Reports last year indicated that the China has set up police stations across the world including one in Sydney.
Chinese authorities have said the stations, sometimes called “contact points”, provide services to citizens, such as renewing national identification cards, passports and drivers licences, by using facial recognition technology.
But human rights groups fear overseas police offices could also be used to target dissidents abroad or compel people to return to China where they could face potentially politicised trials.
Despite this potential National Security Breach, our spy agency ASIO doesn’t appear worried and claims to not know anything about it. China must be laughing at our government.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Mr Burgess, you said in your opening statement that
Australia is the target of sophisticated and persistent espionage and foreign interference activities from a range of hostile foreign intelligence services. I take it they use a range of means of doing so.
Mr Burgess: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a Chinese Communist Party supported contact point in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: I’m not aware of that.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been reported in the media, I understand.
Mr Burgess: I see many things in the media, but I let the data that we have available to us determine that. I wouldn’t comment on operational matters, but I’m not aware of that in the context of that media reporting.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware of how long it’s been in operation or what its purpose is?
Mr Burgess: You’re assuming it’s true.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Burgess: We will investigate things that are associated with acts of foreign interference, but I won’t bring colour to them in a public hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there Chinese police officers working out of premises in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: Not that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: Are their operations of interest to our security agencies?
Mr Burgess: If anyone here were engaged in acts of espionage or foreign interference, that would be of concern and something that we would investigate.
Senator ROBERTS: What about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?
Mr Burgess: Again, my agency will investigate anything that’s a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Chinese citizens or Chinese people living here in Australia? Should they be concerned? You would protect them, even though they may not be Australian citizens.
Mr Burgess: Anyone in this country is free to be here, assuming they’re on a valid visa, of course, or they’re a citizen or permanent residence, and they’re of no concern to us unless they’re engaged in matters of prejudicial security, in which case we would show an interest in them.
Senator ROBERTS: Individual security as well as national security?
Mr Burgess: Threats to security are what ASIO worries about.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware of people operating from this contact point, so you wouldn’t know whether or not they have any contact with or influence on Australian Chinese residents or Chinese visa holders.
Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific operational matters, but I will say this because I’ve said this publicly before: the threat of espionage and foreign interference is a real threat in this country. It is our principal security concern. It comes from a range of countries, and I think it’s unhelpful for me to call out specific countries and in particular when we talk about the vast range of diaspora communities in this country, the members of those communities are not the problem. It’s the foreign government and the foreign intelligence services that will be the focus for me and my agency.
Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese Communist Party itself has belted our country economically. What Australian overview of agencies that operate in this country is there for premises like the supported contact point in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific matters, but if we have a need to investigate things that may be of concern in relation to security, things that could be used as platforms for espionage or foreign interference, I can assure you my agency will be on it and investigate it. And I can assure you we had a very productive year last year, removing espionage and foreign interference problems from this country.
Senator ROBERTS: And you may or may not be able to tell us about those operations, depending upon the circumstances. Is that correct?
Mr Burgess: I wouldn’t talk about them publicly in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a series of very short questions on a topic that was underway in last Senate estimates in this room, as I was asking the questions, but it was denied. That was the ISIS brides that were brought back. What are the costs to Australia of bringing these women and children to Australia?
Mr Burgess: The repatriation was not a matter for ASIO. We gave advice on the individuals, but beyond that you’d have to pass that question to others.
Senator ROBERTS: What security measures are to be taken to keep Australian community members safe, because these people have been part of some radical terrorist groups and associated with them?
Mr Burgess: The only comment I’d make there is that ASIO gave security advice to government and, in particular, gave security assessments on all the individuals that returned. That was our job.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that again? You assessed them?
Mr Burgess: We did security assessments on returning individuals, and they returned, and that’s okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Are any of these women currently wives or partners or sisters of terrorists?
Mr Burgess: I won’t go into specific matters.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they genuine refugees?
Mr Burgess: They’re Australian citizens who have returned home.
Senator ROBERTS: Given their recent social circumstances, are any of these people going to need
deradicalization programs?
Mr Burgess: Again, I wouldn’t comment on that publicly, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of the women have been charged with terrorism related offences?
Mr Burgess: I’m not law enforcement. I’m aware of one charge.
Senator ROBERTS: One.
Mr Burgess: You should speak to the AFP about that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if it assists you, we do have the AFP a little bit later today. They can answer some of those questions for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Given that most of the husbands and children’s fathers have been
killed by Western soldiers, how traumatised and angry were they when you assessed them?
Mr Burgess: I can’t speak for how they’re feeling.
Senator ROBERTS: No, but you would be aware, surely, of their potential threat?
Mr Burgess: As I said, we did security assessments on all the individuals, and anyone who falls into that
category that believes that violence is the answer would be subject to my agency’s inquiry and investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ongoing support to be provided, and what is it?
