One Nation will restore direct oversight, supervision, accountability, and control to Parliament, removing influence from pharmaceutical companies over drug and product approvals.
Recently the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Professor Skerrit left his role at the TGA and commenced work with Medicines Australia, which is the lobby group for the pharmaceutical industry. In effect, the professor is now working for the companies he recently regulated.
This is entirely unacceptable. The health of everyday Australians and trust in the medical establishment is too important to leave in the hands of a broken system rife with cronyism and self-interest.
We will return the power to authorise drugs and medical devices back to the Minister for Health, who will be responsible for delegating these decisions to his own departmental staff.
This system will ensure that the Minister’s decisions will be subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, prevent conflicts of interest and most importantly remove the direct relationship between the TGA and pharmaceutical companies they are supposed to regulate.
Security of employment in the public service should prevent the revolving door we currently have between the TGA and pharmaceutical companies and ensure the best possible outcome for everyday Australians.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/ethan-hooson-6U-dmJ7WoDk-unsplash.jpg?fit=1026%2C684&ssl=16841026Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-04-22 18:27:222025-04-22 18:27:54Restoring Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability in Drug and Product Approval
This is a great session to demonstrate how far Estimates has fallen. I asked a perfectly simple question: if a person followed the TGA’s COVID-19 “vaccine” schedule, how many shots would they have had by now? Watch as they bob and weave to avoid answering this simple question.
Part of the reason for this is to use up time. The TGA session attracts a lot of interest, and my time is limited, so the longer they can draw out the answer, the fewer questions they have to answer.
I then asked about a new study showing that the COVID-19 jabs produced spike proteins for almost two years after injection, despite being told that the vaccines stayed in the injection site and passed out of the body in a matter of hours.
Professor Lawler tried to discredit the research, which was conducted by Yale, and refused to acknowledge that the spike proteins from the “vaccine” were being produced for years after vaccination, despite the paper stating exactly that. A substantial amount of my time was spent on them saying very little that they could be held accountable for later.
I also asked about other studies linking vaccines with autism and received a similar response: the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited—nothing to see here, move on. The link between autism and vaccination has been well established, even with the small number of papers that have survived the bullying from big Pharma to protect their sacred cash cow.
I will not stop pursuing the truth about vaccine harm.
Note: This video combines two separate sessions into one video file.
Transcript 1
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are all to do with the TGA. Technology is marvellous, isn’t it? Potentially hundreds of doctors and constituents are watching. The TGA approach to COVID has been based—correct me if I’m wrong—on two original shots, then boosters to maintain currency, because MRNA technology offered waning protection over time. If a person had taken the recommended COVID shots at the time they were recommended, from March 2021 until now, how many COVID injections would the person have had?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure, necessarily, whether that’s a TGA question. The role of the TGA is very much to—
Mr Comley: I think we have an appropriate officer joining the table, Dr Anna Peatt, who I think can help you on this because I think she’ll need to go to the nature of ATAGI’s advice for vaccines for individuals. I think it would also go to the question about different categories of individuals receiving different recommendations over that period of time, reflecting the risk profile for those individuals. Dr Peatt, would you like to, perhaps, have a crack at this?
Dr Peatt: Yes, I will. It’s actually quite a difficult question to answer because the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines has changed over the course of the pandemic. So, really, you can’t actually answer the question unless you know the specifics of the individual that you’re referring to. Someone who was aged 75 years or over at the start of the pandemic may have had upwards of eight vaccines over that course, but it really depends on the individual circumstances. In Australia we don’t have vaccination mandates at the moment, so it also comes down to people’s individual choices. But, ultimately, it comes down to vaccinators’ advice.
Senator ROBERTS: So eight in total, most likely. Can you confirm the TGA is still recommending boosters every six months for immunocompromised people and every 12 months for adults under 64.
Prof. Lawler: I can’t confirm that, because the TGA’s role is not to recommend immunisation. The TGA’s role is to assess the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: But you do monitor the injections, the results and the DAENs, don’t you? Do you have a role—
Prof. Lawler: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Good.
Prof. Lawler: No. That’s correct, but that’s not the same as what you asked previously. The difference is that the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to assess pre-market therapeutic goods for safety, quality and efficacy, and, where appropriate, to undertake post-market monitoring. That’s why we undertake pharmacovigilance activity and assess adverse events. That is not the same as monitoring and recommending specific immunisation schedules. That’s the role of ATAGI.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But surely you would monitor the number of doses that people have because, as I understand it, don’t you monitor DAENs? Isn’t the monitoring super critical, especially when you have provisional authorisation for these injections?
