Visit the original article from the AMPS here: https://amps.redunion.com.au/blog/episode-6-discussions-from-the-front-line

In this episode, we welcome Senator Malcolm Roberts to AMPS Discussions from the Frontline. 

Kara and Senator Roberts discuss the impact of the mandates and the importance of transparency and accountability in Government, all politicians are supposed to serve and listen to the people.

In this video series, “Discussions from the Frontline”, we are discussing AHPRA overreach and the consequent impacts on Health Professionals, the search for evidence-based best practices and overall public health outcomes.

AMPS and NPAA members have repeatedly raised concerns about government overreach and the negative consequences this is having on healthcare, our professions and the public. 

AMPS understands the cost of questioning government policy and politically correct orthodoxy. Questioning “the science” is tragically now often a career-ending decision, a silencing tactic that works by threatening your livelihood and ability to provide for your family.

We believe highly educated health professionals should be allowed to participate in debates on scientific evidence, treatment protocols and in the public square of ideas without government threats of disciplinary action.

Deaths in January were a shocking 2,965 (22%) above the baseline for Australia. This increase coincided with a large increase in COVID-19 infections which is being blamed as the cause. However, if we dig down a bit on that claim it does not stack up.

ABS figures show that only 442 COVID deaths were recorded in January. What is the explanation for the remaining 2,443 deaths above baseline?

Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/january-2022#australian-deaths-by-week-1-february-2021-to-30-january-2022
Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-31-january-2022#deaths-due-to-covid-19-year-and-month-of-occurrence

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA“) and their buddies, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“ATAGI“) and the unaccountable Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA“), have enabled the distortion of science in Australia that has seen COVID vaccines mandated, the minimising of vaccine reactions, banning of alternative treatments and general COVID mismanagement.

In this final Senate Estimates session before the election is inevitably called I tried to desperately get straight answers out of Australia’s Chief Health bureaucrats about how they could do so much of this without evidence.

Part 1

This session goes to the over 801 deaths reported around COVID-19 vaccines and the Health Department’s incompetence or negligence in failing to answer over 47% of my formal questions on notice in 6 months when the deadline was 6 weeks.

Transcript (click here to read)

I’d like to table just a portion of the transcript from the previous session in February, 16th of February. There are 15 copies here. Thank you. The latest available TGA DAEN report from your website dated 24th of March, 2022, says there are 801 deaths, 11 of which are attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. So there are 801 deaths reported by doctors. So according to the TGA 801 deaths that doctors have reported as being due to COVID-19 vaccination, doctors reported them. The TGA then steps in and reviews these doctor certified reports and says that there are only 11 deaths attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. How many of these 790 cases have been reviewed and closed? And how many are still under review?

Senator firstly, your assertion is not factually correct. Doctors have not said those deaths, 800 and something deaths are due to COVID vaccination.

They’ve reported that.

There have been reports as we have said before and misplace, doctors will often provide a report and then they say in the report, we don’t believe it’s due to a vaccination in a majority of jurisdictions, a majority of states and territories, there is a requirement for the state and territory health systems and their doctors working between to report deaths that are temporarily associated. In other words injection one day someone has a heart attack a week later. But in many of those cases the doctors indicate that they don’t believe there’s a link. So I think it’s highly misleading to say the doctors say these deaths are due to a COVID vaccine. Having said that, we do as we’ve indicated before we review all deaths in these reports and we follow up for further information including with coroners where coroners reports are done in postmortems, with the state and territory systems. These deaths are generally in health facilities. So there have been post-mortems and there is a thorough medical history on them. And as I’ve indicated before if there is something unusual and there is a possibility that it could be associated with a vaccine, we convene an independent, by independent not departmental staff. We convene an independent expert group of relevant doctors to evaluate whether there is likely causality. And we use World Health Organisation protocols and these approaches are used by regulators globally.

[Malcolm] Thank you. So how many of the 790 cases have been reviewed and closed and how many are still under review?

Senator I would have give, take that on notice

That’s fine. at the current time but the overwhelming majority has been it’s just that obviously it’s a figure that changes by the hour.

Okay. That’s fine. I’d happy to take that on notice, for you to take it on notice. Of any outstanding reported deaths, some could be death related to COVID-19 vaccination. Do you have a timeframe for when the TGA adjudication will be completed?

Our part is relatively fast once we have all required information, but if, let’s use a hypothetical of someone who has a vaccination on Tuesday and has a heart attack on Friday, they’re in a hospital in Perth, the WA health system reports to us. This is a hypothetical. We obviously require the information from a postmortem that may have been done, had that person say, had AstraZeneca and was it a major thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in their brain? So it also requires postmortems to be done. It may even require a coroner’s report to be done. So the timing at which we can close a case and then if we need to refer it to his expert committee senator does depend on when we get the information from the hospital system, the postmortem and all that. Because otherwise you are working in the dark. And so it’s really important to have that objective information by the professional people who carry out postmortems and if need be, if it has been referred to the coroner, the advice from a coroner, because again that’s their professional role to determine cause of death.

So it’s variable. How long do the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] Sorry.

How long does the TGA reviews take per death?

So once we receive the, it’s an iterative thing. So if we have a death report, we’ll come back and we say, “Look, it says headache in the report. Can we get information on whether they had a bleed in the brain?” Now the hospital may respond within hours or they may say, “Look, we’ve got the brain.” And again, this is a bit gory. “We’ve got the brain in the freezer. We will have to conduct some morbid anatomy on that…” Sorry, we’ll have to look at the brain in a postmortem sense. So sometimes it actually can take weeks if they then have to do those laboratory and other forensic tests. Once we get the information we move as quickly as possible. And we also move as quickly as possible to report any reports of death. So for example, the very first report of death which was in April last year, I think we reported it within 24 to 48 hours of the group concluding that it was associated and we do so in our weekly updates. Now, fortunately there have been no confirmed deaths due to vaccination this year. And there’s also been no confirmed cases due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia this year.

Okay, thank you, Australians, our constituents want to know who is accountable for this process? Who decides whether the death was a COVID-19 vaccine death and who certifies if this is the case.

So if it’s due to vaccination it’s the role of the Therapeutic Goods as a safety regulator. But acting on, as I said on the advice of this external panel and with the commitment and responsibility of publishing weekly safety updates on which report this information.

So you are the head of the TGA so it’s your responsibility.

Yes.

So you’re accountable.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Who’s on the expert committee?

There is no fixed expert committee. It’s really important to emphasise that if say a death was due to some neurological condition, we have a large number of neurologists. There are some, it’s not a standing committee. And so there is no fixed membership Senator. If it’s a cardiac thing, we’ll have cardiologists and we’ll have cardiac pathologists. And there’s so many subspecialties in medicine these days. And so the composition of each panel is different depending, because we want the best scientific and clinical expertise.

[Malcolm] Okay. So I’ve asked you Dr. Skerritt or Professor Skerritt sorry, about the questions raised at previous Senate estimates rounds. And if you refer to the transcript of the February 16th Senate estimates. If you go down the bottom there, you’ll see that you’ve twice failed to deliver what you have promised. We asked first in October and we had a six-week deadline for that

Sorry Senator, you asked for what in October?

The process, by which deaths reported by doctors are reviewed by the TGA.

We’ve provided every-

[Man] They haven’t.

Every response to every… We’ve provided them through to the government. Every response to every question on notice .

Well, then ministers, who in the government is responsible because Professor Skerritt, you said, I asked you again in February 16th, after the, four months after the first request in October. And I said, “Could we have that process in writing?” And you said, “I believe it has been provided but we can provide it again.” And I said, “We haven’t received it.” And you said, “We can provide it to you.” They’re categorical.

[Skerritt] Senator-

So now it seems to me minister that the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is saying he’s provided to the government but the government hasn’t provided it to us. What’s going on?

I can’t comment on the process following that. What I can say is if you wish to write to me please write to me and I can provide in .

Professor Skerritt, we’ve asked you twice and twice… And once we were put on notice and last February, just two months ago, you told us personally you would get it to us. This is the first I’ve heard about having to write to you about it.

Well, I don’t deliver responses to you directly, Senator.

[Woman] So then I asked the government what’s interceded because we have not got the material from the TGA.

[Skerritt] .

[Woman] Do we have a question on notice number that we’re talking about?

Yes, we do.

[Woman] That would be very handy to have so that we can ask somebody to check that.

Question number 14, details of how a decision of death due to COVID vaccination is made?

So what was the question on notice number? Do we know?

So that was back in October. I don’t know that one

Senator we’ll take what you’ve just requested on notice and and get you an answer. Because it seems to me that there there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Malcolm] Twice.

I think adjunct professor Skerritt has indicated he would provide what you’ve requested. So we will endeavour during a break to be able to get to the bottom of that and respond to you today.

Quite sure somebody is listening to us at the moment that we’ll be able to follow that up for us.

Minister, can you follow up my questions from October as well too, please? ‘Cause I’ve got like lots of questions outstanding.

I will certainly have a look at that, but-

Yeah, we have a huge number outstanding something like generally there are 61 of a 136 questions on notice outstanding from the last Senate estimates. That’s around 45% of the questions we’ve asked. We’ve asked a lot of questions, but that’s our right because we do it not only for ourselves but on behalf of our constituents. 45% of the questions have not been answered. So if-

[Woman] If you could leave that with me Senator-

Sure.

And I’ll respond to the committee as soon as I’m able to get an answer.

[Malcolm] If that’s the last question chair on this round and then we’ll come back later. If vaccine injured people are from identifiable subgroups say due to specific health conditions, why did you not proactively allow medical exemptions from these groups, for these groups? For example, those with comorbidities?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s not involved in provision of vaccine exemptions.

Well, who the hell is because we’ve had so many doctors tell us personally and nurses that it’s almost impossible to get an exemption. And I know of someone who got his first shot and then had a severe reaction to it and was required by his employer to have a second shot. We’ve heard this so many times.

[Man] Senator-

Senator innit?

The chair of ATAGI will be here at 10 o’clock and ATAGI is responsible for determining the conditions under which people would, vaccines contraindicated a very small list of conditions, that the chair ATAGI would be happy to answer that I think when he comes.

[Malcolm] Thank you.

[Woman] Okay. Thank you.

Part 2

Doctors and other health professionals feel great pressure to not report adverse events or sentiment which could undermine the vaccine rollout. Health Bureaucrats continue to deny such pressure exists despite official guidelines saying that Doctors could be de-registered for opposing supposed public health measures from the government. AHPRA threatens to deregister Doctors but is a private corporation with no accountability to the Senate or the Australia Public.

Transcript (click here to read)

Chair, Can I just ask something that I forgot to ask before I noted rather than interrupt Professor Skerritt? You mentioned that of the reports that you received from doctors about deaths, some explicitly say, it’s not due to the vaccine. Are you aware and what are you doing about the fact that have been told by a number of doctors that they are afraid to report vaccine deaths? Are you aware of that and what are you doing about that?

I’m not aware of that and any doctor or individual, or even you on behalf of a constituent with the relevant information can report a vaccine adverse event, doesn’t have to be a death, it can be a sore arm. Any individual can report directly to us, so–

Do you do any auditing to make sure that process is being followed or that you’re getting reasonably accurate numbers?

So as I’ve indicated, the reporting is two things. Firstly, it’s mandatory within a majority of states, but not all states. Although quite interestingly, the state that is the most active in reporting adverse events for their health system is Victoria and it’s not one where in law is written down it’s just seen as part of their medical practise. There is no force of law that says if Dr X out in the suburbs sees an adverse event that they must report. Reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in Australia. It would require this place to change a therapeutic goods act.

Senator, can I just point out, I feel I need to say something here. There there’s been over 11 billion doses of vaccine given around the world, 11 billion doses. The risk benefit profile of all of the vaccines that are in common use and the ones certainly that the TGA has regulated here in Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of benefit. There is no conspiracy here.