Mr Burgess: Again, that’s not a matter for my organisation, other than to say that we will continue to watch anyone that is a threat to security, but I’m not making any comment on these individuals.
Senator ROBERTS: You may not be able to answer this, but I’m guessing you would know the answer
because it would form part of your assessment of terrorism threat. Given the children’s exposure to violence, either as victims or perpetrators, what are the plans for their assimilation, and did you make any comments about what was needed?
Mr Burgess: Again, that question is best put to others in Home Affairs and more broadly.
Senator ROBERTS: Does your agency work in providing a diagnosis and recommendations?
Mr Burgess: On individuals or children?
Senator ROBERTS: On treatment of people to make sure that they don’t violate our standards of behaviour.
Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that. We talk about the security threats people might face, and others worry about what treatments, if any, might be needed.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you do interact. If you can see a potential threat, you pass it on to someone. You
don’t just—
Mr Burgess: We’re part of a broader apparatus that helps counterterrorism in this country, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I see Mr Pezzullo nodding in agreement. Have the communities where these people are to be housed been fully consulted? I guess that’s for other people to comment.
Mr Burgess: It’s not a question for me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Does your assessment of the threat include any consideration of family members here in Australia whose friends or family members have been killed by ISIS terrorists? Do you consult with the community in which they’re going to be placed?
Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that consultation of where they get placed.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the families be housed together or apart?
Mr Burgess: Again, I can’t answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: I was thinking more from a security point of view.
Mr Burgess: No, that’s irrelevant. They’re Australian citizens; they’re entitled to be where they want to be
unless there’s some legal condition on them. But I’m not law enforcement, so I’m not part of that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, would you be monitoring them more closely if they’re living close together in an enclave?
Mr Burgess: We will monitor anyone that we deem to be a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: So, it wouldn’t be part of your recommendations to keep them separate in this country?
Mr Burgess: No, we were not in that space.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have a final question, Chair, on violence. Does ‘violence’ include destroying
artworks, interrupting everyday Australians and destroying roadworks? I note that left-wing extremism in the 20th century killed 120 million people. I presume you monitor all types of extremism?
Mr Burgess: We’ll monitor any individuals that have an ideology that thinks violence is the answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much and thank you for your clear statements opposing violence.
CHAIR: Thanks, Senator Roberts.
In a rare win, the World Health Organisation has backed down on proposed International Health Regulation amendments for compulsory vaccination and lockdowns. It is a win yet the pandemic treaty, that would do the same thing again, is still waiting in the wings.
This week represents a rare victory for Australian sovereignty.
A victory for common sense, decency and humanity.
And a victory against the sprawling monster of unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organisation.
You will recall the WHO proposed to change their health regulations that guide member states in the event of a disease outbreak, like COVID, from guiding member states to being mandatory on member states, including Australia.
This would have represented a complete destruction of Australian sovereignty, and a fundamental re-imagining of the powers of the World Health Organisation.
Last December the Liberal/National Morrison Government voted in favour of these changes, yet many sensible countries voted against, and the proposal was lost.
Undaunted the World Health Organisation tried again this year.
After months of heavy criticism, One Nation and those opposing these measures have had a big win.
The Final Report from the International Health Regulations Review Committee released this week has dropped the proposed changes.
The World Health Organisation will remain an advisory body.
Dystopian demands, such as allowing the World Health Organisation to make binding health orders overriding state and federal control, have been thrown out.
This includes the proposed powers that would have allowed the WHO to control:
Gone is the universal ‘health passport’ – or vaccine passport – that was going to control the ability of citizens to travel between countries in a permanent capacity.
It was decided that this would raise ‘ethical’ and ‘discriminatory’ concerns. A global digital vaccine passport will no longer be developed under the committee’s powers.
For now.
The committee will remain confined to actual public health emergencies rather than ‘potential health risks’ – removing the widely held fear that their scope could be extended to ‘climate lockdowns’ and other human rights abuses.
Which would have been possible because WHO had proposed to remove human rights from the regulations.
After a backlash the committee now strongly recommends the retention of the existing text, which is quote “full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons as an overarching principle”.
This is a critical back down.
The WHO committee working on these changes has just recommitted to its fundamental human rights pledge in defiance of the proposed amendments.
The findings of the committee agreed with the concerns that One Nation raised regarding threat to sovereignty.
In their final report, the committee said that it was, quote: “concerned that the proposals may unduly impinge on the sovereignty of state parties” and make recommendations “binding” instead of voluntary.
In the end, the committee validated the fears raised on the international stage and within the free press.
Fears I raised and for which I was called a conspiracy theorist.
I was correct.
Their decision to throw out this attempt to grab power from sovereign governments is a crucial first step in stopping unelected global bureaucracies from overstepping their purpose.