Prof. Lawler: As I think we provided previously, the vaccines that we’re discussing are not provisionally registered. They have transitioned to full registration. But, as I said, the role of the TGA is to monitor adverse events as and when they occur, and as they are reported.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, I understand that Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled ‘Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Diseases after COVID-19 Vaccination’. That study found that spiked protein remained in patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine for, in one case, 709 days and counting. When did the TGA realise that spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify, because I have previously indicated there are quite a lot of studies out there, is that the Bhattacharjee article from Yale last week? I think it is.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled—
Prof. Lawler: Thanks. So that is, as you say, an article in preprint. I would like to reflect on that article. The first line of the abstract reads: COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. And the intro says: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been pivotal in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. These vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, vaccinated individuals experience a lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 … or long COVID, thus highlighting an additional potential benefit of receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. It might seem like I’m not answering your question in reading those first few lines out, but I think it’s really important that a feature of the public debate on this matter has been the convenient picking out of individual findings from papers. I think it’s really important to note that. In terms of the paper itself, it was a small study, with 42 cases that reported post-vaccination syndrome after COVID vaccination and it had 22 controls with no symptoms. There are some challenges with the article. There was a very small sample size, which included insufficient subgroup numbers to adequately assess the effect of previous infection. There was a lack of analysis of potential confounders, such as other medical conditions and medication use, and a lack of standardised case definition for PBS—noting that the symptoms of PBS are general and are associated with a range of other conditions. I think that there is some really interesting information in that article. I particularly like the introduction where it clearly indicates the benefits of vaccination. But I would also say that it is challenging, potentially, to draw too much of an inference from its findings.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, I don’t know which question you answered but let me ask my question again. When did the TGA realise spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when we have evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not aware of it at the moment?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when there is evidence that it is the case that spiked protein persists in the body for years. I think one of the things that is most notable—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. You’ve answered the question. For clarity, if a person has spiked protein in their system years after injection, something must be making that spiked protein and renewing it in their system. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler: I might ask Professor Langham to respond to that.
Prof. Langham: I think what Professor Lawler is trying to say is that we are not aware of any robust evidence that supports the presence of spiked protein being in the system of recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine for years. When we do undertake reviews of relevant studies—and I might add, this as an ongoing process that the TGA undertakes for every single product that is registered on the ARTG—our robust and thorough review of evidence is such that should there be a finding that we would consider scientific, then that absolutely would be accepted. That is the case for the question that you are asking. We are not aware of any scientific and robust findings that demonstrate prolonged circulation of spiked protein in the human body.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. If a person already has spike protein in their system, and they need more mRNA technology—more spike proteins—and if, for that person, those are long lived as well, could there be people walking around with dangerous levels of spike protein as a result of following ATAGI’s guidelines? Surely you’ve considered this.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. As we discussed previously, one of the roles of the TGA is to undertake ongoing post-market pharmacovigilance. As a result, we continually receive and accept reports of adverse events. We use those to work toward the identification of safety signals. We take more of a phenomenological approach to identifying risky safety profiles, as has been highlighted previously. We’re firmly of the view that the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The Yale study examined 64 vaccinated subjects. One in 64, in this case, retained spike for almost two years and counting. Extending that sample to Australian consumers, doesn’t that indicate, certainly, that tens of thousands of Australians are dealing with spike protein build-up in their body? Does even the possibility of that concern you?
Prof. Langham: I think what we’ve been trying to say is that not all of the research that is published is of a high level of scientific quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Langham—
Prof. Langham: I’m sorry, Senator. We’ve been here before. It’s Professor Langham, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Professor Langham—I mean that sincerely. I wasn’t trying to cast any aspersions. Professor Lawler just read glowingly, in response to one of my questions, about aspects of this study.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that ‘glowingly’ would describe by situation. I think there was a balanced argument. However, one of the things we do undertake when we scientifically review a paper is to look at the rigour of it. It is acknowledged within the paper that there are certain limitations to the study. Some of the findings include the fact that there were potential differences in the immune profiles of individuals with PBS and that PBS participants had lower levels of spike protein antibodies. There was serological evidence suggestive of recent Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. But I think it’s quite important—and it’s actually quite challenging to convey this in this forum—to note that the presence of a study saying something should not be taken as meaning that without a robust analysis of the rigour of that study. It’s important to note that this was a small case study. There were 42 cases and 22 controls. That means the ability to extrapolate from that in the way you suggested is actually really limited and potentially misleading. I don’t mean it’s deliberately misleading; it can lead to misleading outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand from the previous Senate estimates and from this one. Are you saying that spike proteins are harmless?
Prof. Lawler: No, I don’t believe we said that last time or this time.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I asked the question—for clarification. The Yale study found immune cell— in this case T cell—exhaustion. Do you accept the science that mRNA technology has caused T cell exhaustion in some consumers, leading to a condition that causes chronic tiredness, brain fog, dormant conditions like Epstein-Bar and cancer becoming active again, and in general an increased susceptibility to new infection?
Prof. Lawler: Part of the challenge in responding to that is that we’re responding to a definition outlined within the study as a post-COVID-19-vaccination syndrome that is characterised by a wide range of symptoms which have been, as far as I can determine, selected by the authors. They include such things as you’ve mentions, like exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy and others. But the authors themselves note that PBS is not officially recognised by health authorities, and there’s no consensus definition of the syndrome. One of the things I was trying to say—and, again, I wouldn’t characterise it as a glowing endorsement of the article—is that it is encouraging that even small studies are looking at these things. One of the things that has been levelled at the TGA previously is that we are blind to science or not interested in hearing new ideas. It’s actually very encouraging to see this kind of research, but it needs to be taken within the context of rigorous research methodology.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Long COVID’, a phrase that Dr Skerritt used at estimates in May 2022, was the theory tested by Yale in a literature review entitled ‘The long COVID puzzle: autoimmunity, inflammation, and other possible causes’. That was published in May 2024. This studied viral persistence, inflammation, autoimmune damage and latent viral reaction following exposure to COVID, naturally or by injection. Minister, is your government ignoring a ticking time bomb with these mRNA vaccines, one that you are making worse by still recommending that people take these products? You’re still recommending it.