[Senator Roberts] Do we have the numbers on that list?

11 billion doses have been used? We would’ve seen problems in 11 billion episodes of doses if they were there.

Why did you use the word conspiracy because in my experience, most of these kinds of derailments are due to incompetence or gutlessness in terms of not looking at the figures. I’m not accusing you of either of those, I’m just saying that’s my experience but you raised the word conspiracy. Now,

I do realise the word conspiracy–

Are you aware that some doctors here and overseas have done the research and they say that as few as 1% of adverse events are being reported. Some are saying as few as 10%. So you multiply the deaths due to the vaccine. You multiply the adverse events due to the vaccines by in one estimate by a hundred or by other estimates by 10.

Senator, we don’t believe that that’s a relevant comparison.

You don’t believe it, but that’s what doctors are telling me.

Senator Robert please let witnesses respond.

So I’ll pass it to John in a moment. But I think, just to be clear I’m not accusing anyone of conspiracy here but that there are conspiracy theories around. I think we have all heard them and they have affected, particularly in some of our more vulnerable parts of our population and I’m referring here to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In a way that has caused harm and I feel it’s my role as the chief medical officer to look at that from the Australian perspective. I’ll let John answer about the issue, Professor Skerritt about the the issues you’ve raised in terms of reporting. We do know there is under reporting of a range of matters in many countries, but one of the main reasons that the statistics you and Senator Rennick, have both mentioned about the number of reports that the TGA has looked at extraordinary number, but the vast majority, almost all of those have been shown to have another explanation. And that is not hiding things, that is a totally transparent the TGA reports on every week, regularly. So that’s why I mentioned that word, but please to be clear–

I’m gonna go clear Senator Grogan–

But just to… Sorry, Paul, just to explain. I do agree that for some other medicines you might only have 10 or 5% of adverse events reported but for the COVID vaccines to use that cliched word there’s been an unprecedented communication approach to doctors, hospitals, health systems and the public about coming forward with adverse events. We want people to report adverse events. So firstly, there’s been a lot of awareness. So for example, among the doctor networks we have a video conference, it was every two weeks and there’s other video conferences that are held even more frequently. It’s now every four weeks. In fact, there’s another one tomorrow. And that has the heads of the IMA the heads of the College of General Practitioners, many leading doctor and communication groups. And again, one of the consistent messages is report adverse events even if you don’t think that there’s a likelihood of them being associated. So I would say for the COVID vaccines there’s greater awareness than there ever has been for any other medical product. The states and territories, as I’ve said, either have mandatory adverse event reporting for vaccines or they have pretty well old systems such as in Victoria. And thirdly, there’s been a tremendous investment in what we call stimulated and active reporting. So through AusVaxSafety a proportion of people who get vaccinated get SMSs at regular times and are contacted. So you’re not requiring men to say, “I don’t feel well,” it’s an adverse event they’re asked and followed up. Do you have any ill feeling, any adverse events how you going? Taken together, I think we have probably the most comprehensive picture of safety of these products and we have had for any medical product ever on the market in Australia

Professor Skerritt, I’d urge you to have a look at the systems for reporting because I’ve had a number of reputable credible doctors tell me that they are aware of adverse events not reported because the AHPRA is intimidating doctors. Professor Kelly, if I could just mention that the word conspiracy used to be used quite a bit in the past for exactly that. Vague claims. But the word conspiracy now is used as a defence to ridicule someone who’s raising a genuine issue. So that is quite often when I see the word conspiracy. It’s used to deflect so that’s why I brought up–

Senator I think that… Frankly, AHPRA wouldn’t know if a doctor reported an adverse event to us for name of a reporting doctor is anonymous and confidential, they cannot take action. So how on earth could AHPRA sanction a doctor who reported an adverse event to the TGA? They wouldn’t know.

Well, how can we get AHPRA here and ask them directly? Because they’re away from our scope they’ve been taken away from our scope by understanding 2017. They’re giving headaches to doctors in this country and doctors are looking me in the face in massive groups, groups of 40 or more, in suburbs in Brisbane, telling me, that they’ve lost the doctor-patient relationship. They have to abide by health directives and AHPRA is doing that.

Senator, I simply do not believe that AHPRA has told doctors not to report adverse events. I think that I’d believe a flat earth policy before that.

We’re gonna go–

How do we get AHPRA here?

Senator Roberts has jumped in after I was about to hand to Senator Grogan–

Chair, how do we get AHPRA here? Because they’re not accountable to the–

We have tried that before, and that’s a separate issue. We’re not gonna discuss that right now. We’ve taken that to the government before.

Part 3

The TGA has been morally deficient in their blind acceptance of overseas data provided by the pharmaceutical companies to approve COVID vaccines. Despite this, they bat away any criticism or safety concerns as simply a conspiracy theory. As I said, conspiracy theory is “used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question” and what did one of our Chief Health Officers respond to that? “It is and I’ll be using it that way”. The contempt these bureaucrats have for openness and transparency is palpable.

Transcript (click here to read)

Your office obtained de-identified clinical data, patient data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. And did that data form your decision on the vaccine, or did you just accept what the manufacturer said?

So Senator, of a long established process is that we receive an aggregate submission looking at the analysis of a patient data. And then during the review both our clinicians who review that data carefully and also our advisory committee for medicines which is composed of eminent clinicians across various disciplines, we do go back and ask a series of questions to the company, but of the global regulators only the US Food and Drug Administration, obtains individual patient data as a course of practise, so-

[Malcolm] So the answer is no?

So we do not obtain individual patient regulator. We’re simply not resolved to do so.

[Malcolm] Okay, that’s fine, I just needed the answer. So the TGA with all of it’s resources didn’t take the opportunity to review you the approximately 44,000 records on the vaccine testing. Yet you improved it to inject into millions of Australians?

I don’t agree, but we didn’t take the opportunity to review the results for trials. We spent many person months. In fact, probably several person years, you aggregate the size of a team of clinicians and others looking at that data. We looked at that data on 44,000 people and the trials was very carefully.

What clinical testing was done in Australia on the COVID-19 vaccines.

So for there were some vaccines that have had early stage trials done in Australia but it is not a requirement, but medicine or vaccines are clinically trialled in Australia, if it were a requirement we’d have far fewer medicines and vaccines on the market. We look for trials done in comparable populations. So we assume a trial done on an American is gonna be transferable to the Australian population. However, if there are trial groups missing such as we have a lot of Australians of Asian descent we’ll look at that in a trial data too.

So you also assume then that a trial by an American pharmaceutical company done on Americans is just acceptable?

We Don assume it’s just acceptable. We look at, as I’ve mentioned, the total amount of data for Pfizer is over 220,000 pages. And so that would fill many pallets of paper if it were deposited in the middle of this room. So we scrutinise, we review that data at extreme length. We spend thousands of of man and woman hours reviewing that data.

But no testing here.

We test the vaccine here in a laboratories. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 105 laboratory staff.

So are those tests to make sure that the control batches comply with the current batches in this country, or are they actually testing the vaccine for its efficacy, for its safety?

The tests are looking, well they relate to safety because they check the vaccines composition. They check that there’s no contaminants in it. And they check that it aligns with the requirements of-

So you’re not testing the vaccines efficacy or safety or risk?

We are looking at safety in a post market sense. The data from FDA and Safety comes from clinical trials that are being conducted globally. And I would add the same approach is accepted by all world’s major regulators, including Europe. So the European Medicines Agency, which regulates for European Union does not require trials to be done within Europe.

Are you aware there are major concerns about the FDA processes in America and many of the health agencies in America being completely tainted by pharmaceutical companies, all fix for interest.

TGA makes independent sovereign evaluations of vaccines, the government expressly rejected, this government expressly rejected a possibility of TGA automatically accepting US FDA decisions. So government position, and it was the accepted in this place when a bill went through the house was for TGA to continue to make its own sovereign decisions. And we don’t always make the same decisions as FDA around medicines and drugs.

And you rely upon various committees-

Yes, we do.

For approval of different types of drugs, including vaccines.

We rely on them from advice. So we have an active advisory committee for vaccines and an advisory committee for medicines, for example, that will go to treatments.

Have you assessed that committee’s composition for conflicts of interest?

Oh, very much so Senator and, first of all-

[Malcolm] Can we get a copy of that?

Senator, there would be individual personal information we could provide, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, well, doctor so is X, but we could explain both the process and we could explain those candidates who were not considered-

[Malcolm] Yes, please.

So within those constraints, of course we would very welcome to-

[Malcolm] We’ll take from there.

It is absolutely important that the people on the committees do not have a conflict of interest.

I agree.

It would up the process.

Last question on this topic before I move on to a second one. Were the COVID-19 vaccines ever tested upon zero to four, four year olds? And could you please provide a copy of the data to prove that the vaccine is safe for young children and babies?

The vaccines are not approved for zero to four year olds. So they have not been approved in this country or in any major global regulator areas, there is an approval in China for a Chinese made vaccine, I think down to age three. But when I look at the US, when I look at Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe they are not approved in that age group.

When will they be approved?

It depends on the date of it’s submitted to us and whether it’s accessible.

Are you expecting at any time in the next three months before the new parliament comes in?

I can’t predict that we may receive an application midyear but it is really dependent on the completion of trials, and on the quality of the data.

Thank you, let’s move on then to the next topic. Can a COVID-19 vaccine enter and affect human DNA? Now a Swedish study and I’m gonna table this. A Swedish study has demonstrated that it could and while the paper, which is being distributed, at section four states, and I’ll quote, “At this stage we do not know if DNA reverse transcribe from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.” So they’re acknowledging that, “the fact is that the Australian government may have not independently confirmed whether it does or not.” So the question is, have you done so, have you kept us safe?

So we are familiar with this paper. It is actually quite widely discredited in the medical community for a number of reasons. Firstly, reverse transcriptase of the type required are not commonly found within cells, are not commonly found within the nucleus. And if this were plausible, you’d argue as I mentioned earlier, probably all of us sitting here have 20,000 genes and 20,000 mRNAs that are making various proteins on time. You’d have all those proteins clogging up the nucleus. The second issue is that the amount of messenger RNA used in this study was not the physiological levels. It was a very high level of messenger RNA. So this paper was published in a second or third tier journal and it’s been fairly widely discredited. And again, I’m happy to provide a bit more information on what experts in the field have said about this particular study.

Yeah, I’d welcome that. But my question was not whether the paper was good or not. The question is, has the Australian government independently confirmed whether the material does transcribe or not? So my question was, have you done that? And have you kept us safe from the possibility of that?

We do not believe it can plausibly-

[Malcolm] So that’s a belief?

For scientific evidence does not show-

[Malcolm] Can we see that scientific evidence, please?

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you.

[Malcolm And John] If could take that on notice.

Yes.

Thank you. Secondly, did the TGA issue authorization solely based upon the basis of the manufacturer’s data?

To which for vaccine, are you talking about?

[Malcolm] Pfizer?

So every medical product is submitted on the basis of, sorry is reviewed on the basis of a submission that a company or other sponsor makes. In every case, there are questions sometimes in the case of one of the COVID vaccines but I think questions numbered in the hundreds. There are many questions where we go back and request further data. We also look at data from studies if that vaccine is for example, already on the market as professor Murphy mentioned for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, where there was already use overseas, we look at that data, but the process is that the data does come from the organisation that submits it, but we don’t take it at face value. We drive pharmaceutical companies crazy by asking them dozens and quite often hundreds of questions and ask for more things.

Why did the TGA just refer to the manufacturer that and take their word for it? I know you just said-

Well, as I said, we don’t take their word for it. Otherwise we’d just be a rubber stamp. You might as well bother having a-

[Malcolm] That’s my concern.