Pauline Hanson first raised the UN’s treasonous work in parliament in 1996. In my first senate speech in 2016 I called for Australia to exit the UN – AusEXIT.
We’ve been so strongly outspoken against ceding Australian sovereignty to the unhinged UN-WEF alliance that the WEF recently specifically called us out.
We’re getting under their skin.
This fight is not over.
All of the terrifying proposed powers that have been summarily rejected this week, are duplicated in the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.
The Pandemic Treaty is a second attempt to turn WHO into the world health police.
The Pandemic Treaty is alive and well, sitting in the system waiting for our “leaders” to signed.
If the Pandemic Treaty were to be approved, it would enforce all of the binding health powers that others in WHO have just rejected. What a mess.
The World Health Organisation is too big, too bureaucratic, too removed from the people it is supposed to help, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest and above all else, too close to the Pharmaceutical industry.
The next step to protect Australia’s health sovereignty is to make sure that the Pandemic Treaty is rejected and that the Prime Minister does not sign it.
For concerned Australians who have written to their members of parliament and who received a stock reply saying the treaty has to go through Parliament first – that is actually not true.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty includes a provision that it becomes binding on Australia the moment our WHO representative signs it.
No Parliamentary oversight required.
Screw that.
One Nation’s work continues.
While rate rises may have been foreseeable, they are only happening because of the Government’s incompetence causing inflation in the first place.
The government printed hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, leading to massive inflation which the RBA is trying to bring under control with a sledgehammer.
Australians who bought a house under the RBAs promise that rates wouldn’t rise until 2024 are struggling with more pain to come.
The Palaszczuk Government’s decision to extend payroll tax to contracting GP’s is nothing but a tax on the sick. The treasurer has promised a 2 year grace period, instead, the entire idea of taxing GPs more should be scrapped.
The 2023 Climate and Energy forum was held on the 2nd of February with a fantastic line-up of speakers. This is the full recording of my address to the forum showing just how baseless and environmentally damaging climate policies are.
Good evening.
To this forum’s organisers, thank you. To fellow speakers and to all in our audience, thank you.
I can’t join you in person because our daughter is about to have our first grandchild.
In late 2007 I started holding climate alarmists accountable, alongside Viv Forbes. In 2009 I paused and asked myself: “why was I doing this?” and unearthed five aims:
I’ve researched, investigated and written extensively on climate science.
The end game of unfounded claims that carbon dioxide from human activity causes global warming is clear. It has always been to take wealth, freedom and opportunity from everyday Australians and to enhance the wealth and opportunity of the world’s predatory billionaires.
I challenged alarmists speaking out publicly to debate me – politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, academics and activists. They all ran away.
Entering the Senate in 2016 gave me a chance to speak to our elected representatives face to face.
I wanted those advocating the destruction of our local communities and of our national economy to be accountable for revealing the scientific evidence behind their climate and energy policies.
The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, government departments and Ministers have failed to provide logical scientific arguments citing empirical data and observations proving that carbon dioxide from human activity is causing environmental harm.
After years in Parliament spent writing letters, making speeches, asking questions in Question Time and Senate Estimates of CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology “scientists”, one thing is now clear:
They have no scientific argument to support the failed theory of man-made climate change.
They have no data to show humans are causing climate change, and of course they won’t because climate varies in natural cycles.
Last September I made an 82-page submission to Labour’s 2022 Climate Change Bill.
That paper is on my website. Today I’ll mention the most important points:
The Climate Change scam is not scientifically driven. There is no science. It’s politically driven.
In my submission to the Government’s Climate Change Bill I dealt with the history of climate change legislation, which casts the necessary light on this scam’s politics of this scam, quote:
“To comply with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the Howard-Anderson Liberal-National coalition government introduced the Renewable Energy Target (RET). They were the first large federal party to have a policy calling for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS or Carbon Dioxide Tax). They deliberately bypassed the constitution in a deal with state premiers to steal farmers’ rights to use their own land in order for the Liberal-Nationals federal government to comply with the 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, the Liberal-National government got around our constitution’s Section 51, Clause 31 requiring farmers to be compensated for loss of their rights to use their own land. Yet in 2013, six years after leaving office, former Prime Minister John Howard delivered the annual address in London of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation in which he confessed that he was agnostic on climate science, meaning he did not have the necessary climate science to justify his party’s policy and his government’s legislation. Thus, the government that started and entrenched climate and associated energy policies did not do so based on science”.
And further in my submission: “When I repeatedly asked the Morrison government’s Senate Leader, Matthias Cormann for the logical scientific points supporting climate and energy policies he repeatedly failed to answer my question and instead stated a need to fulfil international commitments and obligations. This is no basis for policy that is costing Australians billions of dollars and will cost trillions of dollars”.