Senator McCarthy: We certainly, through the health minister, look out for all Australians in relation to their care, health and wellbeing, but I will refer to officials in terms of the technical aspects of your question.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure if I’m answering your question here, so I’m happy to hear it again if I’m not. One of the things that we do find that has been supported by multiple studies—in fact, studies that are cited within the Yale article—is that COVID vaccination actually leads to a decreased incidence of both the post-acute sequelae of COVID and also the prevalence of long COVID. So we know that those are not only protective for hospitalisation and death, as are their indications within the Register of Therapeutic Goods, but also protective for some of the long-term sequelae of COVID infection.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on to vaccine harm generally. An article in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law—there’s an interesting combination; science, public health and law—titled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’ found: … the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. For those at home, an NDD is a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or OCD, and ASD is autism spectrum disorder. This study of 41,000 nine-year-olds in Florida came out this month and finds, with statistical certainty, that childhood vaccines are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. Have you seen this paper? And, if not, why not?
Prof. Lawler: I’m familiar with the journal that you outline; I’m familiar with the nature of the articles that are provided for publication and the level of peer review that occurs. I’m not familiar with that journal article specifically, and it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment on it without it in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: The autism vaccine link is the most contentious issue in medicine right now, based on the number of people affected. Is this wilful ignorance on your part? Prof. Lawler: That is an interesting question. It’s not a contentious link. There was an article some years ago that drew links between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism. That has been serially and profoundly debunked; it’s been retracted from the media. There’s no evidence currently that there is a link between vaccination and autism. Unfortunately, the continued promulgation of such a link is suspected to be one of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and falling vaccine rates.
Senator ROBERTS: I would argue, based upon the timing, that the COVID shots, the mandating of COVID shots and the adverse effects of the COVID shots would have done a lot of damage to the credibility of vaccines in general. If I give you the link, Professor Lawler, will you undertake to review the study and come ready to discuss the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, at the next estimates?
Prof. Lawler: I’m very happy to receive any link and read any article, and to come back and have a comment. I do have with me Dr Sophie Russell, who’s the acting director of the Pharmacovigilance Branch.
Dr Russell: Thanks for the question. I’ll just make one small comment about the Yale study. The Yale study that you refer to was not able to properly account for previous COVID-19 infection due to insufficient case numbers. We would, of course, be happy to provide on notice a broader critical analysis, but I’ll reinforce what Professor Lawler has said—that, to date, the TGA has not found a causal association between any vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorder—and I would like to reassure you that we are continually monitoring for those particular adverse events in COVID-19 vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: In that paper, entitled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’, I’ve seen a graph. The multiplier for ASD is 3.14—the vaccinated have 3.14 times more ASD than the unvaccinated; for hyperkinetic syndrome it’s three times; for epilepsy or seizures it’s 4.2 times; for learning disorders it’s 9.8 times—almost 10 times; for encephalopathy it’s 7.7 times; and, for at least one of the listed neurodevelopmental disorders, it’s four times. Let’s move on—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before you do, in a couple of minutes I’ll be seeking to rotate the call, as I understand Senator Rennick has some more questions. You still have the call, but I’m just giving you some early warning that I’ll be seeking to rotate in a few minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff, which is a lot. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll ask Dr Kerr to join us at the table. I would probably contest the comment that that’s a lot of staff. We have staff that are appropriate to the role of ensuring qualities and standards within our therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t casting aspersions that way, Professor Lawler; I was saying that that’s a lot of staff to do some of the work that I’ve just raised.
Prof. Lawler: We have a lot of work to do. I think the numbers are quite appropriate.
Dr Kerr: May I have the question again, please?
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Dr Kerr: The subject of our testing is actually the vaccine itself. We have spent a lot of time ensuring that the vaccine complies with the quality requirements. We do look at the expression of the protein from the vaccine in vitro, but we do not take samples from Australians to test for the COVID spike protein. That is not our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t monitor it in that way?
Dr Kerr: We’re not a pathology laboratory. We don’t take samples from Australians—from humans.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to my next question: have you been actively testing people to check spike protein levels and to test for antigens indicating myocarditis, Guillain-Barre, Epstein-Barr—which is also called herpes 4—and the other 1,240 other known side effects of mRNA technology, as provided by Pfizer? Have you been testing for anything to do with that? These are known adverse events from Pfizer. Have you been testing?
Dr Kerr: I might defer to my colleague Dr Russell.
Dr Russell: As Professor Lawler highlighted earlier, we take a broader approach to postmarket safety issues. Published literature and clinical testing are all part of our assessment. When we are looking into safety signals in the postmarket space, we’re looking at that in the Australian context. We are looking at the number of cases that are reported to the TGA and the number of cases that are reported to the World Health Organisation database; we’re liaising with our comparable international regulators and looking at published literature. There’s a variety of areas that we look to, to consider the strength of the evidence between a clinical condition and vaccination, and that informs our regulatory actions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, but how do you know about the incidents if you’re not actually testing?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry—the incidence of clinical episodes?
Senator ROBERTS: Adverse events, yes—actively checking people for spike protein levels.
