Towards the end of her press conference on the 22nd of February 2021, NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian handed the microphone to NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard. Mr Hazzard spoke very briefly, but very sternly about the people who are “making noise about it (the vaccine)”. This is what he had 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!”
These certainly are strong views from someone who has a history of this type of aggressive and demonstrative language. Perhaps Mr Hazzard should acquaint himself with the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Australian Public Assessment Report, which states that the long-term safety is “unknown”. The report also states that the “duration of protection is not yet known and is to be assessed in the ongoing trial”. Health Minister Greg Hunt acknowledged recently that the “world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Is it precious to want to know what the long-term side effects are before receiving a new, experimental and rushed-to-market vaccine? Is it selfish to not want to be part of the largest global vaccination trial ever?
The Australian Public Assessment Report acknowledges that “the following questions have not yet been addressed: 1) Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission; 2) The concomitant use of this vaccine with other vaccines; 3) Vaccine data in pregnant women and lactating mothers; 4) Vaccine efficacy and safety in immunocompromised individuals; 5) Vaccine efficacy and safety in paediatric subjects (< 16 years old); and 6) A correlate of protection has yet to be established.” One could argue that we, in fact, know very little about this new vaccine. Perhaps Mr Hazzard could explain to us why we should “get vaccinated” if the vaccine does not protect us from the virus. And could he please explain what we are actually doing for the health workers and the community if the vaccine does not prevent transmission of the virus?
As previously mentioned, Mr Hazzard has a history of using harsh and forceful language to convey his point of view. In January 2021, Mr Hazzard explained that “dancing and singing is amongst the most dangerous things you can do with this rather evil virus. If you actually choose to ignore the rules and you put your fellow visitors and fellow attendees at the wedding at risk, that is just completely and woefully inappropriate.” At the time of writing, which is approximately five weeks after Mr Hazzard’s statement, there are zero COVID-19 cases in NSW that have been locally acquired or acquired from interstate. Zero. So much for a “rather evil virus”.
In August 2020, Mr Hazzard was forced to apologise to Labor Leader Jodi McKay for his attack on her during question time. When referring to Ms McKay, the NSW Minister for Health stated: “If I was sitting next to someone like you in the bus, I would definitely wear a mask.” At one point, Ms McKay asked Mr Hazzard if the state had enough supplies of face masks. This is when the tirade and insults began. As Mr Hazzard approached the table, he said that “she’s a goose, don’t worry about it”. He continued by saying: “I heard the temporary leader of the Opposition being a complete pork chop today – quite stupid.” When Ms McKay asked if we have enough face masks, Mr Hazzard replied by saying that “you certainly need one” and telling her to repeatedly “be quiet”. Ms McKay accepted Mr Hazzard’s apology, however she said: “I think it was conduct unbefitting of a Minister.”
In March 2020, some 2,700 passengers aboard the Ruby Princess cruise ship were allowed to disembark in Circular Quay, Sydney. This decision by NSW Health resulted in 854 passengers and crew contracting the virus, and sadly 28 deaths. The Ruby Princess Inquiry found that NSW Health made multiple “serious, inexplicable and basic errors” by allowing the Ruby Princess cruise ship to disembark. There were calls for Mr Hazzard to resign as NSW Health Minister at the time. However, these calls fell on deaf ears.
If the recent Millions March Against Mandatory Vaccines is anything to go by, then many Australians will not be getting vaccinated as Mr Hazzard has pressured us to do. Perhaps this comes from his background as a science teacher. Perhaps he feels that, as the NSW Health Minister, he has the right to tell us what to do when it comes to our own body. The Morrison government has repeatedly stated that the vaccine will NOT be mandatory. The Pfizer vaccine uses mRNA technology. This technology is new, and it has never been used previously in human beings. The clinical trials bypassed critical animal studies, perhaps because all previous coronavirus vaccine animal studies have failed dismally. The clinical trials for the Pfizer vaccine are due for completion in January 2023. Anyone that takes the vaccine prior to this date is effectively part of the clinical trial. How many people would voluntarily take part in a clinical trial for a new vaccine that has never been used in humans before? According to the latest polling and social media, not many.
There is so much that we don’t know about these vaccines. We are seeing severe reactions to the vaccine all over the world, including a number of deaths, that despite occurring within hours or days of the patient receiving the vaccine, seem to not be linked to the vaccine is some mysterious way. Many doctors and nurses are refusing the vaccine, based simply on the lack of safety data. Others are choosing not to get the vaccine because the virus has a survival rate of 99.7%. For those under the age of 70 without a co-morbidity, they have three times more chance of dying from influenza. We don’t shut the world down and force a vaccine on people for influenza.