We are not a rubber stamp. What do those people do all day? And I think it’s fair to say. When you’ve had, at the time we were reviewing the vaccines we had teams of people working seven days a week. So they were extremely busy reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data-

[Malcolm] My concern-

And these are very highly qualified people Senator.

My concern professor Skerrit is that there have been so many contradictions so many reversals of data, so many denials, so many orders, so many instructions, so many absurdities throughout this whole COVID and I call it a mismanagement.

[John] That’s your assertion?

That is my assertion. And there have been so many absurdities so many contradictions we’ve got one state predicting another state. We’ve got one state contradicting itself within over a period of weeks. We’ve got so many of these that people are rightly very very suspicious and concerned.

Well, I would also add the fact that Australia of course has a very high vaccination rate. And while there are some individuals who are suspicious or concerned about the data, a massive majority of Australians have chosen to become vaccinated. I’d also add that there is one national medicines regulator who has a role of looking at the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines.

Okay, my next question goes to, is from constituents, many constituents. And I’d like to tell over these, please. I’m not tabling the questions. I’m tabling handout, listing reports and scientific publications on the toxicity of graphene oxides to living organisms.

[John] Oh, yes, it’s toxic.

My constituents have asked me to ask you about a recent UK study, which has formed the basis of criminal charges in that country. “Due to the presence of compounds including, graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines.” Graphene oxide is not on the ingredients list. Have you tested specifically for graphene oxide, or other unlisted chemicals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

We have and other regulators have assessed the vaccines. There is no graphene oxide in any of the vaccines.

Have you tested?

I would have to take that on notice but we have no evidence, we do-

You have no evidence, but have you tested for that?

I said, I’d have to take that on notice but I am absolutely confident. There is no graphene oxide vaccines, why on earth would you put it in there?

That’s what people want to know?

Yeah, why on earth would you do that?

[Malcolm] But we talk about that-

That probably sounds like some conspiracy theory again, Senator.

That’s usually used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question.

[John] It is and I’ll be using it that way.

Okay.

But to think that someone, and it’s not directed at you Senator, but to think that someone would put graphene oxide into a vaccine would amount to a conspiracy theory.

We may have some interesting material for your next sentiments.

[John] Thank you Senator.

Yes, you’ve already explained that graphene oxide is toxic to humans.

[John] Oh, yeah.

Professor Kelly, your response to Senator Rennick’s questions about the denial of people wanting to go overseas, from going overseas because of their global commitments. I’ve heard that so many times, minister whether it be from the leader in the senate, previous it was on the senate, Senator Corman, in answer to my request for data as to why we’re complying with UN requirements and UN policies, I get told because we have to comply with our global commitments. I understand that the Omicron variant entered Australia at a time when only vaccinated people were allowed into the country?

That’s correct, Senator.

Thank you, that’s all for me right now. And I’ll come back with the target.

Part 4

AHPRA is an unaccountable private organisation that holds the threat of de-registration over the head of any Doctor who dares give advice against vaccination counter to the Government line. They must be held accountable and the primacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship must be restored.

Transcript (click here to read)

[Roberts] Through this quickly then, I’d like to table this. My questions are for ATAGI because that’s where I was directed by the gentleman at the table now. Thank you. It’s in regard to AHPRA, this is from their website and I’ve also got another page on their website. Which I’m not tabling, but I’m happy to do so if needed. Dr. Crawford, are you there?

[Dr. Murphy] Here’s for AHPRA question might not be relevant, it’s ATAGI, senator. So let’s ask you a question and we’ll see…

Okay we’ll ask a question to everyone then. Well, some, this is on ATAGI and national boards. Position statement goes back to 9th of March, 2021 right from the start, pre-vaccine. While some health professionals, practitioners, sorry, may have a conscientious objection to COVID 19 vaccination. All practitioners, including students on placement must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID 19 vaccination national boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Down the bottom of this notice, it says, any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation programme, including via social media, is not supported by national boards. And the doctors read this, may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. So that was very, very clear. Then there’s a social media guideline which I won’t go through now. So I, is anyone aware of John Larter, who is a experienced paramedic who took a vocal stand against mandatory vaccination in his industry against mandatory vaccination. AHPRA moved swiftly on him and Larter told the media that he was not even given an official reason for his suspension when it happened. Ros Nealon-Cook is a psychologist who took it upon herself to warn Australians on social media of the severe and widespread harm being caused to child development and mental health by prolonged lockdowns. She was instantly suspended for her trouble. The more concerning one, these are all of concern in August of 2021, the COVID medical network published an open letter titled “First Do No Harm”. The COVID medical network’s open letter did not list any authors. So APRA went to the Australian securities and investments commission ASIC, and found out the names of the three directors of the COVID medical network. Two were doctors and their medical licences were immediately suspended. The COVID medical network was formed in 2020 to provide the public with informed evidence based advice concerning lockdowns and other matters that differs from that of the government and its bureaucratic instruments. The organisation runs a weekly video conference that is tuned into by hundreds of Australian health practitioners, professionals, sorry. The other, one of these doctors who were suspended, Robert Brennon was given written reasons for his instant termination. APRA accused him of spreading, quote, Medical Misinformation, unquote via the COVID medical network open letter because this is the words that APRA used, the content of both the letter and the video contrary to New South Wales public health orders because I’ll say that again, the content of the letter and the video are contrary to New South Wales public health orders enforced at the time and have the potential to undermine public health strategies by potentially influencing medical practitioners and the community not to be vaccinated. Then they go on, APRA, to say, it is not our role to evaluate the scientific validity of the letter. Our concern is that the letter strongly argued a highly polarised position contrary to public health order. In other words, the position argued by Dr. Brennon and the COVID medical network might be scientifically correct. And the position of the Australian government scientifically incorrect but as far as APRA is concerned. The crime lies in contradicting the government’s position.

[Lady] Senator Roberts, so you have a question?

Yes I do, why is AHPRA allowed to do this? And what are you doing to make sure AHPRA is held accountable? Because they’re not as far as I know, to the parliament.

So APRA is a creature of all governments. So it’s a creature of all state territory governments and the Commonwealth government. It has its, and it has a range of boards of experts. So there’s a medical board and there are boards of nursing and paramedicine. And I think the message really is in that that final statement that said that promotion of statements or advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seek to actively undermine the national immunisation programme has been determined by APRA and by its expert boards as being unprofessional conduct. And we would support that contention by AHPRA.

So can I get access to that evidence from a AHPRA?

What evidence?

That it’s the best scientific evidence.

[Doctor Murphy] Well, I think the best I think professor been giving you the best scientific evidence all morning, about the the benefit of vaccination. And I think that’s just, there are scientific standards that are well established in the literature.

Can I get the evidence? Not statements and opinions about the evidence. Can I get the evidence?

We can give you lots of evidence?

[Roberts] No can I get AHPRA’s evidence? They’re touting, but remember Dr. Murphy, it’s not only, what might be scientific, it’s also about the contradiction of the public health statements

Senator, if you would like to provide that information to us, we can investigate it on notice and go back to AHPRA

[Roberts] Provide what to you?

And understand what you…

[Roberts] This information?

Yeah, yeah. If you can provide it to us,

[Lady] Senator Roberts.

We can follow it up.

[Roberts] Final question.

[Lady] I’m just conscious of time. Cause I’ve got four other senators now, asking to ask questions.

I’d like to know why ATAGI is not here in person. And also I’d like to know…

Professor Crawford is here online. He’s actually based in Melbourne, senator, so…

[Roberts] Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. I’d like to know the relationship between, Dr. Murphy, between the boards, APRA and the AHPPC. And the final question, public health is quite often used these days in America and in Australia as a catch-all for the community, public health, when, and that’s why orders are given and people are supposed to follow them. But public health is a nonsense. It’s not an entity. The primary public health goes back to the primary relationship between a doctor and a patient. In this country, now, are you aware that there is not a relationship between many doctors and their patients because the doctor has got a puppet master behind him telling him what him, what he can and cannot say.

The Individual relationship between a doctor and his patient is sacrosanct and APRA would not have any problem with a doctor.

[Roberts] Dr. Murphy, they have.

AHPRA would not have a problem with a doctor having an individual discussion with his or her patients around vaccination. What this is talking about is the public promotion of misinformed and wrong scientific evidence. So that’s what they’re concerned about, bringing the profession in to distribute and undermining public confidence.

But what I’m talking about is doctors who are very concerned.

[Lady] Senator Roberts your time has expired now we’re going to move on, I’m sorry.

Just one minute. What I’m very concerned about is doctors who are telling me personally that they cannot give advice because AHPRA is sitting behind them. So what they’re getting is a public health dictate when they go to the doctor, not advice.

Well if you can provide evidence of that

Yes, I will.

We’ll be happy to investigate.

[Roberts] Who do I provide it to?

[Physician] And Senator, I’m very happy to provide a definition of public health as a public health physician. Is it actually a recognised AHPRA profession? And that is me and there are others in the department that have that. And I would refer to my opening statement about what the definition of a public health physician does and how that works. It’s about protecting the population at the population level and preventing death at the population level. That is not in any way to take away the importance, absolute vital importance of the individual doctor, individual patient relationship. It’s a different part of the profession.

[Lady] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] Thank…

Investigating the vaccine, the TGA and the Government’s failings with Maria Zeee.

Transcript

Maria Zeee:

Welcome to Maria Zeee Uncensored. I’m your host, Maria Zeee, reporting to you from the epicentre of the testing ground for the New World Order, right here in Australia. And the world will do well to watch this country because whatever they test here and implement successfully, rest assured, it will come to other countries. I believe that to know what you’re standing for, you first must know what you’re standing against and my mission is to expose the truth of this entire agenda to help people do that. Right here. Uncensored.

Audio:

Share the truth at whatever cost.

Maria Zeee:

Over the past two years, we’ve seen Australia slipping into what can only be described as a complete totalitarian society. Now, as they try to sweep COVID, the effects of these bioweapons, police brutality, and government overreach, under the rug by distracting us all with world war, we, the people, have not forgotten. I’ll be discussing this more later on in the show, but first I’d like to introduce you to a brave Australian Senator. Senator Malcolm Roberts recently held a COVID Under Question committee where professionals from the medical field expose the nanotechnology that is undeniably in the Pfizer injection vials. Yes, the same injections that they’ve been forcing onto global citizens for the purpose of changing what it means to be human. In my recent interview with Dr. Matt Shelton and Sue Grey, a lawyer from New Zealand, we see how four separate teams of scientists from our neighbouring New Zealand have discovered the same. If you haven’t seen that interview yet, you can watch it after the show on my page on Red Voice Media. But first, Senator Malcolm Roberts.

Maria Zeee:

Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you so much for joining us today.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s always a pleasure, Maria. I love to see your smiling face. And I know that you’re going to be factual so it’s so wonderful to see journalists or media people who are factual.

Maria Zeee:

Thank you. Thank you. So Senator Roberts has been fighting for Australians in parliament, speaking out over the past two years over the absolute tyranny that our people have been subjected to. And Australia is certainly blessed to have people like you in our corner, Senator Roberts. Now you recently led a COVID Under Question committee here in Australia where you came to some shock findings. Can you talk to people please about the findings from this committee?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We haven’t finalised the findings yet, but I can just go by memory. I haven’t got my notes in front of me, but it was stunning. We had people from … first of all, cross-party. It was a multi-party event. The third session, that was the blood pathology work which I’ll share with you in a minute, that was another astounding thing. I’d seen their work before so I knew what to expect. They found basically, angular structures, not natural, in the Pfizer vaccine. I’ve seen-

Maria Zeee:

You told me offline that you’d actually been there and seen it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I saw it.