Dr Russell: Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any evidence that correlates spike protein levels with a clinical syndrome or diagnosis. What we are looking for in the postmarket space is clinical symptoms or conditions that are caused by the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: If I could just add to that, we’ve endeavoured to be clear previously—and I won’t on this occasion read out the SQoNs that we’ve answered—that our pharmacovigilance program, in keeping with the standard and accepted practice of regulators around the world, is based on clinical adverse events. As Dr Russell has highlighted, there is not a correlation that is currently identified between spike protein levels and clinical events. Our adverse event monitoring process, our pharmacovigilance process, in keeping with the actions and practice of regulators globally, is to capture, analyse, understand and, where necessary, respond in a regulatory fashion to safety signals identified through clinical events. So those clinical events are identified. As I’ve mentioned, we have many events—I don’t have the number in front of me, but certainly over 100,000—of variable severity that we have analysed and responded to, and we have made significant regulatory changes in response to that. The clinical approach that we take to adverse event monitoring is entirely in keeping with the pharmacovigilance practices of global regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Lawler. So you don’t do testing, so you presumably rely upon adverse event notifications. Ahpra have ensured those reports were not made. You can’t possibly be relying only on the few doctors with the courage to stand up against Ahpra—or was ‘rare’ the outcome you worked back from? Did you just assume it was rare and work backwards to justify it?
Prof. Lawler: It’s unfortunate that Ahpra isn’t here to respond to that. I think it’s pretty clear that—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known.
Prof. Lawler: Sorry, Senator. What’s well known?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known that Ahpra has been suppressing doctors’ voices.
Prof. Lawler: I would make the distinction if I may—and, again, Ahpra is not here to respond and defend itself against that comment—that what you are characterising as misinformation around vaccine and the disease is very different to the reporting of adverse events. I would also contend that the volume of adverse events that were reported would indicate the threshold for reporting adverse events is quite low, and that’s exactly where we want it to be. We want to be detecting adverse events.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am due to rotate the call, but if there’s time we we’ll come back to you. We have about 25 minutes, so can I just get an indication of who has further questions?
Senator Rennick, Senator Kovacic and Senator Roberts, you have further questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Transcript 2
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go back to continue the discussion we had about testing, or the lack of testing. In estimates in May 2022, I asked whether the mRNA from the vaccines, the injections, transcribed into the patients’ own DNA, permanently modifying their DNA. In light of the work that has been done since, including the latest Yale study that I quoted, could a plausible theory be that the mRNA technology does indeed transcribe and the mRNA technology does permanently alter the human genome in some people?
Prof. Lawler: We did have an exchange with Senator Rennick earlier around the incorporation of DNA and RNA into the human genome. There was a comment made around it being down to a series of highly improbable steps. The challenge that I think we face—and I’ll ask Dr Kerr to add to that—is that there is a point at which a plausible theory requires supporting evidence. In the absence of that supporting evidence, it needs to be rejected. We’ve had 50 years of biotechnology in this field, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines and other vaccines of similar technology administered, and there’s been no evidence of such incorporation. As to the plausible theory, there are some mechanisms that you could arguably say lead to that in very unusual circumstances, but there is no evidence and no real-world data to support that. Dr Kerr.
Dr Kerr: Thank you. I’ll add to Professor Lawler’s statement that there’s a very rigorous regulatory framework that operates globally to ensure that any residual DNA in biotechnology products or the mRNA vaccines is adequately controlled and the risks are adequately managed.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you review the legal position of the TGA, specifically the issue of them committing malfeasance in office due to their wilful ignorance of harms from the pharmaceutical industry products they promote?
Senator McCarthy: I reject, outright, your question in this regard, and I’m sure the government does have great faith in the TGA.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to move on to a major anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy under Dr Danyelle Townsend. It has been retracted after its dataset was exposed as unreliable, bordering on outright fraudulent. The paper, titled Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, found that treating hospital patients with HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an increased mortality rate and led to health authorities banning hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. This was the reverse outcome to what many practitioners were experiencing prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Minister, did your government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020—I know the Liberal Party was in office at the time. Did the government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020 to make room in the market for the vaccines, despite a body of evidence saying hydroxychloroquine was effective?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll defer to the officials.
Prof. Lawler: I was not in this role at that time; I had a different role in a different place. My understanding, though, is that the decision on hydroxychloroquine was based on a position supported by global regulators that there was a lack of efficacy in this and, similarly, concerns that individuals seeking to use the treatment might potentially perturb them and deter them from validated effective treatments. I’m certainly not aware that there is any underlying motivation to benefit any other treatment on a commercial basis.
Senator ROBERTS: So it was an internationally agreed position?
Prof. Lawler: In terms of our established relationship with regulators, it is my understanding that it was a fairly agreed position that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment for COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: So now it’s a ‘fairly agreed’ position. It didn’t rely on the science; it was just fairly agreed?
Prof. Lawler: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Were there any studies done—any basis for this in fact, in data?
Prof. Langham: It absolutely was an evaluation of the science and the concerns for public safety that led to changes in the restriction in the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine. There was no supportive evidence for its efficacy and, as there was a concern that people were—and absolutely were—moving towards taking hydroxychloroquine in the false belief that it was going to help them with COVID, there were fewer people that were being vaccinated and there was also a greater risk of a poor outcome. That restriction was removed on 1 February this year.
Prof. Lawler: I also highlight that we’ve answered this question about hydroxychloroquine before, in SQ22- 000147 and also SQ21-000687.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. In Senate estimates in May 2021, Professor Skerritt, your predecessor, the former head of the TGA, said of the COVID vaccine injection technology: … the idea is to introduce sufficient spike protein to activate the immune system so that it mimics a COVID infection so that your B cells and T cells can start to mount an immune response to protect the person from catching COVID. He also said: … it’s the messenger RNA that’s translated into protein which is a spike protein. Messenger RNAs are inherently unstable. In fact, that’s why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require this little lipid coat, this little lipid nanoparticle. … … … And the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly … Is this still an accurate statement of the technology behind COVID MRNA vaccines?