Mr Hazzard, it is not your role to tell people whether they should take the vaccine or not. It is their decision, and their decision alone. There are so many unknowns with this vaccine, and people have a right to refuse it. Medical freedom is one of our basic human rights, and we don’t need a politician telling us what we should do with our own health. Again, that is our decision and own decision alone. Where there is risk, there must be choice. As we continually say, ‘change the politician or change the politician’.
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!
On the 16th of February 2021, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) provisionally approved the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-S) for active immunisation of individuals 18 years and older. This follows the provisional approval of COMIRNATY, the Pfizer vaccine, on the 25th of January 2021 for individuals 16 years and older. The TGA has released the Australian Public Assessment Report and the Australian Product Information for the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Unlike the Pfizer vaccine, which uses mRNA technology, the AstraZeneca vaccine is a more traditional vaccine. It is composed of a “recombinant, replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector encoding the SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) glycoprotein (GP)”. Like other vaccines, it is “manufactured using material originally sourced from a human embryo (Human Embryonic Kidney cells: HEK293)”. HEK293 is a “specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in tissue culture taken from an aborted female foetus”. There is much conjecture around whether vaccines use aborted foetal tissue, which raise numerous moral, ethical and religious questions. The AstraZeneca vaccine is manufactured using a cell line from an aborted foetus.
According to the Australian Public Assessment Report (APAR), there are “significant concerns about the robustness of the data. The study design was not entirely fit for purpose to evaluate efficacy in high risk groups, there is insufficient data about dosing, and there were a number of patients lost to efficacy analysis.” The TGA’s own assessment report states that there is insufficient data about dosing. This is highly alarming. If the Australian government is going to roll out a vaccine to the Australian population that has been developed in less than 12 months when normal vaccine development takes 10-12 years, surely one of the first things that we should know is the dosage. The APAR states that the “dosing interval proposed for 4 to 12 weeks is acceptable”. How can you ‘propose’ a time frame? Surely, prior to the provisional approval of the vaccine, this simple fact should have been established. It’s no wonder that Swiss Medical Regulator have decided not to approve the AstraZeneca vaccine for use due to a lack of data.
The Australian Public Assessment Report continues by stating that the following is “missing information”:
The Australian government, along with the TGA, have repeatedly stated that the vaccine is effective and safe, yet the APAR clearly states that there is no long-term safety data. How can one definitively say that the vaccine is safe without this data? European countries France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Poland have all advised against the use of the vaccine over a certain age. Why has the Australian government not advised against use of the vaccine in individuals over the age of 65, given that there is no data on this demographic of people? This age group often have co-morbidities. There is no data on those with co-morbidities, which is even more dangerous. The alarm bells are ringing loud and clear.
As with the Pfizer vaccine, the “duration of protection has not yet been established”. The TGA have provisionally approved two vaccines for COVID-19, yet we have no idea how long immunity will last. At this stage, it is two months at best. The Australian Product Information (API) states that the “COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has provisional approval for… Active immunisation of individuals >18 years old for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2”. This API clearly states that the vaccine prevents COVID-19, yet the same report states that the duration of protection is unknown. Which is it? Are we protected or not? One would assume that this would be the basis of any vaccine, and if it is unclear if or how long protection lasts, then surely more studies are required prior to rolling it out to the Australian public.
The Australian Product Information also states that “genotoxicity (mutagenicity)” or “carcinogenicity” studies have not been conducted. Genotoxicity refers to chemical agents that damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer, whilst carcinogenicity refers to the ability or tendency to produce cancer. Again, one would assume that it would be imperative that these studies are conducted before rolling out a vaccine to the entire population. The consequences could be catastrophic if the vaccine is found to cause either of these issues.
There have been a number of concerning side effects throughout the AstraZeneca vaccine trials. According to the APAR, important potential risks include nervous system disorders, including immune-mediated neurological conditions, vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED), including vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD), and anaphylaxis. There were reported cases of transverse myelitis, an inflammatory condition of the spinal cord, in September 2020 in the UK AstraZeneca trial, resulting in the trial being paused. In fact, the trial was suspended temporarily in the US as a result of the adverse reactions in the UK. We are already seeing a large number of adverse reactions to the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK and around the world.