Maria Zeee:

And you’ve seen this under a microscope.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Maria Zeee:

So talk us through that process please.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, to make sure, we took a video of one take, so we didn’t turn the camera off. We took one take from the … in the downstairs lab where they do things under a proper air hood. They took the Pfizer vaccine out of the fridge. My wife was doing the camera work, so I know it’s legit. And I was introducing it and watching it the whole time. We took them into the fridge. They took the Pfizer vial out. This had all been kept under standard conditions. No doctoring of the Pfizer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They opened the vial, took the sample out, injected it with the syringe, put it onto the slide, put the slide cover on the slide, then put it in the carry case. Then the scientist carried it. All the time. That slide and slide container were in the same field, in the focus of the camera, went up the stairs to the lab, to the microscope rather, and then put it under the microscope. The whole time, it was in there. So no one could have swapped it out. It was one take. And then the camera went back and took in a broader view of the computer monitor, which showed what was in the slide and there were luminous angular objects. Clearly not natural. Clearly not natural. And we just did that once to show people that this wasn’t dummied up, doctored.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And so then what the two blood pathologists did was, at their presentation inquiry last Wednesday, they showed some samples from various Pfizer vials. They also showed some injected blood, people who’d been injected with the Pfizer vaccine.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve also sampled, I think they’ve sampled, AstraZeneca. But what you see in the Pfizer vials, Pfizer samples, these angular structures, luminous structures. Then in the blood samples, you see the white cells going onto the angular structures and the white cells dying. And then you see the red blood cells, which are very important for oxygen-carrying, agglomerating into basically just bunches of cells. And remember, some capillaries are so small, that one blood cell goes down at a time. Well, sorry, one red blood cell goes down at a time. Each blood cell’s got two surfaces on it for releasing carbon dioxide, sorry, releasing oxygen into the cells. And then the blood absorbs the carbon dioxide and takes it away. It just gets dissolved. All right? So the red cells are important for getting the oxygen from the lungs into your metabolism. And so when you’ve got, say 20 red blood cells, all together, instead of having 40 surface areas liberating oxygen, you’ve only got the first one and the second one. You’ve got two. So your oxygen-carrying capacity is decreased. So all kinds of stupid behaviour, unnatural behaviour, in people who’ve been injected. And a [crosstalk 00:06:29]

Maria Zeee:

Senator Roberts, you’ve been involved in multiple inquiries in parliament where you’ve questioned the Australian health authorities on these matters. At any point, or on the safety and efficacy of these so-called vaccines, which they’re not, at any point has anyone told you that there’s a possibility of nanotechnology being found in these vials or being included in these injections that are being pushed onto Australian people?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Never. Never. What’s more Maria, we know that in October, there were 546 deaths or 564. I think it’s 546 deaths reported by doctors that were attributed to these injections. I don’t call them vaccines. They’re not. They’re injections.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s head, Professor Skerritt, on what basis they revise them down from 546 to just nine. Okay? I asked that as a question on notice, and I said, “I want to know the process by which you review each of those reports from doctors and you dismissed them. I want to know, was there an autopsy done? Was there a blood analysis done? Blood culture. Was there tissue cultures done? What is the process?”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And he had six weeks to get that to me. We didn’t get it. In February, which is what, October, November, December, January, February, four months later, we said, “Where are those results? Where’s the answers to my questions?”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“Oh, we sent them.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“No, you didn’t.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then he implied straight away, “We’ll send them immediately.” We still haven’t got them, Maria. They won’t tell us the process by which they revise the deaths downward. We’ve now got 798 deaths as of last week reported by doctors. And we know that’s just a fraction of the total number because doctors are scared to report and attribute anything to the vaccines. 798. They’ve been revised down to 11.

Maria Zeee:

Unbelievable.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re hiding things.

Maria Zeee:

They are hiding things. And they’re also not conducting autopsies with all of these people that are dying either, to confirm whether or not it was actually the vaccine that caused this. Because it seems that the judicial system is failing us. It seems that most politicians, apart from a few such as yourself and the names that you’ve mentioned, actually have the courage or the integrity to look into these matters any further. What are people going to do, Senator Roberts? Because we’re potentially looking at … the data out of other countries is suggesting mass deaths that are coming for us.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. It’s suggesting genocide. And what’s more, Maria, is so many things you can talk about here. What can we do? I think there’re going to be three solutions. And I can’t name which one at the moment, which will come through. I can’t identify it because I don’t know. Judicial? But they’re having troubles with some judicial, what do you call it, authorised, not judicial, areas of judiciary. They’re having some jurisdictions of judiciary. Parliamentary. And the third one is the people. And the most significant is the people because the people are the ones who put the pressure to the politicians. So people have got to keep standing up and we’ve seen some things eroding around the world. Jacinda Arderns collapsed after four weeks, I was told, of relentless demonstrations by Kiwis in Wellington, in front of Parliament. And she wilted. Canada wilted. Britain has wilted. Australia still hasn’t, but bits and pieces of it are starting to work. The mask mandates in some areas are coming down. Parliament now has no mask mandates.

Maria Zeee:

We see that potentially some of the restrictions are wilting, but we also have another problem, which is this incoming digital identity. And this, from the One Nation’s website, says that the digital identity acts as a master ID joining together previously disconnected government databases containing confidential, personal information and that it seeks to link all government data related to a person. But also more alarmingly, Senator Roberts, that it acts as a foundation for a China-style social credit system. So while they might be trying to sweep, what you just referred to as the genocide of these injections, under the rug and pretend that none of what they did to us over the past two years matters anymore, we’re actually going to, what seems to be the next phase of government control, which is digital identity. Can you talk to us about that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The horrific things that they’re doing under COVID, that’s just foreplay. The real screwing comes in the Digital Identity Bill. And the COVID thing has been meant to be an introduction to the Digital Identity Bill. Can be seen as no other thing. The Digital Identity Bill does exactly what you said. It has been, get this, significant portions of it have been copied and pasted from the World Economic Forum into our legislation. Now it hasn’t been introduced formally into the lower house yet, into parliament, but it has been put out there for us to look at. So what some of the things that’ll come from this is that basically, your data, my data on health, and everything else will be linked. Then they can sell it to a corporation. That corporation could be in the United States. They don’t have to meet our laws when it comes to storing our data, access to our data. They will then possibly charge you for your access to your data on health.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then, what we’re looking at, is the elimination of cash. Now people might say, “Well, I just pay with my watch or my wallet, my phone. That’s easy. That’s good. I don’t need cash.” No, you do need cash. Because if there’s no alternative to cash, then what happens is, people then start slipping in a digital currency. Then you get a social credit system and a social credit system where you will, by doing certain things in a certain way, you will get more credit. They’re doing the Digital Identity Bill testing now. And so what they’ll also try to do … the Greens have already flagged … the Greens are the biggest control freaks in the country. They are the ones pushing vaccine mandates, injection mandates. They are pushing control. That’s what the Greens are all about. People are being diluted by the Greens. They’re starting to wake up, that the Greens are horrendous.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And so the Greens introduce concepts and the Greens have introduced the concept of a living wage. A guaranteed wage. So what they’ll do is they’ll say, “Well, Maria, I don’t know what you’re earning. Let’s say you’re earning the average 80,000 a year. We’ll give you 50,000 a year for nothing.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“Oh, I don’t know if I can live. Yeah. Okay. I don’t have to work for that. That’d be great.” Everyone will get 50 grand a year. They’ve given it to you free. And then when you’re hooked and you’ve got nothing else to go to, they’ll suddenly say, “Maria, you know that four-wheel drive you’ve got? Get rid of it or else you’ll go down to 40,000. If you keep eating meat, you’ll go down to 30,000.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is not fanciful. They have talked about it. The World Economic Forum has actually discussed these things. The UN is discussing these things. Get away from beef. They’re saying basically, that alcohol, beef, will only be for the rich. They haven’t said it like that, but they’ve said, “If you earn less than $300,000 a year, you shouldn’t eat meat. You should be eating insects.” Yes. Insects.

Maria Zeee:

Yes. Insects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The federal government has recently funded 64 million dollars to the United Nations to help it develop insects for us to eat. This is just insane. And so, Maria, when you get something free, you’re a bit worried and you should be. But if you’re a mouse and you can see cheese on a mousetrap, it’s free.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Just let that sink in. That cheese is free. You’ve got to get it and you’re dead. And that’s what this has all about. Not necessarily killing us, but making us slaves. This has already been discussed by many people. We’re returning to feudalism. We’ve now got, as a result of what I’ve been doing and what Jared’s been doing and Pauline’s been doing, we’ve got doctors now coming out and starting to speak up because they’ve realised they’ve lost their profession. I met with a vascular surgeon here in Canberra last Saturday at the rally I spoke with. Wonderful guy. Very, very bright. He’s lost his practise because, and he’s, probably going to have to sell his premises, because he can’t practise because he won’t comply with the vaccine mandates. We’ve got surgeons doing top jobs who have been out of paid work for seven months because of that.

Maria Zeee:

I wish that they’d spoken up sooner, Senator Roberts, because maybe then Australians wouldn’t have complied. And we wouldn’t have been in the state that we were, where we had police shooting rubber bullets at our peaceful protestors. We appreciate all of your work, Senator Roberts. Thank you so much for doing this inquiry and continuing to speak up. We need more brave politicians like you here in Australia and beyond.

Maria Zeee:

We are extremely fortunate to have people like Senator Roberts fighting for the truth and who are not afraid to stand up to these tyrants. And another person that’s not afraid is Simeon Boikov, the Aussie Cossack. He is an Aussie with a proud Russian heritage who’s been screaming from the rooftops from the beginning about what’s really happening in Russia and Ukraine. And I have to say, he’s been on the money a lot of the time.

Maria Zeee:

He’s also the man that leaked the viral documents about Australia’s involvement in the Ukraine biolabs and the Doherty Institute to the internet and has been under immense and unjustified mainstream media attacks ever since, including his YouTube channel of 155,000 subscribers, being suspended. That interview is available to premium users in the next segment. And I want to encourage everyone to subscribe for a premium membership with Red Voice Media. These guys have been giving me and other truthers out there a platform to get the truth out to more people and I support their work. And I hope you do too. I’ll see you in the next segment.

We must oppose the injection of children under 4 years old. I shouldn’t even have to say this, yet except for Pauline Hanson and I the entire Senate voted down my amendment protecting children from the jabs after it was revealed Greg Hunt would be adding them to an injury compensation scheme.This Parliament should hang its head in shame.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I move One Nation’s amendment to Supply Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023 on sheet 1589:

(1) Page 10 (before line 14), before paragraph 16(2)(a), insert:

(aa) must be made on the condition that the payment must not be used for expenditure related to the provision of vaccinations for the coronavirus known as COVID-19 to children aged 0 to 4 years; and

These bills that are before us include an additional $690.4 million to extend the COVID vaccination program until the end of 2022. While One Nation does not oppose the extending of the period that these vaccines are being offered, we oppose any attempt to mandate these vaccines and extend the use of these vaccines to infants and toddlers. We support freedom of choice and acceptance of a person’s choice. We oppose totalitarianism and we oppose control over people. Last night, Health Minister Hunt did indeed reveal that planning is underway to extend COVID vaccines to children aged zero to four—babies and newborn infants to four-year-olds. The four-year-old has been described as the height of human civilisation. I won’t go into the reasons why, but it’s quite clear.

This is the precious future of our species, of our nation. Clearly, this Morrison-Joyce government—and I hope the Liberals are listening—is intending on using the cover of the election to vaccinate infants and toddlers for a disease with a 100 per cent survival rate for a child that age. The injections are known to be killers, and now the Morrison-Joyce government wants to push it into babies.