Prof. Langham: The specifics of your concern around that statement?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate? Is Professor Skerritt’s statement accurate still?
Prof. Lawler: The process of immunogenicity as described by Professor Skerritt absolutely is. There’s the central dogma that MRNA is translated to protein. It’s the mechanism by which proteins are created. The MRNA is coded for spike protein. It’s created within the cell and expressed on the cell’s surface. That then engenders an immune response through antigenic presentation. That is the standard process for vaccine utilisation. As Professor Skerritt highlighted, the MRNA is inherently unstable and readily broken down. That’s why it’s encapsulated with a lipid nanoparticle which contains four different types of lipid. That enables its introduction to the cell, where it can exert its cellular effect.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as he said, that the lipids are hydrolysed and destroyed by the body fairly rapidly?
Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?
In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.
We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.
To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.
With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.
A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.
Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.
https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/15/s8/6/A/l/w/4/Alw4x.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-27 14:33:182025-03-12 15:49:06Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman
This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. Our witnesses include Senator Ron Johnson (USA), Tanya Unkovich MP (New Zealand), Christine Anderson MEP (EU Parliament,Germany), Professor Angus Dagleish (UK), Dr Peter Parry, Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Raphael Lataster, Julian Gillespie (former barrister), Dr Melissa McCann (via YouTube video) and Professor Gigi Foster.
The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation.
The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments.
We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes.
This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.
https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/6/j/o/o/O/jooOv.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 18:10:002024-12-19 18:13:06COVID Under Trial: Uncovering the Truth
The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews
Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency
Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.
It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk.
Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right?
Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made?
Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister.
Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to.
Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all.
I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system.
Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used.
Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was—
Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree.
Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people.
The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts—
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people?
CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question.
Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister!
Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received—
Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence.
Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether.
Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles—
CHAIR: Or HPV.
Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability?
Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that.
Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated?
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice.
Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are—
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental—
Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree.
Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children.
Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we?
Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question.
Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a—
Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that.
Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely.
Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’
Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and—
I joined Ben Dobbins on Rural Queensland today to talk about the Government releasing their COVID cover-up report. There were more holes in this inquiry than a block of swiss cheese, we need a Royal Commission to get the evidence so charges can be laid.
Transcript
Ben Dobbins:
Welcome back to Rural Queensland Today. I normally don’t get two politicians in one day, but this is very important. Malcolm Roberts joins us this morning, the One Nation Queensland senator, and rightly so, is pissed off. Now, the federal government have released a report after holding an inquiry into the COVID-19 response. Well, it was meant to come out in September, but their delay is typical. But gee whiz Malcolm, a lot has come out now to show that, jeez, we handled this poorly. We handled it so poorly and a lot of what everybody was saying was wrong from the government. Good morning.
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
Good morning Ben, and thank you for having me on. You’re absolutely correct.
Look, let’s face it, mate. This is a whitewash inquiry. And despite the fact that it was a whitewash and a cover-up, they couldn’t suppress some key points that you just very clearly articulated. The inquiry members were three supporters of lockdowns. They’re insider appointments from the government. They choked the terms of reference, they had left out the states, and yet the states were so egregious in the handling of this virus that they couldn’t help but condemn the states. There was no power in this whitewash inquiry to compel witnesses and to compel the giving of evidence.
And Ben, it’s so ironic. I moved a motion that was successful in the Senate last year, about this time last year, to have an inquiry into developing … Drafting the possible terms of reference for a possible future Royal Commission. That was an outstanding inquiry. We have got terms of reference, and I must commend Senator Paul Scarfe and the Liberal Party, who was chairman. Gave us free rein. And mate, we developed a phenomenal, and he in particular developed a phenomenal set of terms of reference, and that work has been used by the Kiwis in now extending their royal commission and making it a fair dinkum Royal Commission, and yet here we are in Australia with no Royal Commission.
Ben Dobbins:
Okay. What do you want to see now happen? Because it caused a lot of heartache for a lot of people, financially, emotionally. The whole thing has been a disaster. What would you have liked to have seen and what were the recommendations that come out of this report?
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
Well, first thing I’d like to see is a proper fair dinkum Royal Commission. A judicial inquiry that can compel witnesses, compel, evidence. The bureau of-
Ben Dobbins:
What are we going to get from that, Malcolm it’s a dog’s breakfast.
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
What we going to get is details around what was a dog’s breakfast. For example, I’m just going off some of the words from Minister Butler, the Labour Party minister and the Senate Health Minister in Canberra, who introduced the report from these commissioners yesterday. There was no shift. Listen to this. There was no shift from precautionary principle, which was used at the start, and we accept that, to a more evidence-based approach, including non-health aspects in a proportionate response. He is basically saying, in nice words, that was not evidence-based, it was not data-driven. It was disproportionate and completely over the top. That’s what we need to understand why and how that happened.
Then he said there’s a lack of transparency about the profound effect, exactly as you just said, on the lives of Australians and the loss of freedoms, their words from the report and from the minister. And then he said that there’s been a massive decrease in trust because a lack of real-time evidence-based policy. In other words, the policy was not based on real-time evidence. It was not based on data. And he said, “There’s been a huge decline in trust,” and that’s what the committee has said. We need to go into the details of all this and hold people accountable.
