, asymptomatic and symptomatic groups infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta”, indicating that the viral loads are the same. Essentially, this means that vaccinated people are just as likely as unvaccinated people to transmit the virus. “Our study is consistent with other recent reports showing similar viral loads among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in settings with transmission of the Delta variant.” “In a Wisconsin study, Ct-values were similar and culture positivity was not different in a subset of analyses between 11 vaccinated and 24 unvaccinated cases. In both Massachusetts and Singapore, individuals with vaccination breakthroughs caused by the Delta variant had similar Ct-values as unvaccinated individuals.” “A substantial proportion of asymptomatic, fully vaccinated individuals in our study had low Ct-values, indicative of high viral loads.” “Given that low Ct-values are indicative of high levels of virus, culture positivity, and increased transmission, our detection of low Ct-values in asymptomatic, fully vaccinated individuals is consistent with the potential for transmission from breakthrough infections prior to any emergence of symptoms.” Vaccine mandates are of no benefit, they are unconstitutional and they are immoral. They are wrong in every single way. This is why people are protesting. They are protesting against tyranny and they are fighting for freedom. Everyone has the right to choose what they put into their body, and the body of their children. Vaccine mandates remove this right, and they have no place in Australia. Not now. Not ever.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison has consistently stated that the government will not “seek to impose” mandatory vaccinations.
“We are not seeking to mandate vaccines. That is not the government’s policy, that is not how Australia has successfully run vaccination programs in the past.” “I wouldn’t want it suggested that either the Federal Government or the state and territory governments are seeking to impose a mandatory process on this vaccination program for Australians. We have been very clear about that.” However, the states and territories have not heeded this advice. In fact, the National Cabinet, which includes the Prime Minister, began the process of mandatory vaccination when they agreed to mandate the vaccine for residential aged care and hotel quarantine workers. Following this, the NSW government decided to mandate the vaccine for teachers and staff, with those who choose not to receive the vaccine by November 8 being put on notice that they will be stood aside. In Tasmania, Acting Premier Jeremy Rockliff announced that vaccines will be mandatory for all health care workers from October 31. This includes workers in both the public and private sectors. Public Health Director Mark Veitch claimed that health care workers are “dealing with some of the more vulnerable, ill, older people in the community and they have a duty of care to protect those people from infection from themselves”. The vaccine does not prevent transmission, but more on this later. Most recently, the Victorian government mandated the vaccine for construction workers, giving workers one week to receive their first dose. However, this has resulted in protests against the government and the CFMEU. Construction workers are quite rightly angry, as many will lose their jobs and their incomes should they choose not to take the vaccine. This not only affects them, but their entire family as well. The government then went a step further by announcing a mandate for health care workers in Victoria as well. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews hypocritically said that “we'll do whatever we can to support those people”. Mr Andrews, there is only one way to support these people, and that is by NOT mandating a vaccine that is neither safe or effective. There are many reasons why people are choosing not to take the vaccine. Firstly, according to the Department of Health, the overall survival rate in Australia at the time of writing is 98.66%. For those under the age of 60, the survival rate is 99.91%. Most of the mandates apply to those under the age of 60, who are at minimal risk of dying from COVID-19. Secondly, there is no long term safety data. The TGA’s Weekly Safety Report states that there have been 59,199 adverse events reported so far. There have only been 87,101 cases in total, with the large majority of the cases being asymptomatic or mild. There have been a number of reports of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, immune thrombocytopenia, and myocarditis and pericarditis. Nine people have passed away following the AstraZeneca vaccine out of 535 deaths reported shortly after receiving the vaccine. Thirdly, the vaccines are completely ineffective. Despite a reported 95% efficacy for Pfizer and 67% for AstraZeneca, the actual efficacy when measuring absolute risk reduction is 0.84% for Pfizer and 1.3% for AstraZeneca. A reduction in severe illness, hospitalisation and death was never measured in the initial clinical trials. The Six Month Safety and Efficacy Data from Pfizer shows that the vaccine reduced severe illness by 0.13%, a reduction in hospitalisation was never measured, and death was reduced by 0.002%, which is not statistically significant. Even Pfizer’s own clinical trial data shows that the vaccine is ineffective. Singapore is one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, with 82% of the entire population fully vaccinated. Despite this, case numbers continue to rise. At the time of writing, 909 cases were hospitalised, with 524 of those fully vaccinated (58%). 128 cases require oxygen supplementation, with 65 fully vaccinated (51%). Of the 18 people currently in ICU, 9 are fully vaccinated (50%). There have been more COVID-19 deaths in 2021 than during the entire 2020 year. Israel is another country where things are only getting worse. Despite their high vaccination rate, and the fact that booster shots have been administered to approximately half of the eligible population, Israel is now reporting the highest case numbers per million people out of any country in the world. Thankfully, many people can interpret this data for what it actually is. Fourthly, the vaccine does not stop transmission. Studies conducted in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Singapore and Vietnam all showed that viral loads in the vaccinated were as high, and in some cases higher, than those in the unvaccinated. According to the Wisconsin study, “vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have similar viral loads in communities with a high prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant… Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” The Vietnam study was even more damning, showing that “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020”. Another paper by Dr Nina Pierpont shows that there is “excellent scientific research papers published or posted in August 2021 (which) clearly demonstrate that current vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” This alone should end all vaccine mandates immediately. Finally, people have the right to choose what they put into their own body. This is called medical freedom, and it is a basic human right. 