Although the AstraZeneca vaccine is a more traditional vaccine compared to the Pfizer vaccine, there is no more data available on it. There is no data on how long immunity will last, or if the vaccine will prevent transmission of the virus. There is so little data that it makes one question how the TGA could even approve such a vaccine. They are using “post-market assessment” to determine the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. That means that anyone that takes the vaccine is part of the clinical trials. Ruud Dobber, a member of Astra’s senior executive team, stated that “this is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in… four years the vaccine is showing side effects”. The point of vaccine trials is to rule out these long-term side effects through clinical trials, not mass population experiments. We are not protected and the pharmaceutical companies are not liable should something go wrong. This is unacceptable, and the Australian public deserve so much better. More and more people are saying no to this experimental and rushed-to-market vaccine for a virus with a 99.7% survival rate. More and more people in Australia and around the world are standing up for medical freedom. Where there is risk, there must be choice.
It’s time to shine the spotlight on the lesser-known facts of vaccine development. And there’s no better way to do this than by comparing vaccine development standards with standards for common prescription medication, as both substances are held to be (largely) safe to put in our body.
Let’s start with prescription medication. In the drug trials, there are two groups: the group that receives the pharmaceutical product, known as the experimental group, and the control group that receives an inert placebo, such as a saline solution or sugar pill. The control group, as suggested by the name, provides the baseline that allows comparison of symptoms, allergies or adverse reactions that may occur in the vaccinated group.
For example, in a study involving a medication for asthma patients, the researchers can be assured that the improvement in the condition of the participants is caused by the medication and not by factors like change in weather and/or season. This is because the weather would have affected all the participants, those in the experimental group and those in the control group. Likewise, with deterioration in health. The researchers can look at the percentage increase in detrimental health conditions between the groups. If the experimental group suffers significantly more, alarm bells will ring for the researchers and they can adjust dosing or ingredients in the prescription medication.
The other key aspect of prescription medication safety trials is their length. Pharmaceutical companies must monitor adverse events in the participants for 4-7 years. An adverse event is an injury resulting from the pharmaceutical product. These are more serious and longer lasting than side effects such as a fever or rash. Adverse events include conditions like anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, encephalitis (brain inflammation), immune disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, seizures.
Let’s look at a few examples: The pre-licensure trials for Enbrel, a medication for arthritis, followed trial participants for up to 6.7 years. The control group received a saline injection. The pre-licensure trials for Lipitor, a type of Statin medication for cholesterol lowering, followed trial subjects for a median of 4.8 years. The control group received a sugar pill.
We should note that even with these safety trials, there are often still significant problems with prescription medication. A case in point is Lipitor. There are so many lawsuits being brought against Lipitor for injury, that there is a special class of lawyers who specialise in them.
Now to focus on vaccines. For the purpose of testing and approval by regulatory bodies, vaccines are classified as “biologics”, not drugs. Other medical products in this category include blood products, plasma and anti-venoms. The pre licensure safety follow up period for adverse events for “biologics” is not years like prescription medication, but anywhere from 4-60 days.
Furthermore, the control group in vaccine testing typically does not receive an inert placebo, unlike safety trials for prescription medication. The control group will receive either a previously licenced vaccine or an adjuvant. An adjuvant is a component of the vaccine that is added to stimulate the immune response.
Let’s look at a few examples: ProQuad, the Measles, Mumps, Rubella + Varicella (Chicken Pox) vaccine followed trial participants for 42 days and the control group received the previously licenced M-M-R II and VARIVAX vaccines as the “placebo”. Engerix-B, a Hepatitis B vaccine, followed study subjects for 4 days and the control group received “plasma derived vaccines” as the “placebo”.
This means that the manufacturers are only testing to see if the new vaccine is roughly as safe as an existing one. They are not testing to truly measure side effects because the control group also receives a medical product that may cause side effects. The vaccines tested with the control group given an aluminium adjuvant as the “placebo” are the worst of all because aluminium adjuvants are a known cause of autoimmune diseases. These are some of the very conditions the vaccine safety testing is supposed to be measuring. When you mess with the control group this way, the data you collect is seriously flawed. There cannot be an accurate measure of the degree of harm caused by the vaccine, if all known active ingredients are not removed from the placebo.
It is also well established that biochemical processes, and therefore potential adverse reactions in the body, take time to occur. Therefore, safety trials need to be of sufficient duration. By anyone’s standards, 5 days or even 42 days is woefully short.