Ben, you will not get people to trust again until we know what went wrong in detail. You’ve got to have accountability. The government did not … And he also pointed out the government did not trust the people. So what we’ve got to do is restore basic freedoms, restore basic trust from the government and the people and get the details about this.
Ben Dobbins:
Yeah. I absolutely, absolutely agree with you 100%. I think it’s imperative that this happens, and something that I think needs to happen more and more. I absolutely fundamentally think that this should be something long-term that we look at even more and more. It’s important that we do this. It’s important that we have a long-term plan to make sure that this never happens again. We absolutely never go down this same road. So is that the reason why you want to get this … So if it does happen again, we never get locked up, vaccinated, our liberties absolutely taken away from us, families seeing loved ones die in the hospitals and not having any say of seeing them goodbye. Is that what you’re trying to get to so we never see this happen again?
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
Correct. But bit more than that. The minister himself and this Whitewash committee has confirmed that it was a disproportionate response along the lines you just said. For example, the panel has said, apparently, many of the measures taken in COVID are unlikely to be accepted by the population again. That means until the trust is restored, there will be no compliance, and there’ll be no voluntary adherence to it.
But Ben, we need to go further. I’m not going to talk about what you just said because you said it very, very well. We need to go further. Remember, in the early days of COVID we couldn’t get masks, we couldn’t get a lot of other things? We need to develop … One of the recommendations from this whitewash inquiry is to develop a whole of government plan to improve domestic and international supply chain resilience. Mate, we know that the food production is being interfered with in this country. The regions are doing their best to provide food, and the government is undermining their policy. We also know that you cannot manufacture and process without cheap energy, and our energy policies have been destroying our country’s productive capacity. We need a royal commission to get into the details of what is needed for complete recovery of our country. It’s on a highway to hell.
Ben Dobbins:
Yeah, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Malcolm, thanks so much for being with us. We might actually get this report up. One Nation Senator, thanks so much for being with us.
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
You’re welcome, Ben. Thanks for telling the truth.
Ben Dobbins:
Good on you. We’ll take a break. Come back. This is Rural Queensland Today.
Thanks mate.
Senator Malcolm Roberts:
You’re welcome, Ben. Keep doing what you’re doing, mate.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19.png?fit=2300%2C1294&ssl=112942300Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-10-30 08:42:562024-10-30 15:53:36COVID Report a Whitewash: Royal Commission Now
Disclaimer: The captions in this video are auto-generated and may contain inaccuracies.
Professor Angus Dalgleish
Professor Angus Dalgleish, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., F.R.C.Path, F.Med.Sci is a renowned oncologist practicing in the United Kingdom, who splits his time between clinical patient care and research. Prof. Dalgleish serves as an advisor to a number of biopharmaceutical companies and is a principal investigator in several clinical trials. Prof. Dalgleish has been a Professor of Medical Oncology at St George’s University of London and Consultant Physician at St George’s Hospital since 1991. He has served as the President of the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Section of the Royal Society of Medicine. He is a Fellow of The Royal College of Physicians of the UK and Australia, Royal College of Pathologists and The Academy of Medical Scientists.
Prof. Dalgleish studied Medicine at University College London, where he obtained an MBBS and a BSc in Anatomy. Among his main interests are: immunology and melanoma, use of anti-angiogenic agents & low dose chemotherapy in resistant solid tumor disease of the prostate, colon & breast. A clinical researcher of international repute, he has made significant contributions to the study of the immunological basis of AIDS and to the field of cancer vaccines. He is the current Principal of the Cancer Vaccine Institute.
Prior to co-founding the FLCCC, Dr. Marik was best known for his revolutionary work in developing a lifesaving protocol for sepsis, a condition that causes more than 250,000 deaths yearly in the U.S. alone.
Dr. Marik is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in a diverse set of medical fields, with specific training in Internal Medicine, Critical Care, Neurocritical Care, Pharmacology, Anesthesia, Nutrition, and Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. He is a former tenured Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia. As part of his commitment to research and education, Dr. Marik has written over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and authored four critical care books and the Cancer Care Monograph. His efforts have provided him with the distinction of the second most published critical care physician in the world. He has been cited over 54,500 times in peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 111. He has delivered over 350 lectures at international conferences and visiting professorships. As a result of his contributions, he has been the recipient of numerous teaching awards, including the National Teacher of the Year award by the American College of Physicians in 2017.
In January 2022 Dr. Marik retired from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership of the FLCCC and has already co-authored over 10 papers on therapeutic aspects of treating COVID-19. In March 2022 Dr. Marik received a commendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world.”
Is an anesthetist and perioperative physician from Victoria, Australia.
She has been in medical leadership at her previous hospital as well as statewide; as chair of the Medical Senior Group representing consultant doctors, as well as a previous chair of the Advisory Committee of Blood Matters Victoria.
Her clinical interest is Patient Blood Management, where she spearheaded many initiatives that sustainably brought down the unnecessary transfusion rates in major surgeries, leading to improved patient outcomes and lower costs to the health system.
In December 2021, when vaccine mandates were rolled out, Dr. Kunadhasan requested a risk assessment. Her goal in doing so was to warn her employer at the time about the risks of the shots, while at the same time trying to keep her job and avoid taking the injection herself. Unfortunately, instead of taking a pause and considering Dr. Kunadhasan’s request, in December 2021, Dr. Kunadhasan was fired by her employer.