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”. Mandating vaccines renders informed consent legally invalid, as mandates pressure, coerce and manipulate people into taking a vaccine that they would not have otherwise taken. These are only some of the many reasons why people are choosing not to take the vaccine. In a free society, we have the right to choose. We have the right to choose if we take the vaccine, or if we don’t take the vaccine. The government, federal or state, does not have the right to make this decision for us. We are seeing more and more people stand up every day in the fight for freedom. Many of these people have taken the vaccine, but they stand against coercion, discrimination and segregation. It’s time to stand up, unite as one, and end all vaccine mandates now.  New South Wales Premier Gladys Berejiklian recently declared that she does not want to be “anywhere with someone who’s not vaccinated”.
She continued by saying that it’s “just my personal choice and people will make those personal choices”. This follows her previous comments that she “wouldn’t want to be in the room with lots of people who aren’t vaccinated” and that she hopes that “all of our colleagues (parliamentarians) are vaccinated”. These sound like comments from a child, not the leader of New South Wales. These comments are divisive and discriminatory, and they have no place in Australian society. Let’s take a look at the why. A Wisconsin study found “no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses… Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” Meanwhile, a Singapore study showed that “PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals”. A CDC study found that “real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values in specimens from 127 vaccinated persons with breakthrough cases were similar to those from 84 persons who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown”. And finally, a Vietnam study demonstrated that “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020… Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.” Ms Berejiklian, if you can still catch COVID-19 and pass it onto others when you are fully vaccinated, how are you protecting yourself by not being “anywhere with someone who’s not vaccinated”? It is time you stop acting like a tyrant and start acting like a leader. Leaders unite people and bring communities together. Your comments are abhorrent and demand an immediate apology. However, Ms Berejiklian didn’t finish there. “I just want to make this point very clear: if people want to enjoy the things we have missed such as a meal or any other issue, or any other venue, they’re going to have to be vaccinated.” “We have to accept, especially between 70-80 per cent, that for any given time… it’s in the interests of the business venue or the facility not to have an outbreak. That’s why it’s in the businesses’ interest to prevent that from happening, to make sure they don’t allow people coming in who aren't vaccinated, because that will impact their business continuity.” “Many people may still not feel safe at that stage, knowing that there's still a high rate of unvaccinated adults.” Dr Nina Pierpont, who has a medical degree from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a PhD from Princeton University, published an excellent paper titled ‘Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Now Pointless: Covid-19 vaccines do not keep people from catching the prevailing Delta variant and passing it to others’. In her article, Dr Pierpont stated that there is “excellent scientific research papers published or posted in August 2021 (which) clearly demonstrate that current vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.” “On the way to herd immunity, there is an assumption that people who are immunized can form safe clusters or groups within which no one is carrying or transmitting the virus… Unfortunately, this last assumption is no longer true under the new variant of SARS-CoV-2, Delta (B.1.617.2), which now accounts for essentially all cases worldwide.” “From its origin in India, Delta has soared to nearly complete domination of COVID-19 viral strains everywhere in a matter of months, because it spreads so easily and infects both vaccinated and unvaccinated people.” Dr Pierpont explains that “viral loads are much higher in people infected with Delta than they were in people infected with Alpha” and that “viral loads with Delta are equally high whether the person has been vaccinated or not.” However, the following statements by Dr Pierpont are the most damning. “Due to evolution of the virus itself, all the currently licensed vaccines (all based on the original Wuhan strain spike protein sequence) have lost their ability to accomplish vaccine purpose… To keep people from carrying the infection and transmitting it to others.” “Vaccine mandates are thus stripped of their justification, since to vaccinate an individual no longer stops or even slows his ability to acquire and transmit the virus to others.” Dr Pierpont concludes that “given all the above evidence, mandating others to take a vaccine is a potentially harmful, damaging act”. The NSW government, under Gladys Berejiklian’s leadership, not only refuse to follow the evidence, but are now creating a two-tier society of the good and the bad, the superior and inferior, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. Abandoning liberty and democracy for tyranny and fear will only further divide the state and the nation. Separating Australians into two distinct classes of people has no place in our society, and it simply will not be tolerated. Ms Berejiklian, it’s time for you to stand down as Premier of New South Wales. The state and the country deserves better.  NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard is at it again. This time he has slammed people who choose not to receive the vaccine as being “selfish or self-entitled”.