I wish to observe these bills allocate additional funding to extend the vaccine injury compensation scheme to cover the administering of COVID vaccines to infants and toddlers aged zero to four. Clearly, if we are to inject these poisons into the arms of our youngest then compensation should be on offer when the inevitable and needless injury and death result. Those injuries and those deaths will be at the hands of this parliament and everyone who votes for these provisions.

For two years now the Liberal Party and their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, the Labor Party and the tail that wags the dog, the Greens, have been acting as a pharmaceutical company parliamentary lobby. Vote after vote has lined the pockets of foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies that are selling products on the basis of spurious provisional approvals of untested, or partially tested, experimental gene therapy treatments. The health minister, Greg Hunt, said:

The world is engaged in the largest clinical … vaccination trial …

Yet what we’ve seen in this country is people forced, coerced and bullied into taking experimental gene therapy treatment or else losing their livelihoods, their ability to feed their children.

The notion of my body, my choice—such a stalwart of the Greens party—has been trashed, and Greens voters have noticed. People now see the Greens are about globalist control, camouflaged behind a cloak of green. The Greens pretend to talk about standing up to corporates, but they are the patsies of the corporates.

Everyday Australians are quite rightly asking questions around vaccine harm, prompted by the sheer volume of Australians experiencing major vaccine side effects. I met a mother last week whose 23-year-old daughter died as a direct result of a vaccine—a COVID vaccine. I’ve heard of many others and I commend Senator Rennick for his work on this.

These side effects were obvious right from the start, if ATAGI had bothered to look—that’s why we’re here protecting, because they haven’t bothered to look. We know that the highly limited testing of these COVID injections was compromised, corrupted and falsified. We know the TGA and ATAGI failed to obtain de-identified clinical patient data from the trials. Had they done so, they would have seen the trials indicated an unacceptable level of harm and loss of life. The Morrison-Joyce government made the wrong decision in approving these vaccines, and it knew, or should have known, at the time the wrong decision was made.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. I’ve been to meetings with doctors who can now see their industry has been trashed, their profession has been trashed. We don’t go to see doctors now; we go to see ATAGI, we go to see TGA, we go to see AHPRA. The doctor-patient relationship has been trashed in this country—a 3,000-year-old tradition that started with the Greeks, trashed. We now consult with the regulators.

Now we can see doctors starting to stand up. We see the rates of miscarriage increasing 50 per cent in some instances, and 75 per cent is now the rate of miscarriage amongst people at fertility clinics—75 per cent of women miscarried. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has been intimidating and threatening medical practitioners in order to suppress the truth and maintain their loyal service to the pharmaceutical industry. Decisions around COVID vaccinations have been made by expert committees with unacceptable, massive, open conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. University academics sitting on TGA expert panels are often funded by pharmaceutical companies. Career progression for academics depends on subservience to big pharma. The provisional approval process was conflicted to a criminal degree. A royal commission is needed to unroll the layers of disinformation, corruption and conflicted decision-making that have harmed so many Australians, in taking at least the 800 lives that we know of and the many, many more not reported because of the suppression of reporting.

The register of childhood vaccinations was recently expanded to include flu shots. Is it the intention of this government, Minister, to include COVID shots in that register? In effect, this would make the COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules. We do not oppose vaccines; we insist on freedom of choice and acceptance of that choice. Could this government and this health department be so evil as to make COVID shots compulsory for children under the No Jab, No Play rules? Could they be so evil? Could they be so inhuman? I do not want to find out.

Today I have moved One Nation’s amendment on sheet 1589 to ensure that these funding bills do not allocate funds for the extension of COVID vaccines to children under the age of five—from birth to the age of four. The 47th Parliament, of course, will be free to make that decision. It’s your decision. It’s your conscience. I can only hope that the debate will honour the democratic process and that the right decision will be made, and humanity will be treated with respect and reverence, as humans should be, especially infants to four-year-olds—newborns to four-year-olds, the height of civilisation. I ask the Senate to support my amendment.

The evidence continues to mount that these vaccines do not deserve the continuing provisional approval given to them by the TGA. Concerns about possible adverse side effects are too big to ignore any longer, especially after my COVID Under Question inquiry which you can watch by clicking here.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I’m speaking on this parliament’s therapeutic response to COVID-19 and the horrific medical harm and loss of life in that response. Last week, leading Australian parliamentarians came together in an event I organised called COVID Under Question to present documented evidence and victim testimony proving a catastrophic failure of Australia’s regulatory framework. COVID vaccine injuries are hidden behind anonymous government data, while supposed COVID virus harm is splashed across prime time. The very least we can do for the victims of COVID vaccines is to say their names—victims like Caitlin Georgia Gotze, a healthy and vibrant 23-year-old studying at Griffith University to become a vet while working as a horse strapper. Caitlin dropped dead at work of a heart attack following a second Pfizer shot. Her death was recorded as asthma, a condition Caitlin had never had. Reginald Shearer, a formerly healthy fit and active man, quickly went downhill and passed away from effects that began after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine. Daniel Perkins, a 36-year-old healthy father from Albion Park, died of a heart attack in his sleep following his second Pfizer injection. Douglas James Roberts died after taking AstraZeneca. His family are concerned that his GP didn’t warn him of the side-effects of the vaccine. In other words, no informed consent was obtained. Neurosurgeons at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital attributed his death to a stroke, despite no family history and a clean bill of health. They refused to report his death to the TGA—refused!

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency, Ahpra, has been bullying medical practitioners into not reporting or even for talking about the harm they’re seeing. The TGA erased 98 per cent of the 800 vaccine deaths—98 per cent erased!—that physicians reported. The TGA did so without autopsy or suitable consideration of all the patient medical data. TGA, ATAGI and Ahpra are the three monkeys of the pharmaceutical industry: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Section 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the vaccines were satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the provision of approval is being granted. Data recently revealed in court papers in the United States clearly shows that vaccine harm was apparent in the clinical trials that Pfizer, BioNTech and others conducted. This information, if ATAGI had bothered to ask for it, should have resulted in a refusal of the application for provisional use. No data was provided to the secretary regarding individual test subjects—technically, anonymized patient clinical data. No independent analysis of the fundamental issues surrounding novel mRNA vaccines was conducted in Australia—none in Australia! Instead, the secretary took Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna’s word for it.

I will say that again: the secretary took pharmaceutical companies’ word for the safety of their products. These are the same pharmaceutical companies that have been fined over and over for criminal behaviour. AstraZeneca got a US$355 million fine for fraud and, separately, a $550 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy. Pfizer got a $430 million fine for making unfounded claims about efficacy, and a $2.3 billion fine—that’s billion dollars—for making unfounded claims about efficacy and for paying kickbacks.

This is who the Liberal-Nationals, Labor and Greens—our very own pharmaceutical lobby—want to pay more money to. That’s not on the basis of extensive local testing and inquiry, it’s simply on the basis of taking pharmaceutical companies safety assurances. There’s no testing. It’s an assurance made easy by indemnity against any damage that the vaccines cause. What deceit! What criminal incompetence! The Labor Party and the Liberal-National Party have accepted $1 million each from the pharmaceutical establishment in this election cycle alone. Billions more are being set aside in this week’s budget to pay the pharmaceutical companies to keep the COVID-19 gravy train going. What great value this parliament provides for those electoral donations.

Mention should be made of the TGA’s decision to ban safe, fully approved and widely accepted alternatives to COVID-19 vaccines. This includes hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; vitamins, minerals and natural antivirals; as well as proven messaging around healthy eating and lifestyles. The decision to ban proven, safe, affordable and accessible alternative treatments that are working around the world was taken to ensure the fastest and widest-possible adoption of the vaccines. The TGA’s own customers fund the TGA. That means pharmaceutical companies fund their own product’s approval. That fails the pub test. Where are the checks and balances? There are none.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics is culpable in this scandal and cover-up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics’ annual budget is $400 million. The most recent mortality data they provide is from November last year, four months behind. The most recent breakdown of mortality by cause and age is from 2020. The most recent data on live births is from 2020. Birth data used to be available six weeks after, not 15 months and counting. Are they hiding miscarriages?

At what point do we consider the actions of the TGA, ATAGI and the Australian Bureau of Statistics as interfering with the operation of the Senate? Peer-reviewed and soon-to-be-published data that must require the secretary to cancel the provisional approval of the vaccines has been released from outside of the government.

Let me review those quickly so the Senate fully understands the extent to which we have been misled. Firstly, freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the reproductive toxicology of the COVID vaccines. Freedom of information documents indicate the TGA has failed to assess the impact of microRNA sequences and related molecular genetic issues on the human body. Peer-reviewed and published in-vitro research shows gene based vaccine-generated spike proteins can migrate into human cell nuclei to disrupt DNA repair mechanisms. The TGA has dealt with this abysmally—murderously?

Vaccine-derived RNA can be reverse transcribed, leading to possible integration into the human genome, which the TGA denies, based only on pharmaceutical companies telling them to deny it. Internal Pfizer data released in February indicate they accept 1,272 different adverse vaccine events, including paralysis and death. German and US insurance actuarial data suggests the TGA’s database of adverse event notifications is underreporting side effects ninefold. Freedom of information documents from 2018 show the TGA keeps two databases of adverse event notifications: one internal, showing all reports of harm; and one public, showing only a part of those. This means vaccine harm is most likely significantly higher than reported.

Without honest and accurate data, the Senate has no way of deciding how much harm is too much harm. German pathologists describe pathological aggregates of spike proteins and lymphocyte infiltrations in inflamed organs in autopsies related to death post vaccination. In response, the TGA is failing to conduct autopsies on the 800 Australians the patients’ own doctors have reported as having died from the vaccines. What the hell is the TGA hiding?

Whistleblowers to the British Medical Journal provided reports of inadequacies, irregularities and possible fraudulent practices in the Pfizer vaccine trial—you know, the same trial for which the TGA took Pfizer’s word. From a modern immunological perspective, two frequent vaccines for respiratory viruses run the risk of desensitising the immune responses to the virus, and that leads to hypoimmunity and worse illness than without the immunisation. To put that simply: repeated vaccination is doing more harm than good.

These are the matters I sought today to refer to the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 without success. I thank Senators Hanson, Abetz, Rennick and Antic for their support, integrity and courage. The truth is the Select Committee on COVID-19 has been running a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry, and today’s vote proves it. This unprecedented betrayal of the Australian people must be referred immediately to a royal commission. To the Prime Minister, the health minister, the federal health department and all those in the Senate and the House of Representatives—all of you who have perpetrated this crime—I direct one question: how the hell do you expect to get away with it? We’re not going to let you get away with it. We won’t let you get away with it. We are coming for you. We have the stamina to hound you down and we damn well will.

Introduction and outline

COVID UNDER QUESTION is a cross-party inquiry into the Government’s response to COVID held on 23rd March 2022. COVID Under Question was hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes).

Parliamentarians heard from a range of Doctors, experts, economists and everyday people about how the Government’s response to COVID has affected them and at times defied belief. The absurdity of Chief Health Officer dictates and power hungry politicians is all laid bare.

The full day’s proceedings were recorded and available for public viewing.

Table of Contents (click to jump to)

The cost of ignoring real Science

Dr Peter McCullough

Dr Peter McCullough is board certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular diseases, and clinical lipidology.  He cares for advanced patients with common medical problems including heart and kidney disease, lipid disorders, and diabetes.  He has become an expert on COVID-19 illnesses and welcomes recovered patients into his practice.    

After receiving a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University, Dr McCullough completed his medical degree as an Alpha Omega Alpha graduate from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. He went on to complete his internal medicine residency at the University of Washington and master’s degree in public health at the University of Michigan.

Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and published the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Transcript

Dr Kat Lindley

Dr Kat Lindley is a board-certified physician in Brock, Texas in the USA.  After she fled warn torn Yugoslavia as a young adult, she did her medical school in Florida and became a family physician because she loved the idea of caring for the whole family.  Kat is involved in health policy on a state and national level in the USA.