She is currently the treasurer of the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS).
Dr. Kunadhasan is also the lead author on “Report 42, Pfizer’s EUA Granted Based on Fewer Than 0.4% of Clinical Trial Participants. FDA Ignored Disqualifying Protocol Deviations to Grant EUA” and subsequently wrote two articles in Spectator Australia, explaining her findings in the Pfizer documents.
Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.
I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.
This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).
The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.
It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!
I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.
Transcript
Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’
Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser.
Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing!
Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations.
This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections.
I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that.
At CPAC in 2022 I explained the Liberals refused to fight for conservative principles and that is why they lost the election. Here’s my full “controversial” speech. It’s only controversial to Liberals that are still in denial. Until they fight for conservative principles, the Liberals will not be re-elected.
Transcript
Thank you. What is a conservative? This is the first and most vital question at a Conservative Political Action Conference. I wanna thank Andrew Cooper, Warren Mundine, and all their many volunteers and observers and supporters who’ve come from a long, long way to help. And I want to thank you because this is what it’s all about. It’s not about two men, Warren and Andrew. It’s about conservatives, good citizens. We’re among real people today and we’re among real humans. In this room, we have people who think, who appreciate, and who want to contribute to restoring our country. So, now, I prepared some comments, but after comments yesterday, I want to reinforce what Nigel Farage said and also Warren Mundine and Ross Cameron.
So I’m going to, I’ve changed my speech considerably, so I’m gonna read from notes. For me, a conservative is someone who thinks critically and has the awareness of our world’s core realities and who thinks critically and has the awareness of our own species’ reality, an understanding, appreciation, and celebration of reality. Someone standing up and protecting reality as our natural state that best enables and delivers human progress and security. Yet we live in a world where even conservatives, known for our optimism and positivity, are feeling confused, dismayed, frustrated, fearful, concerned, angry, and sometimes hopeless.
Thomas Sowell said it best, “Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.” Today, many conservatives search for understanding, clarity, engagement, and being heard, because today, governments do not listen. Instead, they seek to control. When we see, hear, and feel the absurdity all around us in the West, we realise we’re engaged in a war for the heart, the soul, the mind, and existence of our society, our nation, civilization, basic human rights, lifestyle, and even our species. Yes, even our species.
How can we replace our concern, our fear, with constructive feelings like hope, like calm confidence, like positive openness, reassured vigour and excitement, possibilities for a better world and for restoring our Australian lifestyle? As conservatives, how do we support each other? How do we work together to restore freedom, express ideas, encourage and support each other, revive hope? We need to work across the spectrum, not as parties, but as unified forces for the conservative side of politics, to restore our country so we can get back to doing what humans do so well and naturally: improving society and progressing as a species, as a civilization, as families, and as individuals.
So I was going to invite you to step back at this point and examine our society, but what I wanna do is talk about something that we need to be on guard from within. We’re not being attacked just from outside, and we are certainly being attacked from outside. We need to be on guard from something coming from within. I wanna make two points. CPAC can only thrive as a people’s movement. Not as a Cooper movement, a Schlapp movement, a Farage movement, only as a people’s movement. And in that unity is crucial. I am a conservative and I want conservatives to thrive. I support CPAC and am loyal to the many people coming up to thank me for my stance, and that’s much appreciated. But that’s not my job.
My job is to help Warren achieve his aims for CPAC that he so clearly said this morning. And that requires putting parties and politicians under the spotlight, setting them aside, not papering over the cracks in parties. I wholeheartedly endorse Ross Cameron’s viewpoint. Yesterday, we saw difference of view, differences of views rearing their heads, and I welcome that. Nigel Farage’s call for the people to be energised regardless of party, to be energised, a people’s movement. Whereas Nick Cater said we all need to go back to the two old parties. So I must address that issue. So I’ve made a new speech and then I invite you to decide.
And I’m encouraged by Dan Tehan, National Party member, I think, in Victoria, who had the courage, so rare in politics, to admit his mistake in withdrawing from and allowing the abuses that occurred under the Morrison government driving the states to do what they did for the last two and a half years. Dan Tehan, thank you for your guts. I have great pride in celebrating Gerard Rennick, Pauline Hanson, Alex Antic, George Christensen, and Craig Kelly. I will now speak with them in mind and in my heart. If there’s time, I’ll get back to the speech I was intending to deliver. I noticed my time’s been cut. So let me start with the review of some of the information presented this weekend.
While Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Katherine Deves are awesome and I love them dearly and I respect them and admire them, they are not Australia’s bravest women. Nampijinpa Price wholeheartedly needs and deserves that award of freedom yesterday. But the title of bravest woman in Australia has gone to Pauline Hanson for 25 years. Pauline has fought the battles we have all talked about this weekend: family, community, Christianity, border protection, the Indigenous industry, our flag, our veterans, freedom, our lifestyle, our very way of life, our exports, our industry, our agriculture. It is ironic that the omnipresent party in this event is the same party that sent Pauline to jail to shut her up, the Liberal Party.
After being released and exonerated, Pauline put aside her time as Australia’s first political prisoner to lead One Nation in the fight for conservative values. This should never be forgotten, always remembered, especially with the release of a new national anti-corruption body lacking in checks and balances that One Nation expected to be there. In this last election, Australia’s COVID response asked many questions of our elected leaders, particularly federal.