Matthias Cormann was actually being honest here. Australia is introducing Climate Change Armageddon NOT because of the science. Instead, because unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats serving the interests of the world’s predatory billionaires are instructing our governments.
My submission is on my website malcolmrobertsQLD.com.au. It includes a detailed scientific rebuttal, using peer-reviewed scientific papers, rebutting CSIRO’s claims.
Now, let’s consider the present government. In Senate Estimates hearings I asked Senator McAllister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to provide me with the elusive ‘logical scientific points’ to prove that carbon dioxide from human activity needs to be cut.
Senator McAllister responded with these papers and, listen to her, quote: “Here are the 20 most cited peer reviewed papers about climate change and its effects” … “compiled by Thomson Reuters” … “that expressed a view on climate change”.
These do NOT discuss CAUSES of climate change. They’re about claimed effects. This applies to half her cited papers. She’s scientifically ignorant.
Let’s look at Senator McAllister’s so-called ‘proof’:
One paper specifically questions whether climate variability is due to human or natural cycles.
Nine of the 20 papers just assumed climate change is real without providing any proof. These are the papers that Senator McAllister said proved man made climate change was real.
Eleven of the 20 papers and three of her additional five papers rely on numerical models, not empirical scientific evidence.
Models prove whatever the person paying for the model wants it to prove.
Another paper reinforces that natural cycles and oscillations are driving climate variability and admits that climate drivers are poorly understood. It questions whether human activity drives climate.
NONE of the papers Senator McAllister cites and relies upon, nor any member of Parliament or bureaucrat, has been able to provide logical scientific points using empirical scientific data proving that carbon dioxide from human activity effects any climate factors including temperature. NONE.
This destroys the very basis of the climate change hoax.
Why would Senator McAllister cite papers that do not support her case?
It’s simple. Senator McAllister never read them. The journalists that tout these papers as proof of climate change never read them. And the public that shares them around on social media never read them.
I did read them because that is what you pay me to do.
Where are the papers that prove climate change is man-made – they do not exist.
It’s a scam.
Peer reviewed papers tell us that there is no discernible trend in severe weather events.
These are inconvenient truths for the Climate Crisis doomsayers, charlatans and financial beneficiaries.
There’s no scientific basis for climate alarm.
Nor for Liberal-National or Labor-Greens-Pocock climate and energy policy.
We’re experiencing natural climate variability.
There’s no reason for shoddy, deceitful, policies costing our nation billions of dollars now, growing to trillions of dollars over time.
Supposed “cheap” wind and solar power is a lie. It’s a lie that purposely ignores the costs of necessary overbuild, firming, low energy density, unreliability and the complete rebuilding of our transmission network which worked just fine.
WE ALL pay for that.
Businesses large and small pay for that and pass the cost on to us.
Governments pay for that and pass the cost on to us.
Right now, in kitchens and livings rooms across Australia, families are opening their electricity bills, their gas bills and having to sit down. Then the panic sets in – how can I pay this?
It will get worse – when the lights go out, the heaters and air-conditioners stop, poor and vulnerable Australians will die.
These measures are destroying the lives of everyday Australians, small and medium businesses, industrial and extractive businesses, agriculture and tourism.
While Australia is slowly killing itself, China is receiving most of the solar and wind subsidies and tightening its almost complete control over the wind and solar supply chain.
Please help awaken our fellow Australians to restore sound governance and sovereignty through personal pressure on your MPs and through informed choices at the ballot box.
Please support One Nation as we fight back against this madness and defend all Australians from the soviet style government of Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor-Greens Party.
Most importantly, call this supposed “Climate Breakdown” what it actually is, a Climate Fraud.
Thank you.
Enjoy the forum.
Electricity and the cost of living are all going up, Liberal/Labor haven’t done anything to help: they are the cause.
They are two wings of the same bird.
By Phillip M. Altman1 BPharm(Hons) MSc PhD, James Rowe2 BPharm, MSc, PhD FRSN, Wendy Hoy3 AO FAA FRACP, Gerry Brady4 MBBS, Astrid Lefringhausen5, PhD, Robyn
Cosford6 MBBS(Hons) FACNEM FASLM and Bruce Wauchope7 MBBS – DTM&H, Dip OBS RACOG, FRACGP
1 Pharmacologist – Clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs consultant
2 Pharmaceutical formulation, manufacturing and quality control consultant
3 Professor of Medicine, Univ. of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Univ. of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
4 Retired General Practitioner, Publisher
5 Scientist – Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
6 Professor of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, Retired Medical Doctor
7 General Practitioner, Diploma of Tropical Medicine
The US Department of Defense (US DoD) has had a dominant role in the response to the SARs CoV2 virus and in the subsequent development, manufacture and distribution of the Covid 19 vaccines. This has been kept hidden from the general public since early 2020. The US DoD clearly perceived a threat to national security and all decisions from that point onward to the present day were subject to full command and control from them. Strong evidence for this has now become readily available in the public domain, published on the US Food and Drug Administration website (US FDA). Many adverse consequences have been the outcome of this secret military response to a public health matter.