In a recent press conference, Mr Hazzard said, “So the short answer is, as I said earlier: get out and get vaccinated. Don’t be so selfish or self-entitled to think you’re different from the rest of us. You’re not.” “Go and get vaccinated and give the entire community, particularly frontline medical staff, a fair go.” By suggesting that people are selfish or self-entitled, perhaps Mr Hazzard is referring to those people who are well-researched, critically think, have justified reservations or simply want to maintain their health naturally. This isn’t the first time Mr Hazzard has labelled sections of the community as selfish. In February, he had this to say. “This is really not the time to be precious or selfish with your own views. It’s a case of not what health workers can do for you and your community can do for you now, but it’s what you can do for health workers and for your community. Get vaccinated!” When Mr Hazzard refers to giving the entire community a “fair go”, what exactly is he referring to? It is now common knowledge that the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The vaccinated can transmit the virus just as much as the unvaccinated, and in some cases, more so. A study in Wisconsin claimed that “we find no difference in viral loads when comparing unvaccinated individuals to those who have vaccine “breakthrough” infections. Furthermore, individuals with vaccine breakthrough infections frequently test positive with viral loads consistent with the ability to shed infectious viruses.” “Our results, while preliminary, suggest that if vaccinated individuals become infected with the delta variant, they may be sources of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to others.” Another study conducted in Singapore showed that “PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were similar between both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups at diagnosis, but viral loads decreased faster in vaccinated individuals”. A CDC study in Massachusetts showed that “real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values in specimens from 127 vaccinated persons with breakthrough cases were similar to those from 84 persons who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown”. Finally, and most damning, was a study conducted in Vietnam that demonstrated that “viral loads of breakthrough Delta variant infection cases were 251 times higher than those of cases infected with old strains detected between March-April 2020”. “Breakthrough Delta variant infections are associated with high viral loads, prolonged PCR positivity, and low levels of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, explaining the transmission between the vaccinated people.” The Australian Public Assessment Report even states that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed. Mr Hazzard, if the vaccinated can spread the virus as much, if not more, than the unvaccinated, how are the unvaccinated being “selfish and self-entitled”? How exactly are vaccinated protecting their community when they can transmit the virus? What about severe illness, hospitalisation and death? The Singapore study found that the “odds of severe COVID-19 requiring oxygen supplementation was significantly lower following vaccination”. However, breakthrough infections occurred in a significantly older age, putting those at greater risk. The study also concluded that “early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 (Delta) as compared with the wildtype vaccine strain”. In the vaccine clinical trials, a reduction in severe illness, hospitalisation and death was never measured. What was measured was a reduction in mild to moderate disease based on a positive PCR test and one or more symptoms of COVID-19. The Six Month Safety and Efficacy data from Pfizer showed no statistical significance in a reduction in death. Out of 43,847 participants, there was one less death due to COVID-19 in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. This is a reduction of 0.002%, which is not statistically significant. With regards to a reduction in severe illness, 1 participant out of 22,505 people was diagnosed with severe COVID-19 in the vaccine group (0.0044%), whilst 30 participants were diagnosed with severe COVID-19 out of 22,435 in the placebo group (0.13%). The overall reduction in severe illness is therefore 0.13%. This is hardly a meaningful reduction in severe illness. Peter Doshi commented on these findings in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), stating that the “number of hospital admissions is not reported so we don’t know which, if any, of these patients were ill enough to require hospital treatment”. In Moderna’s clinical trial, 21 out of 30 severe COVID-19 cases were not admitted to hospital. The vaccine is therefore even less effective at preventing hospitalisations. America’s Frontline Doctors published a report showing that “among the 104 countries which offer no demonstrable COVID vaccination programs, on 08/16/21, their COVID fatality rates averaged an unexpectedly lower 690 deaths per million”. “Among the 82 countries