To even further muddy the water, sometimes the very vaccine that is being tested is offered to the control group at the end of the safety trial. This happened in the safety trial of the Haemophilus Influenza B (Hib) in the United States. Presumably the vaccine manufacturer thought the participants in the control group were “missing out” on the benefits of protection and encouraged uptake. But how can you compare the long-term health outcomes between the groups - control group versus experimental group - if the control group get vaccinated as well? Obviously, one cannot. These practices pass for “science”, a science that any grade six student could tell you is an insult to our intelligence.
The first Covid 19 vaccine approved for emergency use in Australia is made by Pfizer Inc. It is a new type of vaccine that uses mRNA technology. We have discussed this technology here. Normal vaccines take in total 10-12 years to develop, even though the follow up period in the safety trials is very short. The development of the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to take 2-3 years in total to develop, and we are still in the developmental stage, as the study completion date is January 2023. We have already written about the vast gaps in safety data and serious areas of concern. However, what is not as well known, is that, like the Hib vaccine, Pfizer vaccine participants “who originally received placebo will be offered the opportunity to receive BNT162b2 at defined points as part of the study”. Every control group participant who receives the vaccine – especially during the course of the study – represents a reduction in proper safety data on the vaccine.
So, one might ask, why is the science required for prescription medication approval so much more rigorous than the science applied to vaccine approval? The answer is simple: Liability. Pharmaceutical companies are liable for any damage caused by their prescription medication. This means that they will be financially penalised, they will have to pay compensation money to the injured person if it is ruled that their prescription medication caused this injury. Hence, they are motivated to carry out rigorous and lengthy safety trials. These safety trials are costly, but it means there is a reduced likelihood of injury and potentially lawsuits for them.
What you may not know is that the very same pharmaceutical companies are not liable for injuries caused by their vaccines. This immunity to responsibility for their product has been granted to them by Government regulators, primarily in the US. Clearly this has reduced the motivation for conducting expensive long-term monitoring of participants in vaccine trials. Why spend the money, when any safety problems that arise from omitting such studies, are not sheeted back to you?
This was not always the case. Prior to 1986, vaccine manufacturers were liable for injuries due to their products. However, due to the rising costs of lawsuits and payouts to families of vaccine injured children in the civil courts, several companies were forced to end their research and development programs, as well as stop producing already licensed vaccines. Instead of letting market forces compel vaccine manufacturers to create safer vaccines, Ronald Reagan pushed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (the 1986 Act) through US Congress.
This act granted pharmaceutical companies financial immunity from injuries caused by vaccines recommended by the CDC. As part of this Act, a “no fault” compensation program was established, which recognised that there are inherent risks in vaccines and that a certain percentage of children would always be injured. While WHO urged other countries to follow suit, Australia is the only high income WHO member country who does not have such a compensation program. Many Australian doctors and scientists are calling for the urgent establishment of a vaccine injury compensation scheme (VICS), before the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.
The Australian government is planning to mass-vaccinate the population with new tech mRNA vaccines that are being rushed through the development process. There has not yet been a study of the medium term or long- term effects of this vaccine, that is going to work in our bodies in a totally new way. The long-term effects will be studied, but in reality, we are the test subjects. The government also makes no secret of the fact that those unwilling to be vaccinated will be denied many services, creating a new class of “have” and “have nots”. And all of this, without providing a safety net for this experimental vaccine, still in the development and testing phase.
Are you willing to “trust the science” and take part?
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.
Everyone can agree we certainly are living in unprecedented times. Since the onset of Covid-19, the world as we know it ceased to exist. We can no longer travel, we are often and swiftly locked down / locked up, in our own homes. Now this. A private citizen, with inherently clear conflicts of interests, is given a very public voice to not only speak untruths, but to also issue directions to the Prime Minister of Australia.
He what now?
Yes Kim Sampson, the Immunisation Coalition chief Executive, has loudly given the Prime Minister clear and very public instructions on how to deal with his cabinet members in this article published on January 26.
Who is Kim Sampson? On his LinkedIn profile he describes himself as the CEO of The Immunisation Coalition (formerly the Influenza Specialist Group) from 2008 to present (almost 13 years), Executive Director, Asia-Pacific Alliance for the Control of Influenza, 2011 to present (10 years), with his career seemingly starting as Business Manager for Southern Health in Clayton Victoria 1996 to 2002.