As a mother to five children she is acutely aware of the cost of the pandemic on children and believes this is something we don’t talk about enough.  Dr Lindley is going to discuss lockdowns and masks, and emerging speech problems in children and dropping IQs.  Since children recover well from COVID19 and develop natural immunity, Kat challenges the policy to vaccinate children against COVID19.

Dr Lindley is on the Steering Committee of World Council for Health with Dr Tess Lawrie, and is familiar with the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.

Transcript

Dr Brian Tyson

US Clinician – Author of “Overcoming the COVID Darkness” – currently a US national bestseller

Works on the frontlines in one of the counties hardest hit by COVID in the state of California.  His clinic has treated 10,000 COVID-19 patients with only 7 deaths Dr Tyson will speak on early treatments and outcomes.

Transcript

Dr Wendy Hoy

Transcript

The Business and Professional Cost

Robbie Barwick

Research Director for Australian Citizens Party, with more than 20 years of experience in researching Australia’s economy and leading campaigns for economic policy solutions.

Transcript

Steve Barnes

Paramedic and small business owner who provides medic services at large events such as music festivals and concerts. His business has been decimated because of the mandates and he argues that many events are now less safe because medical staff are now even harder to find.

Transcript

Anne Nalder

Anne Nalder has a passion for small business and this led to her founding the Small Business Association in 2010.  She is the current CEO and her objectives for the Association is to be a real voice of small business, minimise the rate of failure in small business and promote world’s best small business practice.

Anne’s love for event management was realised in the 10 years she was employed by Qantas and was inspired to build her own event management business, which has been operating since 1991. She has previously worked with the Women’s Royal Australian Air Force (WRAAF) and on air for Channels 6 and 7 in north Queensland.

Transcript

Dan McDonald

Dan McDonald is a career firefighter of 18 years.  It is the profession he has aspired to since he was a small boy.  He currently holds the Station Officer position for the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service.

In his late forties Dan is the proud father of 3 adorable children. Dan believes that integrity and courage are the grounding of a person in a work environment and also forms the essence of a person’s character.  He is dedicated to seeing things done correctly and that fairness is applied to all areas of a person’s working and social realms

Transcript

Vaccine Injuries

Leanne Kellner

Leanne has had to deal with vaccine injuries in her family.

Transcript

Tammy Cummington

Tammy suffered a heart attack and developed myocarditis. She says she is one of the lucky few who were able to have the condition recognised as vaccine-linked, many of her friends were not so lucky.

Transcript

Ingi Doyle

Ingi was a super fit, health triathlete, personal trainer who developed complications after receiving the vaccine that has completely changed the course of her life.

Transcript

Clint Cherry

Vaccine injured – A healthy man who developed myocarditis after vaccine.

Transcript

Raelene Gotze

Raelene Gotze’s daughter died after receiving a vaccine mandated by her workplace.

Transcript

Mr Julian Gillespie

Mr Julian Gillespie is a retired lawyer and former barrister who has come out of retirement to fight the legal battle against the COVID vaccination.  He believes that the Australian people have not been given accurate information around COVID deaths, and deaths from the COVID vaccinations.

He is currently managing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia related to “Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v. Secretary, Department of Health.

Transcript

Professor David Flint

Professor David Flint AM is an Emeritus Professor of Law.  He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London and Paris. After admission as a Solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor (1962-72) before moving into university teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming Professor of Law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989.

Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution and on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar, World Jurists Association, Barcelona, in October 1991.

He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995.

Transcript

The failings of Regulatory Bodies (TGA, CDC)

Dr Pierre Kory

Dr Kory is a Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine specialist, former Associate Professor, Chief of the Critical Care Service, and ICU Medical Director at the University of Wisconsin. He is an internationally renowned pioneer in the field of critical care ultrasonography and senior editor of an award-winning textbook now in its 2nd edition, translated into 7 languages.

He co-founded and serves as the President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a non-profit organization dedicated to developing the most effective treatment protocols for COVID-19.

He has co-authored over fifteen peer-reviewed manuscripts on COVID-19 and is considered one of the world’s experts in treatment of all its phases. Dr. Kory is also known as a master educator as he has won major Departmental Teaching Awards at multiple institutions throughout his career.

Transcript

Dr Phillip Altman

Dr Phillip Altman has a Bachelor of Pharmacy (Hons), a Bachelor and Masters of Science and a Doctor of Philosophy.  He works as a clinical trial and regulatory affairs pharmaceutical industry consultant with more than 40 years experience in designing, managing and reporting clinical trials.  Dr Altman has dealt extensively with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration throughout his career. 

Dr Altman has worked for, and consulted to, most of the international pharmaceutical represented in Australia.   He was fundamental in the establishment of the Australian Regulatory and Clinical Scientists Association (ARCS), which is a peak educational forum for more than 2000 clinical and regulatory scientists working within the Australian pharmaceutical industry.  He has Life Membership of this Association. 

Transcript

Dr Tess Lawrie

Dr Tess Lawrie is Medical doctor and research consultant based in the United Kingdom, CEO of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy (E-BMC Ltd) and EbMC Squared, founding member of the BIRD Group, a member of the World Council for Health, a leader for The Unity Project and is world renowned expert in health research.

Transcript

Professor Ian Brighthope

Professor Ian Brighthope is a retired medical practitioner with over 40 years of experience.   He graduated with a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery in 1974.

Professor Brighthope initiated a prophylactic and treatment protocol titled “The CD Zinc Campaign” to help people improve their health and increase their resistance to COVID19. The campaign was taken to the federal government, unions, public, media and business, however there was no recognition given to the protocols by the government or mainstream medical profession.  Practitioners of nutritional and integrative medicine were supportive in the early days of the campaign.

Professor Brighthope has acted as an advocate of doctors practicing Complementary Medicine for over 35 years.  He’s the founder of Entoura, an Australian medical cannabis manufacturer and educational company.

He is the author of 5 books and many scientific and medical lectures and reviews. His lifelong ambition is to change the way medicine and healthcare is practiced for the benefit of the public.

Transcript

Dr Robert Brennan

Dr Robert Brennan has a Bachelor of Science (Hons) and a medical degree.  He has taught anatomy and several other biomedical sciences for about a decade, before attending medical school and a developing a career in psychiatry.

Recognising that government response to the pandemic was anti-science, anti-reality and anti-humane, he joined the Covid Medical Network and the Red Union group. Dr Brennan has been outspoken in claiming that lockdowns are more harmful than helpful, and campaigned against mandating the COVID vaccine.  As a consequence of this stance, he has since lost his registration to practice medicine and been deemed a “danger to public health and safety” by the regulator.

Dr Brennan now hosts a weekly program on TNT radio live.

Transcript

Andrew McIntyre

Dr Andrew McIntrye is a semi-rural physician who had his own day surgery and followed the COVID19 science closely.  In December 2021 he lost his job as a consultant gastroenterologist on the Sunshine Coast due to Queensland Health vaccination mandates. 

He is trained in the evaluation of new treatments and is critical of the campaign of fear and censorship and that the debate around how to best respond medically to COVID19 has been quashed.

Transcript

Alexandra Marshall

Transcript

Recently the Government changed its tune, but you used to be a conspiracy theorist for pointing out there was a difference between dying with COVID or from COVID. Now with the official release of Australian Bureau of Statistics data we have it confirmed just how many of those who died had other contributing factors.

It’s just another tick on the list of things “conspiracy theorists” been saying all along that the Government has tried to deny the truth of.

Transcript

[Malcolm] Thank you Chair, and thank you all for being here. My questions have to do with death data, particularly from COVID and information gathering. Can I reference your diagram entitled, Data Flow for Doctor Certified Deaths? I think that’s it there. It’s off your website.

[Committee Member] Do you need a copy of that, Mr. Gruen?

[Dr. Gruen] It’s a question of whether it’s in this publication or not but I know a copy would be helpful.

[Committee Member] Not sure this is speeding things up.

[Malcolm] Multitasking.

[Dr. Gruen] So just in summary, it’s a really simple workflow. So it’s a data flow for doctor certified deaths. The workflow is, someone dies, death event, doctor certifies, or it goes to a funeral director, but that’s only a small percentage. And then from there it continues to where the doctor then sends a certification sent to the state births, deaths and marriages. And then from there, the state officers send data weekly to the ABS, that’s broad summary.

And of course Senator, it doesn’t include deaths that would go to the coroner, so it’s not all the deaths.

[Malcolm] Correct, but that’s a small number.

[Dr. Gruen] 20 percentish, I think.

[Malcolm] 20, okay.

[Dr. Gruen] I believe so.

[Malcolm] But they eventually get entered in later, when the coroner has resolved.

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] And we’ve also got the Queensland process here, but that just verifies what you’re saying. Can I have copy back please?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes, certainly.

[Malcolm] So is that correct?

[Dr. Gruen] If it came from our website, it’s correct.

[Malcolm] And my summary, which is backed up by the-

[Dr. Gruen] I think the summary, I didn’t hear anything in the summary that I would take exception to.

[Malcolm] Thank you. When a doctor certifies a death, they certify a cause of death, thank you. If the cause of death is unknown, the matter is referred to the coroner to decide. Between 86 and 89% of deaths are doctor certified, meaning we know the cause of death at the time we know of the death. So my question is, the transfer of doctor certified death data from the state to the ABS, how long does that take? And has this reporting time changed over the last three years?

[Dr. Gruen] We can take that on notice exactly how long it takes but certainly what we have started to do, and we started doing this, I think in 2020, was to start publishing deaths data purely on the basis of deaths certified by doctors. So before that, we had an annual publication of all deaths but it was very substantially delayed. So the annual publication would come out something like 10 months after the end of the year for which it was reporting. One of the other things that we did as a consequence of COVID, was to see whether we could provide useful information on mortality much faster, and so we instituted a new publication, which is monthly, which is called Provisional Mortality Statistics. And what we do is report on doctor certified deaths that we have collected up to that point in time.

[Malcolm] And then if they come in later because the doctor is slow, whatever, you add them.

[Dr. Gruen] Exactly, so in other words, if you look at the subsequent month’s publication, it will have slightly more of certified deaths in the previous month because new ones have been added, that’s correct.

[Malcolm] Okay. So referencing your website, the causes of death in Australia, the last data release, I think you may have explained this, was September 2021 for the period calendar 2020. That’s what you said, it was about nine or 10 months later. Is this the most recent data, other than the COVID data released on the 15th of February? That’s this one here, COVID mortality in Australia.

[Dr. Gruen] I’ve got it. So the answer is, the annual data is the deaths from both doctor and coroner certified. That’s the annual data, but we are as well as that, doing a monthly publication of just doctor certified deaths. Those come out monthly.

[Malcolm] So the annual is accurate in terms of, it got the coroners.

[Dr. Gruen] It’s complete.

[Malcolm] Complete, thank you. Yeah, they’re all accurate. So, let’s continue. So referencing the COVID-19 mortality in Australia which you have in front of you, issued 15th of February, 2022. Quote, it says, “COVID-19 deaths that occurred by 31st of January, 2022 that have been registered and received by the ABS.”, end of quote. So here we’ve got death data, and cause of death data that’s only two weeks old. Not three months old for single mortality figure or 10 months for the cause of death. Could you go through that report on the bottom of the first page, Mr. Gruen? 2,639 deaths where people died with or from COVID. What do you mean by with or from, specifically?

[Dr. Gruen] So that’s explained later in the document. The vast majority of them are from, a small number are with. So if you look at page three, it explains, there were 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. Sorry, I’m reading from a doc point in the middle of page three.

[Malcolm] No, no, I’ve got it sampled.