which offer vaccination programs, on 08/16/21, their COVID fatality rates averaged 828 deaths per million which is counterintuitively higher than the COVID fatality rate for unvaccinated countries.” “In the 82 countries which offer vaccination programs, not only was the average COVID fatality rate greater than in unvaccinated countries, but the number of deaths increased as the number or percentage of residents vaccinated increased.” Is it possible that the vaccine is actually causing an increase in not only cases, but an increase in deaths? And if there is any possibility of this occurring, why isn’t the vaccination program being halted immediately so the data can be accurately assessed? Mr Hazzard, is it “selfish” to do your research or look at the data for more information? Is it being “self-entitled” to not want to inject yourself with a product currently in the clinical trial stage with no long-term safety data? Is it being “different” when someone critically thinks and doesn’t follow the narrative? Mr Hazzard, it is you who is being selfish for pressuring and coercing people into taking an experimental vaccine so that they can go to work, go to school, earn an income, attend events and travel for work or to see family and friends. You should be ashamed of your behaviour and the way that you have conducted yourself as Health Minister of NSW. We all have the right to choose what we put in our bodies and the bodies of our children. It is not being selfish, it is being responsible.  WA Premier Mark McGowan became the first premier in Australia to introduce domestic vaccine passports.
Travellers entering Western Australia from New South Wales will have to show proof that they have had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. They must also provide evidence of a negative COVID-19 PCR test in the 72 hours prior to departure, and they must comply with the existing quarantine and testing measures. The new measures will also apply for people arriving from all states and territories that are deemed “high risk” in the future. According to the Western Australian government, a state or territory will be considered high risk if it records an average of 50 COVID-19 cases a day. Mr McGowan acknowledged that “these are tough measures but they are necessary to protect the state”. “I think this is actually a template for other states to look at, should they want to put in place measures to protect themselves from the raging outbreak in New South Wales”, said Mr McGowan. It didn’t take long for Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk to follow Mr McGowan’s advice. It will be a requirement for essential workers who need to cross into Queensland from New South Wales to be vaccinated. Ms Palaszczuk said that “we are extremely concerned about the possibility of this virus coming into Queensland so we will take every precaution we possibly can”. Which begs the question, who qualifies as an essential worker? Does earning an income and supporting your family make you essential? Does paying your mortgage and children’s school fees make you essential? Does running a business to support the economy make you essential? We are all essential. The country wouldn’t operate without each and every one of us playing our part and contributing to society. Prime Minister Scott Morrison publicly supported the introduction of domestic vaccine passports by saying “I think that's very consistent with what the national plan is seeking to achieve”. However, he stopped short of saying they would be a permanent fixture. “It’s a decision for now because borders exist now… The whole point of getting to higher and higher levels of vaccination – in particular when we get to 80 per cent – is that’s when we’re saying goodbye to lockdowns... When there are no lockdowns there should be no borders… We’re not running a mandatory vaccination program… In specific cases, we may seek to do that for public health reasons. But otherwise, that’s just not how we do things in Australia.” Let’s see if he is true to his word. Perhaps Mr McGowan and Ms Palaszczuk, along with Mr Morrison, should look at the data coming out of various countries with high vaccination rates. At the time of writing, according to Our World in Data, 81% of the eligible population in Iceland are vaccinated, with 75% fully vaccinated. However, the Intensive Care Unit at the National University Hospital is in danger of being overwhelmed due to an increased in COVID-19 cases. 73 people were hospitalised, with approximately 67% fully vaccinated. 23 people were in the emergency department, with 17 fully vaccinated and 6 unvaccinated. Out of these people, 6 out of the 11 patients in ICU were fully vaccinated. Approximately two-thirds of the current cases are in people who have been vaccinated. The Prime Minister has stated that lockdowns and border closures will ease when 80% of the population is vaccinated. Perhaps he should look at what is happening in Iceland with 80% of the population vaccinated. In Singapore, 77% of the population is vaccinated, with 71% fully vaccinated. In the most recent outbreak in July, out of 1,096 locally transmitted cases, 44% were in fully vaccinated people, 30% were in partially vaccinated people and 25% were in unvaccinated people. 