The Immunisation Coalition, formerly the Influenza Specialist Group, is a not-for-profit organisation with a mission “To create public awareness regarding the importance of immunisation by providing educational materials and communication programs.”
A quick search uncovered that The Immunisation Coalition is funded by Pfizer, Seqirus CSL, Sanofi – three major Covid 19 manufacturers, amongst other pharmaceutical companies such as Roche diagnostics, making hundreds of millions with PCR tests. We have recently covered the recent admission of false positives by the World Health Organisation, and recalibration for processing to avoid faulty PCR testing in this article.
In light of this, it comes as no surprise that Mr Sampson is on a mission to discredit anyone who speaks against the narrative around how the Australian Government is handling Covid 19, especially anything that highlights the risks involved with a mass vaccination campaign of millions of healthy, not-at-risk individuals with an unapproved medical product. Billions of Aussie tax-payer dollars have been committed to purchasing and rolling out these vaccines, so failure to uptake the vaccine by the Australian population would see these big business deals turn to dust. Heads will roll. This is a high stakes game.
Politicizing and commercialising a health crisis has opened this up to huge disaster, and it’s coming in waves. Mr Sampson is on such a tirade that he is actually trying to demand new laws to combat ‘misinformation’ about vaccines.
Unfortunately, what Mr Sampson is trying to silence is not misinformation, it is in fact all opposing views to his agenda for profit. The only reference from Minister Kelly in this article is that he allegedly has said that “forcing children to wear face masks is child abuse”. Unfortunately, this is not a myth. Not only have there been no scientific studies supporting mask use as a preventative measure for spreading Covid 19, what we have learned is quite the opposite. More often than not people are developing bacterial infections in the lungs from overuse and misuse of masks. Children are not at risk of spreading or contracting the disease. Forcing children to limit their oxygen intake for no health benefit is abuse.
Premier Daniel Andrews has gone on the record today, 2 February 2021, stating that because the vaccines available do not stop transmission or contraction of the virus, restrictive measures will remain in place for a long time to come. He is currently attempting to extend the Statement of Emergency for another nine months in Victoria. This is not going away anytime soon.
Keep in mind that these vaccines are not approved medical products. They are authorised for use from the FDA in the United States under the State of Emergency legislation, and the same emergency authorisation has been granted here in Australia by the TGA. Safety trials are still underway, and will be underway for years to come. Anyone taking this experimental medicine does so at their own risk. Vaccine manufacturers, the doctors who administer the product and the Australian Government are all indemnified from any liability.
That means if you or a loved one gets injured or killed, there is no legal recourse for compensation. Alarm bells ringing loud and clear.
Without getting lost in the semantics, we can clearly see this article is a propaganda piece to put public pressure on the government to introduce more draconian measures to suppress free speech and public sharing of information.
What is happening in the media is absolutely abhorrent and every single journalist accepting their bonuses for perpetuating this narrative instead of upholding the Journalists Creed should be ashamed of themselves.
Now more than ever we encourage our readers to do their own independent research.
Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.
On the 25th of January 2021, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) granted provisional approval to Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd for its COVID-19 vaccine, COMIRNATY, for individuals 16 years and older. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison indicated that the vaccine roll out will begin in late February, with the elderly, aged-care workers and health care workers to be amongst the first to receive the jab. The TGA have released the Australian Public Assessment Report and the Australian Product Information for the COVID-19 vaccine following its provisional approval.
The Australian Public Assessment Report states that the “duration of protection is not yet known and is to be assessed in the ongoing trial”. This is one of the many reasons why vaccine development takes 10-12 years on average. Do we need to take the vaccine every year? If someone receives the vaccine, how do we know that the individual is not transmitting the virus a few months later if we don’t know the duration of protection. Will we need to take the vaccine during the flu season? We simply do not have the answers to these very important questions at this stage.
The report continues by outlining that “in addition to the unknown longer term safety and unknown duration of vaccine protection, there are other limitations with the submitted data.” We don’t know how long the vaccine will protect us for, and now we don’t know if the vaccine is safe long term. This is one of the reasons why phase 3 clinical trials are so critical, as they help to determine the long term safety of a vaccine. What will the long term side effects be? Will the vaccine create antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), resulting in an enhanced immune response to the virus? Will the antibodies created by the vaccine attack the spike protein syncytin-1, which can potentially cause infertility in females? Will we develop antibodies to polyethylene glycol (PEG), which may cause an allergic reaction to the vaccine? Will the vaccine create autoimmunity? We cannot answer any of these questions because we have no long term safety data, and the studies have not been conducted.