We present the key elements of what happened and warn that what took place was unwise. The lesson is that the development and production of vaccines and other therapeutic products for general civilian use should never again be allowed to be under full military command and control.
Many aspects of the Covid 19 event, which began in January 2020, and the responses to it have been confusing, especially to the general public but also to many scientific and medical observers. The origins of the SARS CoV2 virus itself have been shrouded in controversy. A debate has raged about whether the virus was of zoonotic origin or of laboratory origin. The clinical outcomes of infection were exaggerated from the very beginning in what looked like a coordinated bid to create a panic reaction in the general public. Other health consequences were ignored.
A globally coordinated program followed of suppression of well known pharmaceuticals and nutritional products which may have had utility as therapies in the early stages of viral infection. And only one solution was promoted
— a new vaccine technology that had never been used before in human beings on a large scale.
Since the introduction of the Covid vaccines, many questions have arisen about lack of adequate manufacturing practices, of quality control, of basic pharmacological and toxicological studies and of appropriate clinical safety and efficacy studies. There seems to have been a reluctance on the part of drug regulatory authorities in many nations to acknowledge both the unprecedented level of reported serious adverse drug reactions and deaths reported in association with these products.
Given the considerable safety concerns following the introduction of these gene-based COVID vaccines, why are governments around the world, including Australia, planning to make further significant investments in this unsafe, rushed vaccine technology driven by the US military?
Following the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorisation of the first COVID-19 vaccines in the US (FDA, 2020) and the Provisional Approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine in Australia (TGA, 2021), they were hailed as a remarkable and innovative life-saving response by the pharmaceutical industry to a deadly pandemic which was sweeping the world.
The development, testing and drug regulatory approval of these novel COVID-19 gene-based vaccines using messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology was said to be done in less than one year, as opposed to the normal development and approval time of about 10 years for conventional vaccines (Seneff and Nigh, 2021). The public was told this achievement was assisted by the financial support of the US government under Operation Warp Speed working to support vaccine companies including Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Novavax and Biontech.
The public was told that these COVID-19 gene-based vaccines were proven to be “safe and effective” (CDCa, 2022). This was echoed by the US FDA and other drug regulators around the world. We were also told these gene-based vaccines would prevent infection and reduce the chances of serious illness and death from the virus SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, we were told these innovative gene-based vaccines would prevent transmission of the virus so everybody needed to be vaccinated to prevent the spread. Vaccine mandates were introduced to
coerce as many people as possible to be vaccinated. There was a relentless fear campaign generated by so-called “health experts” and epidemiologists predicting massive numbers of death.
Unprecedented lockdowns deprived the population of their freedoms, businesses were destroyed, children were denied education, psychological stress and depression was commonplace and those suspicious of the safety of the gene-based vaccines were ostracized from society and blamed for the viral spread (“pandemic of the unvaccinated”). Mass censorship by the media ensured that the public, and even the medical profession itself, were provided with only limited information about the true nature and risks involved in using the COVID-19 vaccines. The very worst of human nature was revealed.
However, since the introduction of these gene-based vaccines, disturbing facts are now emerging. We now know that these vaccines do not prevent infection nor transmission of infection as recently confirmed by a senior Pfizer executive in testimony before the European Parliament (News, 2022) and have not prevented a continuing high incidence of COVID-19. We now know these vaccines are not as safe and effective as originally claimed (Turni and Lefringhausen 2022; Altman, 2022; CMN, 2022; Blaylock, 2022). These vaccines appear to have been associated with an unprecedented incidence of serious adverse events and deaths compared to any other drugs in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.
Based on the US CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there are now 1,476,227 adverse event reports through December 2, 2022 including 32,621 reported deaths and 185,412 hospitalizations associated with these gene-based vaccines (CDCb, 2022). A disturbing rise in unexplained excess deaths including heart attacks, strokes, cancer and neurological diseases have been reported around the world coincident with the introduction of these vaccines. In Australia, up to August 2022 there were 18,671 excess deaths (17.0%) more than baseline average with most of these deaths not due to COVID-19 (ABS, 2022). Literally, millions of people around the world have either been seriously affected and/or died. We are probably facing the worst health disaster in history.
How did the pharmaceutical industry, our governments and our drug regulators get it so wrong? A simple and plausible answer to this question has now emerged within the last few weeks.
There is now evidence to suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was interpreted by the US as a national security threat in early 2020.