1% was unknown. If Mr McGowan or Ms Palaszczuk believe that the vaccine will prevent cases in their states, they better think again. The data clearly shows that the vaccine is ineffective at preventing someone from developing COVID-19. Israel, often considered the testing ground due to their quick roll out of the Pfizer vaccine, is also experiencing a spike in cases. So far, 68% of the population is vaccinated, with 63% fully vaccinated. Recent data shows that 84% of the cases in those above the age of 19 were in fully vaccinated individuals. In Massachusetts in the US, there was a recent outbreak of 469 cases according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report published by the CDC. 69% of eligible residents were vaccinated against COVID-19, yet 74% of the cases occurred in fully vaccinated people. Why do our politicians and health officials continue to ignore the data? Can it be any more obvious? The TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that a “correlate of protection has yet to be established” and that the “duration of protection” is unknown. What is known is that the vaccine is ineffective at protecting against COVID-19. If this is the case, how can Mr McGowan and Ms Palaszczuk require people to have had at least one dose of the vaccine to cross the state border to WA and QLD from NSW? It is also known that the effectiveness is significantly lower after the first dose compared to the second. This sets a dangerous precedent for other states to follow. Why are people being prevented from earning an income for refusing to inject a product into their body with no long-term safety data? Why are families being separated from each other for choosing not to take a vaccine with more adverse events in 6 months than for all other vaccines in 30 years? Why are people not being allowed to say goodbye to dying loved ones for choosing not to be part of a mass population experiment? Whether you choose to take the vaccine or not is your choice. The point is it should remain a choice. What no one has the right to do, including the Prime Minister and state premiers, is coerce, force or pressure people into taking an experimental injection, and restricting their liberties and freedoms if they refuse to do so. We cannot let this continue any longer. It’s time to stand up Australia. Enough is enough.  After the TGA provisionally approved the Pfizer vaccine for children 12-15 years of age, Health Minister Greg Hunt stated that the vaccine will likely be available to children from October, with vaccines to be administered in schools and medical centres.
“All the available advice is they are likely to open it up to kids and school-based vaccinations with every state and territory,” Mr Hunt said. “It will be this year, and it’s likely to commence in the last quarter, if not earlier.” The government continue to ignore the evidence. An article in the British Medical Journal explains how COVID-19 is mild and serious sequelae are rare in children. “Despite ‘long covid’ recently garnering increased attention, two large studies in children show that prolonged symptoms are uncommon and overall similar or milder in children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to those with symptoms from other respiratory viruses.” “The US Centre for Disease Control (CDC) estimates put the infection fatality rate from COVID-19 among children 0 to 17 years old at 20 per 1,000,000. Hospitalisation rates are also very low, and have likely been overestimated.” “Furthermore, a large proportion of children have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The CDC estimates 42% of US children aged 5 to 17 years have been infected by March 2021.” “Given that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces a robust immune response in the majority of individuals, the implication is that the risks COVID-19 poses to the paediatric population may be even lower than generally appreciated.” Professors Robert Booy and Russell Viner support these claims in their article in Insight Plus. “Children have a very low rate of severe complication or death. It is striking that for each child death from COVID-19 in the US (about 400 in total), more than 1,500 adults have died (>600,000 deaths). The UK has had over 100,000 deaths in adults; there were just 25 child deaths in the year to March 2021, a rate of about two for every million children.” The numbers simply don’t add up. It has been well documented since the beginning of the pandemic that children are at the lowest risk of severe illness, hospitalisation and death from COVID-19. Why is there even a consideration to vaccinate children? The British Medical Journal authors continue by explaining the unknown risks of the vaccine. “A large number of children with very low risk for severe disease would be exposed to vaccine risks, known and unknown. Thus far, Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine has been judged by Israel’s government as likely linked to symptomatic myocarditis, with an estimated incidence between 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 6,000 in men ages 16 to 24.” “Furthermore, the long-term effects of gene-based vaccines, which involve novel vaccine platforms, remain essentially unknown.” Adverse events continue to rise in the US in children aged 12-17 years. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there have been 15,741 adverse events, including 947 serious events and, tragically, 18 deaths. There have been 2,323 reports of anaphylaxis, 406 reports of myocarditis and 77 reports of blood clotting disorders. These numbers alone should cause the entire vaccine roll out to cease. Deakin University’s chair of epidemiology Catherine Bennett claims that “now we have delta we can see how many children are impacted and how central schools are to the spread of the virus. If we don’t vaccinate school-aged children, as soon as we have virus in the community it will end up in a school and spread quickly if this remains a largely unvaccinated group.” However, according to the British Medical Journal, “school teachers are more likely to get SARS-CoV-2 from other adults than they are from their students. The contribution of schools to community transmission has been consistently low across jurisdictions.” This has been the case in many countries around the world, so why are our premiers and health officials rushing to vaccinate children? Professors Robert Booy and Russell Viner ask another pertinent question. “Why are children so resistant? Aren’t vaccine-preventable diseases meant to be the special scourge of children?” Likely explanations included “better innate immunological resilience, cross-protection from prior exposure to other respiratory coronaviruses and higher adaptive immunity”. “This resilience of healthy children begs the question of whether they need to be routinely vaccinated against COVID-19.” The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK says they don’t. “JCVI does not currently advise routine universal vaccination of children and young people less than 18 years of age”. “At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. Until more safety data have accrued and their significance for children and young people has been more thoroughly evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.” A precautionary approach would seem like a sensible and logical idea, two things that have been sorely missing throughout this pandemic. Another question to ask is could the impact on herd immunity of vaccinating children be of substantial benefit to adults? Modelling by the Peter Doherty Institute suggests not. According to Professors Booy and Viner, “routine vaccination of well teenagers aged 12–15 years adds little to the reduction in COVID-19 transmission through the community”. The following question may be the most important question of all. “Should children be vaccinated with newly developed COVID-19 vaccines when direct (acute COVID-19 and long COVID-19) and indirect (herd immunity) benefits are very limited, and when their long term safety and immunogenicity are still to be determined?” The simple answer is no. “Further, how can informed consent be well informed, with the unavoidable uncertainty over longer term (1 year or more) safety?” It can’t be. The answers to these questions seem so obvious, yet our government bureaucrats and health officials continue their relentless push to vaccinate children. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Clearly they do not. Children have already suffered at the expense of adults. Lockdowns, school closures, mask wearing, quarantine, isolation, and more. This has had a detrimental impact on their education, socialisation, development and mental health. Yet, despite the lack of long-term efficacy and safety data, and the minimal risk of severe disease, hospitalisation and death, reports are emerging that Moderna is eyeing off Australia as a potential location for a COVID-19 vaccine trial on children aged 6 months to 12 years. This must be stopped immediately. With regards to vaccinating children to protect adults, the British Medical Journal sums it up by stating that “this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events”. “Should society be considering vaccinating children, subjecting them to any risk, not for the purpose of benefiting them but in order to protect adults? We believe the onus is on adults to protect themselves.” “There is no need to rush to vaccinate children against COVID-19 – the vast majority stands little to benefit, and it is ethically dubious to pursue a hypothetical protection of adults while exposing children to harms, known and unknown.” Our children are not lab rats and they are not to be experimented on. We need to do everything we can to protect our children. It’s time to stand up and unite for our future generations.  On 22 July 2021, the Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) granted “provisional approval” for the Pfizer vaccine in individuals 12 years and older. Provisional approval was previously granted for those over the age of 16.