[Dr. Gruen] 83 deaths, which were COVID-19 related. The person died with COVID-19, confirmed or suspected, but it was not the underlying cause of death.

[Malcolm] So COVID was not the underlying cause, it was something else.

[Dr. Gruen] That’s right. So just to be clear, there were 2,704 deaths that were either with or from COVID, and of those, only 83 were with, the rest were from. So the vast majority are from.

[Malcolm] The cause of death was COVID, okay. So if we turn over to page two, at the top of page two, you have chronic cardiac symptoms with the most common preexisting chronic condition for those who had COVID-19, certified as the underlying cause of death. That goes back to the previous page, the second bullet point, the majority of deaths had an underlying cause. So where would that fit in, the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, no. So there were a substantial proportion of the people who died from COVID had preexisting conditions, right? But the preexisting condition didn’t kill them, but the COVID was the underlying cause of death. But the fact that they had a preexisting condition, was material.

[Malcolm] So is there any percentage of those who died with or from, who had chronic cardiac conditions?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes. It’s a good publication, Senator. It’s worth reading.

[Malcolm] I haven’t read it all.

[Dr. Gruen] No, that’s okay. Associated causes conditions in the a causal sequence, page eight. That will tell you about all the… Hang on, preexisting conditions, sorry. Preexisting conditions, page nine. And there’s a chart on page 10, which shows you what the conditions were and the proportions.

[Malcolm] So that’s percentages, are they?

[Dr. Gruen] Yes.

[Malcolm] Okay, so these are percent of the 83?

[Dr. Gruen] No, percent of the 2000. We’re talking about people who have… Yes, that’s it. Preexisting conditions were reported on death certificates for nearly 70% of the 2,556 deaths due to COVID. That’s a sentence at the bottom of page nine. And then the conditions, that chart-

[Malcolm] On the graph.

[Dr. Gruen] The chart shows you the proportion of chronic conditions that were reported on the death certificate. And you can have more than one, cheerfully.

[Malcolm] Cheerfully, right. Okay, so turning now to birth data…

[Dr. Gruen] That’s not gonna help.

[Malcolm] The Australian Bureau of Statistics releases birth data at the end of the year following. This data could influence the debate around the effect of vaccines on reproduction and may provide reassurance to vaccine customers. Why does it take so long to report on a simple metric like births? I understand the delay in the deaths for the getting the accurate annual figure, but why does it take so long for births?

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, so I don’t know the answer to that question.

[Malcolm] I will take that on notice, Senator.

[Dr. Gruen] Yeah, we can certainly take that on notice.

[Malcolm] So the Australian Bureau of Statistics budget has grown 18% in the last year from 497 million in 2019/20 to 588 million in 2021. Is that enough to get your data out in a timely fashion?

[Dr. Gruen] So as you would be aware, the bureau publishes data across a very wide range of topics, economic, social, environmental, demographic. And so, obviously timeliness is one of the things that we care about, and in answer to Senator Walsh’s questions, I was talking about some of the new products that we have produced that have been much more timely to help decision makers in the pandemic, but there’s no question, there’s a limit. And the other thing that we care critically about is accuracy and making sure that what we produce is correct. So some of these things do take a substantial amount of time, that we are cognisant of that, and we do our best to publish them as quickly as we can, and it ultimately is a function of the resources available to us.

[Malcolm] Last question. What you’re saying, and I would agree if this is the case, is that it is better to have accurate data a little delayed, than timely data that’s not accurate.

[Dr. Gruen] It depends on the circumstances. In a situation where a pandemic has just broken out, we made the judgement that we were happy to produce data that was somewhat less accurate, fast. So there are circumstances where you are willing to accept that trade off.

[Malcolm] Is there any way we can get that

Today I talk to Emeritus Professor of Law David Flint about our broken system of democracy, the monarchy and republic fight, China, ABC, Biden and much more. Listen above or read the transcript below. See all episodes of my show on TNT radio:

Recorded 19 February 2022

Transcript

(00:01):

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:07):

Good afternoon, or wherever you are in the world. It may be good morning. This is Today’s News Talk Radio, tntradio.live. Thank you for having me as your guest in your car, your kitchen, your lounge, to your shed, or wherever you are right now. There are two themes to my show, freedom and personal responsibility. Freedom is specifically in the context of freedom versus control. As we can see under assault all over the world is freedom right now. The control freaks want to take over. It’s basic, freedom is basic for human progress and people’s livelihood. The second theme is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s also basic for personal progress and for people’s livelihoods.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (00:55):

Our show’s direction and tone are along these lines. I’m fiercely pro-human. I’ve had enough. I’ve had a gut full of the media and politicians bagging and ragging on humans. Excuse me. I’ve just been told that my mic level is too high. The second thing is that I’m very proud to be part of the species that is the only species in the world that is capable of logical thinking. Although sometimes I wonder if all people are capable of logical thinking. Another aspect and tone is that we are positive. While we are here to deal with issues that people face and are concerned about, I encourage our guests to provide solutions, lasting, meaningful solutions, as well as what’s wrong with politics, what’s needed in politics. As well as what’s wrong with politicians, what we need in politicians. As well as what’s wrong with the media, what’s needed in the media.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (01:58):

We’ll get to the core issues, words and all to develop solutions. We’ll cover the human aspects, the strengths, the weaknesses, the vulnerabilities, the failings, the highlights. What makes people real? We want to be data-driven. We will be and are data driven, factual, truthful, and honest. And we will speak out bluntly on the issues. I had the privilege, and I mean that sincerely, the privilege of being one of the many hundreds of thousands of protestors in Canberra last weekend. I was down there, was due to come home for the weekend, but decided to stay. And so glad am I that that happened. My wife and son drove down the 14-hour trip to join me and join hundreds of thousands of protesters in Canberra.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (02:47):

And those protesters were either ignored by the media or downplayed into just a few thousand or maybe one channel even had 10,000. That’s complete rubbish. It filled acres and acres of land between the old parliament house and new parliament house. And what an exciting buzz it was. It was phenomenal energy there. People are angry, but they weren’t violent. They were calm. They’re determined, they’re encouraging, supportive of each other. The posters that people had, the signs, it was just beautiful. It was absolutely stunning to be there. And after the protest, I went down to Camp Epic, which is where tens of thousands of people are camped out. People have driven here from Perth, driven to Canberra rather, from Perth, from Darwin, from Brisbane. It was absolutely stunning.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (03:37):

And the environment, the tone, the energy was electric, but it was also people having fun. People just being themselves. It was a real community, tens of thousands of people from all over the country showing what real Aussies are about. And they’re about respect, they’re about care. They’re about freedom and they’re about community and connecting with each other. It’s one of the highlights of my life to just feel that atmosphere. It was just absolutely marvellous to see that back in Australia, after months and months, two years of government control.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:11):

What I’d like to do today is talk about the media. And it was triggered, this topic, by something David Flint, Professor David Flint said during his talk on the conversation two weeks ago with me here on TNT Radio. He says that the first duty of the press, The Times newspaper declared in 1851, “The first duty is to obtain the earliest and most correct intelligence of the events of the time and instantly by disclosing them to make them the common property of the nation.” David Flint is a very honourable man, a highly respected man, and he’s nailed it right there with that quote from The Times. So I’m going to hold the media to account today with my two guests.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (04:58):

First up, it’s great to be talking with Professor David Flint again. He joined me last fortnight to chat about the constitution and we invited him back. I didn’t realise it would be just within two weeks. Professor David Flint, who has an order of Australian medal, is an emeritus professor of law. He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London, and Paris. After admission as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor from 1962 to ’72 before moving into university, teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming professor of law at the Sydney University of Technology in 1989.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (05:38):

Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles and topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s Constitution, and on Australia’s 1999 Constitutional Referendum. And I almost made the mistake of voting for that referendum until I listened to some high court judges in Brisbane. And then I became totally in favour of our constitutional monarchy. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar. I’ll say that again, World Outstanding Legal Scholar, awarded by the World Jurist Association Barcelona in October, 1999. He was made a member of the Order of Australia in 1995.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (06:23):

There’s a higher qualification though, that David has. He has come from lofty academia. He works and rubbed shoulders with some of the most powerful people in the country, and he is respected by them. But he remains a man of the people. You’re just as likely to bump into him on the street, bump into him at a protest, bump into him at a conference. He challenges the elites and the establishment, but is still highly respected by even them. He’s aware the system is broken and the media is responsible for perpetrating the two party system, the pseudo-democracy. Well, we’re given a choice, but there’s no real choice because they’re both the same. Welcome, David.

David Flint (07:03):

Well, thank you very much. Lovely to be on your programme again, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (07:11):

Something you appreciate, David, what do you appreciate?

David Flint (07:14):

Well, I appreciate common sense. Particularly because I think it’s such a guide in relation to politics and all sorts of public activities. Common sense mixed with integrity, if you have those two, I think you’ll go a long way. And that is what is so missing in the management of society today. You quite rightly quoted that comment from The Times back in 1851 at the time of the referendum in 1999, which wasn’t just a referendum about royalists wanting to keep the monarchy. It was about requiring those who wanted to change the constitution to be doing something to improve the governance of the country. We had quite a few slogans in that campaign. And one which really cut through was vote no for the politician’s republic because this was going to increase the power of the politicians.

David Flint (08:25):

It was going to take away the role of the crown as providing leadership above politics, and playing a role as one of the guardians of the constitutional system. That’d be taken away, and what you would have would be a puppet president and the power of the politicians, that is the two-party cabal, would’ve been significantly increased. But what we found in that referendum was that most of the politicians wanted the politician’s republic. The extraordinary thing was that the media, which have a duty because they get all their freedom. They get their freedom in return for being responsible,, for giving that real information to the people without bias and without distorting emphasis and not suppressing anything that’s in their code of ethics.

David Flint (09:22):

They have that enormous freedom so that they can be responsible but they weren’t in the referendum. And this is where I particularly noticed it because I was chairing the vote no group. And we used to meet regularly every day, and we would be amazed sometimes by the way in which the arguments were distorted. But there was an independent observer of that referendum in 1999. This was Bill Deedes, and later on made Lord Deedes. He was a very distinguished fighter during the Second World War, and he was one of the very lofty stream of people who’ve been editors of London Telegraph. London Telegraph is one of the most reliable newspapers in the world.

David Flint (10:14):

But he wrote this about the Australian referendum, “I have really attended elections or votes in any country. Certainly not a democratic one in which the newspapers have displayed more shameless bias. One at all, they determined that Australians should have a republic and they used every device towards that end.” That’s all of the newspapers. Most of the electronic media, all of the public media, the ABC and SBS, all of them were pushing one way. There was only one major person in the media who offered something towards the no case, and that was Alan Jones. Alan Jones used to say when people rang in and said, “Alan, I don’t know how to vote. What should I do?” He’d say, “If you don’t know, vote no. If you don’t know, vote no.”

David Flint (11:18):

But the fact is, even with all that massive campaign, all of the politicians, almost all of them, just a handful of them who were coming out and saying this model’s no good, all of the media, except Alan Jones, as a major person in the media, and many of the elites, big businesses, they’re all saying vote for this republic, although it would’ve increased the powers of the politicians. And yet, we were able to get a vote, which shows the common sense of the Australian people. We were able to get a vote, which produced a national majority. It produced a majority in all states. In a referendum, you’ve got to win at least four states. We got all states and we won 72% of electorates. Not relevant to a referendum but it just shows how sweeping that decision was by the Australian people, which shows that there’s a lot of common sense out there among the electorate. And-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:22):

Let me jump in there, David.

David Flint (12:25):

Sure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (12:27):

That is a remarkable statistic you’ve just given us. But overwhelmingly, the Australian people, despite the media, despite the politicians being almost exclusively in favour of the republic, and despite the propaganda, the constant barrage all through the media, with exception of Alan Jones, the people still kept their sanity and the people prevailed. So that’s really important to understand.