Furthermore, there appears to be strong evidence that the United States Department of Defence (DoD) was, and still is, in full control of the Covid Vaccine development program, including the clinical trials, development, manufacturing, quality assurance, distribution and administration since early 2020 (FDA, 2020; Rees and Latypova, 2022; KEI, 2022; Medical Defense Consortium, 2022; Rees, 2022). The evidence shows that the Chief Operating Officer for the Warp Speed vaccine program is the US Department of Defence. It also shows that the Chief Science Advisor is the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It appears that all the pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution is being done under contract with or by the US Department of Defense.
The major pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Moderna, Novavax, Biotech/Pfizer and Sanofi, have been involved as “Project Coordination Teams” acting under contract to the US Department of Defense.
Communications to the American people by Anthony Fauci (Chief Medical Adviser to the President), Rochelle Walensky (Director of the CDC) and Alex Azar (Secretary of the US Health and Human Services) have been disingenuous from early 2020 to late 2022.
Contrary to popular belief that international pharmaceutical companies drove the COVID vaccine development programs, evidence published on the US FDA’s website (FDA, 2020) reveal a chain of command and control under Operation Warp Speed whereby Covid vaccine manufacturers effectively performed as subcontractors to the DoD. Such overall authority and control could account for the apparent readiness of the FDA to significantly compromise or trade off the normal safety standards for the sake of expediency given the DoD imperatives and the perceived emergency.
The true nature of the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ has been largely misrepresented by mainstream media, big pharmaceutical companies and governments and these serious therapeutic agents consequently are poorly understood by the population at large. Referring to these products as “vaccines” led most people to consider these therapeutic products to be relatively safe and well researched and they readily accepted their widespread use without question.
However, these COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ are not really vaccines – they are serious gene-based therapies which employ a gene-based technology which has never before been deployed in a fully approved therapeutic product. In this sense they should properly be considered to be experimental, and much safety and efficacy information has been gained since the introduction of these products almost two years ago.
COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ fall under the US FDA Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies’ definition of “gene therapy products”, in that these products involve “introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease” (FDA, 2018). Despite this, the FDA did not evaluate this therapy in relation to the specialised and established gene therapy guidelines. Gene therapies have never been widely used in a general population.
While gene therapies have been the subject of considerable research over the last couple of decades their application has been limited to the treatment of usually rare, serious and debilitating disease or genetic conditions. The reason being is that these products have a potential to cause permanent intergenerational genetic damage, cancer and interfere with reproductive capacity. Gene therapies are viewed as a special class of therapeutic agents due to these potential risks including death and irreversible harm. For this reason, the US FDA and other drug regulatory agencies have put in place detailed rules and guidance documents to direct manufacturers in the development and testing of these products. These guidelines cover both preclinical (FDA, 2013) and clinical (FDA, 2015) research. Due to the obvious and accepted inherent risks, gene therapies have never before been considered for mass deployment in a population, especially to healthy individuals including children, infants and pregnant women.
To facilitate general population acceptance, there was a concerted effort to avoid referring to the COVID-19 “vaccines” as gene therapy products. However, the fact is that these products utilize the delivery of genetic
material to produce a pharmacological effect. Advocates of the gene-based vaccines argued that because the genetic material in the COVID-19 vaccines was not intended to be incorporated into an individual’s DNA or modify the expression of genes within DNA, these products should not be considered as “gene therapy”. However, such a distinction would appear to have more to do with market acceptance than with science.
Due to the risky nature of gene-based therapeutics, there are only a few examples of RNA based genetic therapies in early clinical research. Isolated examples of such products have been approved for serious and relatively rare genetic defects. The first such product ever to be approved by the FDA was Onpattro (patisiran) in 2018 (FDA, 2018). But even this RNA gene therapy was unlike the RNA payload contained in the COVID-19 vaccines because the RNA contained in Onpattro was only a very small short chain RNA called “short interfering RNA” or siRNA. This was only intended to silence or modify the expression of a target defective gene. The RNA in COVID-19 vaccines is much larger and coded for the production of a very large spike protein which was intended to induce the production of antibodies. Unfortunately, it is now understood that the spike protein itself has considerable toxicity in its own right and is responsible for the serious adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccines (Cosentino & Marino 2022 and Seneff & Nigh, 2022).
No therapeutic products similar to the COVID-19 vaccines have ever been previously approved anywhere in the world. There was no prior short-term or long-term safety data in relation to these completely new gene-based vaccines with which to predict the safety of these products. Advocating the administration of this completely new class of therapeutic to the world population with no historical safety experience was an unprecedented risk in human health and it appears the gamble has not paid off.
The evidence suggests that the plan from the outset was to accelerate development of the messenger RNA platform vaccine technology involving lipid nanoparticles and viral vectors. RNA platform technology is not new to the DoD and has been under research by DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency) since 2012 (McCullough, 2022).