The Australian Public Assessment Report acknowledges that “the following questions have not yet been addressed:
Although the vaccine efficacies against certain outcomes have been demonstrated in the pivotal study, the real world vaccine effectiveness when this vaccine is rolled out to a larger and more diverse population is not known. The vaccine efficacy in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has not been studied.” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. These are the people that we are trying to protect, yet we have no data on how the vaccine may affect this group of people.
We don’t know if the vaccine stops transmission, and we don’t know if it protects asymptomatic people, of which there are many. At this stage, the TGA have advised against giving the vaccine during pregnancy and breast feeding, as well as to children under the age of 16. We also don’t know how the vaccine interacts with other vaccines such as the influenza vaccine, which people will begin to take as we get closer to winter, which coincidentally, will not be that long after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout begins.
The Australian Product Information states that we have no data for “use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease)” or for “use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders”. These are two of the more vulnerable demographics, and the very people that we are trying to protect, yet we have no information on how the vaccine will affect these people. Which begs the question… Why have frail patients received the vaccine in other countries if we have no safety data? We have already witnessed the devastating consequences.
The Australian Product Information also states that “neither genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies were performed. The components of COMIRNATY (lipids and mRNA) are not expected to have genotoxic potential.” Genotoxicity refers to chemical agents that damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer, whilst carcinogenicity refers to the ability or tendency to produce cancer. Despite the fact that the vaccines are “not expected” to create these issues, one would assume that it would be imperative that we conduct studies in these areas before rolling out a vaccine to the entire population. The consequences could be catastrophic if the vaccine is found to cause these issues.
The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA vaccine that is new, experimental and rushed to market. It has never been used in humans previously, and it has bypassed critical animal studies. The lack of data is astounding, in particular, the lack of safety and long term data. We don’t know if it stops transmission, if it protects asymptomatic people or how long protection lasts. We have already seen a number of adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine in many countries around the world. The potential side effects of this vaccine may be irreversible, which makes it even more important that we rule them out rather than experimenting of the unsuspecting public.
In January 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that the cycle threshold for the PCR test be run at 45 cycles. Despite the many warnings from experts the world over, it took until December 2020 for the World Health Organisation to finally admit that they have a “problem” with the test. The WHO received “feedback on an elevated risk of false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents in open systems”. The ‘problem’ relates to a wholly arbitrary cycling process, which “means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
However, more recently, the World Health Organisation finally acknowledged that the cycle threshold for the PCR test has been set too high. “WHO guidance diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”
“WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of the test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.”
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis; therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that the “detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”. The CDC continues by saying that the “performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection” and that the PCR test “cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens”.
The Corman-Drosten Review Report shows 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%.”
In March 2020, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director General of the World Health Organisation, said that “we have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test”. The advice to test anyone and everyone, regardless of symptoms, using a flawed PCR test, has been an unmitigated public health disaster. It has resulted in the closure of businesses, the destruction of industries and the loss of life. It is time for those who are responsible to be held accountable.
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.”
Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, stated repeatedly that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it is “incapable of diagnosing disease”. Experts the world over have been questioning the validity of the PCR test for some time, and now the judicial system in Portugal is bringing the legality of the PCR test into question.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal recently ruled that the PCR test is “unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”. The judges quoted a study published in The Lancet, which stated that “any diagnostic test result should be interpreted in the context of the pre-test probability of disease. For COVID-19, the pre-test probability assessment includes symptoms, previous medical history of COVID-19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to COVID-19, and likelihood of alternative diagnosis. When low pre-test probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation.”
“Prolong viral RNA shedding, which is known to last for weeks after recovery, can be a potential reason for positive swab tests in those previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture-based methods.” The judge in this particular court case concluded that the “problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence, as being more than debatable”.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) have finally acknowledged what many have been saying, including the judge in this court case. “WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.”
“WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of the test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.”
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
Dr Joseph Mercola has been highlighting this point for a long time. “Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case”, has been completely are arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA.”
Dr Mercola continues by saying that if “you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually non-existent”. Another important distinction to make is that if someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using the PCR test, this does not mean that this person has COVID-19. For the person to be diagnosed with COVID-19, they must exhibit the symptoms associated with the disease.
Global Research explains that in the “case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture. We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome.”
“Positive RT-PRC cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, colour codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.”
“This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”