Questions like: What happened to my body, my choice? What happened to the vaccine approval process? What happened to freedom of movement and freedom of association? What happened to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship? What happened to free speech? And how could a virus infect you in a small business but not in a big business? Finally, where were the bloody Liberals and Nationals for the last two and a half years? I can tell you where they were: calling me names for standing up for the very values they now embrace at this conference.
One Nation went to this last election, One Nation went to this last election defending conservative values and fighting for your freedom, our freedom. Senator Ralph Babet, who’s in the audience, and the United Australia Party were there defending your freedom. The Liberal Democrats were there defending freedom and standing up against the genuinely evil Dan Andrews regime. And as I said, Senator Rennick was there, Alex Antic was there. And good on Topher Field for his courage, and I urge everyone to buy his movie, “Battleground Melbourne” available in the foyer.
It brought me to tears. It is just such a stark, stark, horrific portrayal, but an accurate portrayal. In this last election, the Liberal Party and the National Party chose to preference the Labor Party ahead of One Nation in many races. In the end, delivering the Senate to the ALP and neutering the Liberal Party. So what the hell is going on? Like many people here, I do hope the Liberals rediscover their roots in true liberalism, true conservatism. It would, however, be unbelievable if the Liberals achieved that in a single weekend-long pep rally.
Where is Peter Dutton, can I ask? Seriously, I thought I was coming to, I thought I was coming to CPAC. It feels more like LPAC, Liberal Political Action Conference. I must say, CPAC is back from their three-year COVID hiatus with a very short memory. Returning to their conservative roots will take fundamental changes in the power structure of a party that quite simply sold Australia out. The best way to help the Liberal Party, for those who wanna help the Liberal Party, is to expose the cracks, not paper them over.
And not just during COVID, but going back to the days of John Howard and his implementation of the 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol that stripped property rights from farmers to meet targets imposed by the UN without compensation and going around the constitution to do so.
[Audience Member] Terrible.
That has never been set right. And we need to set it right. If the Liberals want to embrace conservatism, setting that right might be a good place to start. Who was it that locked Western Sydney residents into their homes and put troops to the streets to keep them there? Who was that?
[Audience Member] Liberals.
Gladys Berejiklian’s Liberal government. Who closed their state off to the rest of Australia, imposed business closures, restricted movement, and forced medical mandates on their citizens? That was the Liberal Marshall South Australian government. Who changed the rules to allow emergency health orders under the Biosecurity Act and then tore up the vaccine approval rule book while sharing your vaccine status with anyone who wanted to see it? Always remember that. That was the Liberal Morrison government. If the Liberal Party want their supporters to hold the line, as we heard yesterday, then they need to change their leadership, change their policies, apologise for their failures, and start again truthfully and honestly. And they need to call a Royal Commission into COVID. Although, maybe under Albanese, it might be better if the they just let the senators get on with having a Senate Select inquiry into it because we can ask the questions that need to be asked. Liberal Premier Perrottet could do that right now. He could have an inquiry. I also heard a speaker in favour of retaining the two-party system, Nick Cater. I disagree completely. Nigel Farage said, “Go and elect the best people you can regardless of party, and if the conservatives have governed as liberal democrats, social democrats rather, get rid of them.” It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives a victory in Italy. That was a multi-party coalition. It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives to government in Sweden. That was a multi-party coalition. While Brexit did deliver the first black eye to the globalists, as another speaker mentioned, the conservatives didn’t do that. It was one man who built up an army in the people, and that’s what we need here. Nigel Farage did that.
Woo! Working outside the establishment parties. And it was not the Republicans that won the presidency in 2016. It was Donald Trump. The Republicans tried to scuttle him.
[Audience Member] Woo!
[Audience Member] Well done.
It will not be the Republicans that regain Congress in a month. It will be Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement. And they will retake Congress over the dead body of the establishment Republicans. Can a unified conservative movement achieve more than a disunited movement? Well, of course it can. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it? We are people from all parties united in the desire to defend conservative values.
And we can win this fight. Just as victory in two world wars was not any nations alone. Rather, nations came together allied in a single cause to defend against evil and restore freedom and prosperity. Once again, after a long period of peace and prosperity, we find ourselves in a fight for freedom, for Christian and conservative values, in a war against neopaganism masquerading as wokism. In many ways, this is a new world war. It is a war that does not need to be fought with one party.
It is a war that must be fought with one community. One community. It is not time for a single conservative party. It is a time for all allies to unite and fight side by side with a clarity of mind and purpose. And so I implore everyone here, now is the time, because as Shakespeare said so eloquently, “Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.” Let me now resume scheduled programming. See how long I’ve got. That’s the end of time. So one thing I wanna say is government…
Well, I wanna say that in response to the globalist New World Order and Great Reset, we must, as conservatives, apply the great resist.
Hear, hear.
And the great restoration, and the great restoration of nation. While government is necessary, good government is necessarily limited.
Hear, hear.
Yes.
Fundamental rights of individuals are above the rights of government.
[Audience Member] Yes.
I am, and I hope we all in this room, are proud to be conservative. We should be proud. To succeed in our great resist, we must be proud. We must get off our knees, stand up straight, and get off our ass, together united around not parties, but around conservative values. We have one flag, we are one community, we have one nation, and we’ve got one planet. Let’s make this global.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/QoTqNUV2xVI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-10-10 13:15:002024-10-10 13:39:49Malcolm Roberts Addresses CPAC on Why the Liberals are Losing