According to the Australian Product Information (API), 2,260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age were enrolled in the clinical trial (1,131 in the vaccine group and 1,129 in the placebo group). Of these teenagers, 1,308 (660 in the vaccine group and 648 in the placebo group) were followed for two months after their second dose. The most frequent adverse reactions were “injection site pain (>90%), fatigue and headache (>70%), myalgia [muscle pain] and chills (>40%), arthralgia [joint pain] and pyrexia [fever] (>20%)”. All of these reactions were considered very common. Common adverse reactions included nausea and injection site redness. Uncommon reactions included lymphadenopathy [disease of the lymph nodes], insomnia [difficulty falling or staying asleep], decreased appetite, lethargy, hyperhidrosis [abnormal excessive sweating], night sweats, asthenia [abnormal physical weakness or lack of energy], and malaise [general feeling of discomfort, illness or unease]. Rare reactions included acute peripheral facial paralysis. Adverse reactions from post-market experience include anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity reactions (e.g., rash, pruritis [itch], urticaria [hives], angioedema [swelling beneath the skin or mucosa]), myocarditis [inflammation of the heart muscle], pericarditis [inflammation of the heart membrane], diarrhoea, vomiting and arm pain. To summarise the above findings, the majority of children had a reaction to a vaccine for a disease that is asymptomatic or mild in almost every case. It is completely illogical and irrational in every way possible to vaccinate children against COVID-19. The Australian Public Assessment Report (AusPAR) states that the “adolescent group demonstrated increased frequency of headache, chills, and fever” in comparison to adult subjects. The report also claims that the “sample size is relatively small and is not sufficient for the detection of rare adverse reactions”. Is it acceptable that children are placed at an increased risk of a reaction for a virus that they have no chance of dying from in Australia? The AusPAR highlights further shortcomings. According to the report, the submitted data has the following limitations:
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK claims that “there are emerging reports from the UK and other countries of rare but serious adverse events, including myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the membrane around the heart), following the use of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines in younger adults… Data on the incidence of these events in children and young people are currently limited, and the longer-term health effects from the myocarditis events reported are not yet well understood.” Myocarditis is a serious illness with long-term consequences. The cells of the heart do not regenerate. Once they are dead, they are dead. Why are we putting our children at risk of long-term heart damage? “Until more data become available, JCVI does not currently advise routine universal vaccination of children and young people less than 18 years of age.” “The health benefits in this population are small, and the benefits to the wider population are highly uncertain.” “At this time, JCVI is of the view that the health benefits of universal vaccination in children and young people below the age of 18 years do not outweigh the potential risks.” The health benefits in children do not outweigh the potential risks. Our government bureaucrats and health officials continually refuse to follow proper science. They need to be held accountable for putting our children at risk. The JCVI clearly states that it the “evidence strongly indicates that almost all children and young people are at very low risk from COVID-19”. “Where symptoms are seen in children and young people, they are typically mild, and little different from other mild respiratory viral infections which circulate each year.” “The incidence of severe outcomes from COVID-19 in children and young people is extremely low.” Are we trying to save children from a mild respiratory infection or are we trying to save them from dying? “In England, between February 2020 and March 2021 inclusive, fewer than 30 persons aged less than 18 years died because of COVID-19, corresponding to a mortality rate of 2 deaths per million. During the second wave of the pandemic in the UK, the hospitalisation rate in children and young people was 100 to 400 per million. Most of those hospitalised had severe underlying health conditions.” “For children and young people without underlying health conditions that put them at high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19, the direct individual health benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are limited. While vaccination of younger cohorts could reduce the risk of outbreaks of COVID-19 in school settings, the vast majority of those infected in any outbreak will either be asymptomatic or have mild disease.” The following statement by the JCVI is critical. “At this time JCVI does not consider that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the potential risks. Until more safety data have accrued and their significance for children and young people has been more thoroughly evaluated, a precautionary approach is preferred.” And what about ‘long COVID’? “Concerns have been raised regarding post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (long COVID) in children. Emerging large-scale epidemiological studies indicate that this risk is very low in children, especially in comparison with adults, and similar to the sequelae of other respiratory viral infections in children.” It could not be any clearer. Children are not at risk from the virus, and they should not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In the US, there have been 14,494 adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for those aged 12-17. Of the adverse events reported, there were 2,127 reports of anaphylaxis, 383 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis, and 68 reports of blood clotting disorders. There have been 871 serious adverse events reported, along with 17 deaths. At the time of writing, there has been 4,805 cases and zero deaths in people aged 0-19 in Australia since the beginning of the pandemic. There is absolutely no justification for vaccinating children against COVID-19. Although they may contract the virus, in nearly all cases they will be asymptomatic or experience mild disease. The chance of developing long-COVID, severe illness, being hospitalised or dying is almost non-existent. The clinical trials are not due for completion in 2023. Children are not guinea pigs and they are not to be experimented on. Ever. We need to do everything we can to protect our children from government bureaucrats and health officials pushing an unproven and potentially dangerous vaccine. It is time to stand up and unite. Share this widely and say no to vaccinating our kids. Our children’s lives and our future generations depend on it.  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.  “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. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2022
Categories |
RSS Feed