The mRNA platform technology is an example of a dual use technology which can either be applied for vaccine use or for military use (Biodefense in the Age of Synthetic Biology, 2018) in much the same way as nitrogen- based fertilizer can be used for agriculture or to make explosives.
With regard to the COVID-19 vaccines, to save time, certain critical research and development activities were either not done at all, not done in a normal and logical sequential manner or not done to established laboratory or manufacturing standards normally required by the pharmaceutical industry. The failure to study the toxicology of the spike protein in animal toxicology studies is an example of critical research which was not done.
It has not been recognised or appreciated to date that the mRNA contained in the lipid nanoparticles in the case of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines is actually, in pharmacological terms, a prodrug (Cosentino and Marino, 2022). It is the spike protein which is the active drug and which is directly responsible for the immune response. However, the pharmacology and toxicology studies of the spike protein in animals or humans were not done as would normally have been required. This is the major fundamental error in the research and
development of these COVID-19 vaccines and this oversight is directly responsible for the failure to predict the serious adverse drug reactions and mortality which have now been reported in association with these vaccines.
Other examples of the total failure to conduct critical research include the lack of properly designed carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, genotoxicity and reproductive toxicological studies in appropriate animal species. In particular, the potential for reverse transcription of mRNA genetic material into an individual’s DNA was not investigated.
An example of the failure to conduct research and development in a logical and sequential manner included the premature scale up manufacture without adequate quality control to ensure that product made in large batches is the same as made in smaller batches. Without proper scale up research, the potency, mRNA integrity, presence of contaminates and stability cannot be guaranteed. There are problems in relation to scale up manufacturing even for conventional small molecule drugs. These gene-based vaccines are highly complex biopharmaceuticals where scale up problems would be expected. This would mean that any toxicological or clinical safety and efficacy data generated using early production batches of product may not be relevant or applicable to the safety and efficacy of product derived from large scale manufacture.
In order to mitigate risk, the plan was to use multiple technologies, multiple facilities and redundancy. Leverage of existing facilities would also take place. In the interest of expediency, the plan was to avoid using traditional pathways from early development to large scale production. This approach necessarily embodied obvious and predictable product safety risks.
Avoidance of time consuming and conventional oversight and quality standards and guidelines such as Good Manufacturing Practice and Good Laboratory Practice guidelines was necessary to speed development. The plan also avoided conventional New Drug Application (NDA) and Biologics License Application (BLA) approvals, moving rapidly using compressed timelines and overlapping stages of development towards Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Scale up and large volume manufacturing was planned in parallel with clinical trials which may have contravened accepted codes of Good Manufacturing Practices.
Such circumvention of normal development and quality control systems and pathways was arguably a recipe for potential disaster. Safe drug development requires sequential, step by step, accumulation and verification of data upon which to plan and adjust the following research, development and manufacturing steps in light of the knowledge gained. In the rush to bring these novel gene-based vaccines to market as quickly as possible, the normal logical safety considerations were compromised (Latypova, 2022; Watt and Latypova, 2022).
Three key legislative elements enable the US government to authorise, fund, contract and control many DoD research programs including COVID-19 gene-based vaccine development, testing and manufacture. These elements are:
Two US Department of Defense Agencies, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), possess considerable resources themselves to undertake research and development and gain approval for various products themselves but they also contract with a large number of companies in relation to research and development programs.
The products of these research programs are sometimes classified or referred to as “countermeasures”, “prototypes” or “demonstrations”. This simple change in nomenclature permits these products to avoid conventional lengthy regulatory, commercial development and testing pathways in order to expedite their availability.
BARDA promotes the advanced development of medical countermeasures whether they be chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN). With regard to COVID-19, the activities of BARDA include the diagnosis, detection, treatment, prevention and manufacture of medical “countermeasures” to combat COVID-19. The countermeasures include vaccine platform mRNA technologies, viral vector technology and protein expression technology.
One could imagine that such an operational system and legislative framework is necessary to respond to a biological, chemical or nuclear attack as quickly as possible. However, it appears that this infrastructure was used to rapidly develop the COVID vaccines for general civilian use without the application of the time-consuming safeguards normally required to produce safe therapeutic pharmaceutical products.
The capability of these Agencies is substantial and include raw material supply, manufacturing, testing and scale up facilities including large scale manufacturing facilities in parallel with clinical development.
Applying Emergency Use Authorizations to “countermeasures” appears to be a mechanism to avoid the normal, conventional clinical trial regulated pathways. However, “countermeasures” should not be conflated with conventional pharmaceutical products which are required to be extensively tested for safety according to established international guidelines (ICH, 2022).
Examples of technical areas of interest of DARPA and BARDA include: therapeutic prototypes targeting viral, bacterial, and biological toxins and other countermeasures. Enabling technologies include single and multiple- drug autoinjector delivery devices, vaccine-manufacturing platforms, prototypes for the prophylaxis, treatment and diagnosis of CBRN threats including Acute Radiation Syndrome and chemical nerve agents. Collaboration
also includes the development of systems to increase the speed, accuracy and confidence of agent identification and disease diagnosis and advanced development and manufacturing capabilities.
RNA technology has been an area of interest in relation to national security. However, COVID-19 vaccines using this technology, by their complex nature, are difficult to manufacture, stabilize and quality control especially on a large scale.
In the rush to make available the Covid vaccines, the bypassing or compromising of normal manufacturing and quality control safeguards has reportedly led to batch-to-batch variability whereby some batches are associated with a high incidence of adverse vaccine reactions and mortality (Gutschi, 2022). In addition, at least 26 researchers/research teams in 16 countries, using various microscopic methods of analysis, have reported the presence of undeclared microscopic geometric and tube-like structures in Covid vaccine vials for which there is no satisfactory or official drug regulatory explanation at this time. Furthermore, various spectroscopic methods of analysis have detected the presence of undeclared and unexpected metals (German Working Group, 2022; Hughes, 2022).
Under normal circumstances, even a tiny fraction of the reported quality, efficacy or safety problems associated with the Covid vaccines would have led to their immediate withdrawal from sale – but this has not happened. Pharmaceutical regulators around the world seem to be wilfully blind to the problems. Governments and the main stream media appear to show no interest in uncovering the truth or conducting a public debate on these critical matters of individual health, rights and wellbeing. Why?
The answer appears to be that, in the interest of national security, the US DoD took charge of the Covid vaccine funding, development and testing right from the very start of the perceived threat in early 2020. The panic that then ensued created the circumstances whereby the normal prudent quality, safety and efficacy considerations in the development of vaccines were compromised. Drug regulators played, and continue to play, an acquiescent role in approving these vaccines and declaring them “safe” based on an absolute minimum of quality, safety and efficacy data and no long-term safety data. After two years, we now see this was a mistake. Contrary to the governmental and main stream media narrative, many are of the opinion that the Covid vaccines appear to have done more harm than good (Dopp and Seneff, 2022).
Uncovering the truth has been a slow and arduous process since December 2020. This has been exacerbated by the intense and unprecedented censorship of doctors and scientists which continues to this day.
The US DoD had complete command and control over the research, development, manufacturing, testing, distribution and release of the COVID-19 gene-based vaccines. However, under various specific US government regulations, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued Emergency Use Authorisations for a number of “countermeasures” (called COVID-19 vaccines) to be released for use. This nomenclature is of critical importance. By designating the COVID-19 vaccines as “countermeasures” these products were (and are) not subject to regulatory control by the FDA because, by definition, they are not pharmaceutical products.
Under the US Emergency Use Authorisations the COVID-19 vaccines were not required to be proven safe and effective or conform to normal quality standards as do pharmaceutical products approved by the FDA. The Australian government, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and presumably other governments and their regulatory bodies, should have known that the COVID-19 vaccines they approved for use and contracted to purchase did not have the status of normal pharmaceutical products in the US and they should have never declared them “safe and effective”.
Since the introduction of the Covid vaccines, many questions have arisen concerning the lack of adequate manufacturing practices, quality control, basic pharmacological and toxicological studies and the lack of appropriate clinical safety and efficacy studies. In addition, there seems to be a reluctance on the part of drug regulatory authorities to acknowledge both the unprecedented level of reported serious adverse drug reactions and deaths that have been reported in association with these products.
There is also the serious concern regarding the ominous rise in excess deaths from all causes in many countries suspiciously coincident with the introduction of the COVID vaccines – yet our health authorities steadfastly refuse to consider that the vaccines themselves may be to blame.
The public was told these COVID vaccines were “safe and effective” without qualification even though they were not fully approved. Why was the public not advised that the normal standards of quality, safety and efficacy were compromised in the name of national security and not applied to the development and testing of these vaccines? Why was this kept secret?
Also, are these national security arrangements still in place for future vaccines and other pharmaceutical products?
Given the considerable safety concerns which have occurred following the introduction of these gene-based COVID vaccines, why are governments around the world including Australia, planning to make further significant investments in this unsafe vaccine technology driven by the US military?
The lesson to be learned here is that development and production of vaccines and other therapeutic products for general civilian use should never again be allowed to be under military command and control.
The fate of humanity and all future generations to come is literally at a critical tipping point and few global power brokers and political decision-makers appear able to realise the gravity of the situation.
Is Australia the New World Order’s testing ground? I discuss this and more with Maria Zeee on the Alex Jones Show.
A pleasure to join the Regional Wrap again to talk about unlocking Queensland’s huge potential. Thanks for having me.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am