David Flint (12:56):

And remember, we didn’t have much money. We didn’t have the money for advertising that Malcolm turn … Malcolm [inaudible 00:13:04] funded most of the republican campaign, and he put a lot of money into it, but it didn’t make that much difference.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (13:13):

Let’s come back to the media because I’d like to include this in the summary when I give it in a minute. You’ve written articles on the degradation of today’s journalism. People worldwide are waking up to the death and the dearth of journalism talent. What is it that you have been railing against in your articles against the media and that people are now waking up to?

David Flint (13:37):

Well, I think we’ve seen the worst in the United States where the mainstream media and a lot of the social media have decided to become the propaganda arm of the democratic party of a democratic party, which is swung to the far left. And when the media decided to become a propaganda arm, it’s like living in a communist country. It’s not as bad because you still have other media. But we saw this, for example, when Hunter Biden lost his laptop, and that laptop contained an enormous amount of information, which demonstrated that the Biden family had been operating as an enterprise while he was a senator while Biden was vice president, and now as president. He was operating as an instrumentality, particularly when he was vice president, which offered to plutocrats, usually in authoritarian countries. Offered to them access and influence in Washington, but highly improper of course, but that laptop showed this.

David Flint (14:55):

What happened when that laptop came out and young Hunter Biden didn’t deny that what was on that laptop was his. He didn’t deny that, although some people are saying it’s a Russian setup, but it turned out to be perfectly real. What it showed was that the Biden family was behaving, offering access and influence to plutocrats and their favourite plutocrat, because they were the ones willing to pay the Chinese communists. Now, what did the mainstream media do? What did the social media do when this came out before the final voting and the election? They killed it. Twitter and Facebook closed down the New York Post to cut … But New York Post was one of the few journalist outlets that was willing to broadcast this and mention this.

David Flint (15:55):

And after the election, there was an opinion poll, which showed that the majority of people didn’t know about what was on the laptop. They didn’t know about the laptop story because the press managed to hide it. And the majority of them said that if they had known, they would have voted against Biden. Well, that just demonstrates that the median America, a lot of it owned by corporate interests who were making a lot of money out of slave labour in China and the sort of things that go on in China, and they hoped to make a killing in the Chinese market, they were willing to sacrifice their media ethics to make sure that Trump didn’t get in.

David Flint (16:48):

Because Trump had shown himself to be the first president of the United States since Clinton effectively, unleashed the communist by allowing the communist to join the world trade organisation in the hope that they would follow its rules, which they haven’t. I mean, that’s why we’ve got a tax, I think of about 280% on our barley, because they had questioned the origins of the virus, which we’ve suffered from. That’s the situation-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (17:23):

We suffered from the virus, David, or have we suffered from government restrictions and mismanagement?

David Flint (17:27):

You’re absolutely right. And this really comes to the question we’re discussing. You’re right. This virus is benign in relation to the majority of the people. It’s one of those viruses where we’re fortunate enough to know who the vulnerable are. The vulnerable aren’t the healthy children, they aren’t healthy people. It’s essentially those people who are both elderly and suffering from other illnesses, they’re the ones who are the most vulnerable. And they’re the ones who should have been looked after. You’re so right, we’ve suffered terribly from government decisions, but it hasn’t been the virus that has caused the suffering for the great majority of people. And even in relation to the vulnerable, more people, more vulnerable have died than should have died because of the activities of the government.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (18:28):

I agree entirely but nowhere have I seen that in the media, except for maybe Adam Creighton in The Australian, a wonderful economist who speaks with data and truth. Terry McCrann, similarly. Perhaps if I could give a summary, and then we’ll start the conversation about what triggered me to invite you back so quickly. First of all, you’ve mentioned the politician’s republic, the vote for a republic would’ve been a vote for a politician’s republic to increase people’s power. That’s a wonderful insight that I didn’t realise until you mentioned it to me last week and you’ve repeated it again. You also mentioned that the media gets its freedom, whether implicit or by law, if it presents impartially.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (19:15):

You chaired the no vote group and you saw yourself, shameless biassed back then, I was too young at the time to realise that, but I thought newspapers were objective, but I realised now it was completely biassed. And you mentioned that was across all forms of media, all papers, most electronic media, the ABC, the SPS, the public broadcasters. And you said quite rightly so, there’s only one major media person who was opposed to the republic vote. And that was Alan Jones. How many times have we heard Alan Jones being pilloried for being alone in dissenting from the majority view? Majority of the media view that is.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (20:02):

And I loved your comment about Alan Jones saying, “If you don’t know, vote no.” And I would say that right through almost every topic today. And you pointed out something that was the core to what you said, despite all the political propagandist, the overwhelming weight of political opinion, political experts, which are not really experts, and the media, the people prevailed. And that’s why in my opening comment, I support humans because when we’re aware, we prevail. You then went on to talk about the USA gives us the worst examples of media bias, democrat bias, social media, which is paid to shut down opposition, the media itself. You quite rightly pointed out. And that’s significant, Professor Flint, because the USA is known to be the home of modern democracy.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (20:56):

We could argue Britain is, but in terms of modern expression, the USA thumps its chest about that a lot. And yet the USA now has the worst censorship because it’s hidden censorship. And we know for example, that if the tanks roll in and the army gets out with guns, we know that we’re being controlled. But what you’ve done is you’ve highlighted the hidden control, the subtle control, the invisible control, which is every bit as effective as a gun or a tank. The media has silenced me. They sometimes silence Pauline Hanson. And it’s significant to understand, I don’t know if you mentioned this, but you did mention that the corporates control the media and the media has become a propaganda arm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (21:40):

That was mentioned to me by someone called John McRay back about 10 years ago, that he showed me quotes from the owners of the media, the Rockefellers, controlled by the banks, the major banks pushing the bank propaganda. And we’ve been under this not just for the last two years of COVID, not just for the last 24 years since the referendum, but we’ve been under this for a hundred years and longer. And you also pointed out that the communist part, Chinese Communist Party controls many of the corporations or the same people who control those corporations are in bed with the Chinese Communist Party to control humans around the world, not just China.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (22:20):

So we are in fact, while not ruled by the Chinese with guns, we are ruled by the corporate globalists with silence and with propaganda. Now, you mentioned, Professor Flint, that in my show two weeks ago when we had a chat, that the media perpetuates the two party system. And it’s really a one party system because the policies are almost identical and we’re given a choice, we think, but in fact, there’s no real choice because we get shafted with the same policies. How is the media perpetuating the two party system that is effectively one party?

David Flint (23:01):

Well, I think we see this, for example, in relation to the Wuhan virus, which the communist wanted us to call COVID-19 and the WHO, which is under their control, agreed to. But they do this because they’ve become the propaganda arm of the politicians. And that means the two party system, which as you write this in many ways is becoming almost one party because like oligopolist in a small market, they’re not competing. In a small market, oligopolists don’t compete on price. They compete on product or brand distinctions, different ways they advertise, for example. And that’s what the politicians are doing. They’re both, for example, for net zero emissions, they have very similar policies on most things, but they make a slight difference by saying one will be harder on China than the other.

David Flint (24:02):

Although both sides demonstrate that some politicians when they retire seem to be able to get very good jobs with the Communist Chinese. I think they’ve become, in many ways, the propaganda arm. And you see this in relation to the virus. Their favourite phrase is doing the right thing or the people have done the right thing. These people are going to do the right thing. We have to do the right thing. The right thing means what the politicians have decided is right. And this is from a group of politicians in the national cabinet most of whom have had no life experience and really don’t know that much about doing the right thing. Because they’ve been so up to their necks in political manipulation that they’ve lost a lot of the ideas of what the right thing is.

David Flint (24:58):

And just take it, for example, just take it at the beginning. They’ve ignored the common sense rule in relation to [inaudible 00:25:06]. Two common sense rules. Firstly, you look after the vulnerable. And if the virus is such that we know who the vulnerable are, and here we do know who they are, you look after them and you let everybody else get on as best they can with their lives. But what do they do? They abandon the vulnerable, the premier of Victoria being the worst there. And they tied down the rest of us as though we were all sick so that we couldn’t go out. We had to stay home. I live near Bondi Beach. The first thing they did was to close the beach. Though anybody with any sense knew that the virus didn’t survive in the sun and the wind, but it was probably the healthiest place to go to. It was the first place they closed. And the second thing that they-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (25:58):

Excuse me, David. Oh, sorry, when you finish this point, we’ll go to the ad break.

David Flint (26:03):

Yes. The second thing they ignored is [inaudible 00:26:07] fundamental rule for any decent constitutional system, that is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They’ve whittled away all of the controls on the politicians. We’ve had just some minister or the premier deciding on a whim, for example, in New South Wales that they’d closed down the construction industry. They didn’t even have medical advice to do that. She closed down the construction industry for two weeks costing one and a quarter billion dollars and it wasn’t justified. And the reason is these regulations, these regulations are now made by a minister in his office in the middle of the night. Whereas once upon at a time, the regulations were to be submitted for audit by the executive council, the government council, even in colonial terms this was done.

David Flint (27:07):

And the second big thing, even more important was the regulations were subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly by the upper house and how fortunate we are to have a senate as we have now, unlike the Canadians who have a weak senate, we’ve got a strong senate because we based it on the American senate rather than the appointed Canadian senate, which is just a political stitch up. And that senate and the upper house in the states, except Queensland, which the way the politicians took to work, the upper houses can disallow the regulations. That’s a very important power. And the politicians know they have a sword of Damocles above their heads when this political system works, but they’ve been whittling this away just like the republic. The weakness in-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (28:00):

Thank you very much. We’ll resume this conversation with Professor David Flint after a minute or so of advertisements. Thank you very much, David.

David Flint (28:11):

Certainly.

Automated (28:11):

TNT Radio’s, Mike Ryan.

Mike Ryan (28:13):

What do you miss the most about being able to, or not being able to practise medicine? What the actual, what it all means to you? Because I mean, it’s overall saying, oh, well he’s got to going to go to court. It’ll be handled legally, but it’s much more than that. It’s your whole life, your whole being. What’s the thing you miss the most about not being able to practise medicine?

Mark Hobart (28:42):

Being part of the community in North Sunshine where I grew up, where I went to school. A community is so important. It’s your connection to everybody else. We’re all connected to each other. We’re connected to each other through love. That is the number one binding force of the universe’s love. And the other force is not love. It’s the opposite, it’s destruction. And that’s what we’re facing.

Mike Ryan (29:23):

Dr. Mark Hobart, truly an honour to speak with you.

Automated (29:26):

Mike Ryan on Today’s News Talk TNT Radio.

Automated (29:31):

We want to show you what’s dangerous about this river, but we can’t. That’s the problem. You can’t see ice cold water, snags like tree branches or strong currents. So in enjoying our rivers, remember where a life jacket avoid alcohol around water, never swim alone and learn how to save a life. Our rivers are beautiful, but more Australians drown here than anywhere else. It’s simple, respect the river. Head to royallifesaving.com.au/respecttheriver for more information

Automated (30:11):

For the news and talk, you can’t hear anywhere else. It’s TNT Radio.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (30:18):

Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I’ve got a very intriguing and very expert guest, Professor David Flint. And I’m going to give you a summary now before we resume our conversation with David. David pointed out that the media is pushing the two party system and it’s really one party. It’s perpetuating the two party system. At the War Memorial last week, the week before last, I took part in the service that precedes the opening of parliament for the year. And they call on the prime minister and the leader of the opposition. At the church service before parliament started the next day on Tuesday two weeks ago, they called on the leader of the opposition and the prime minister to take readings from the Bible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (31:08):

And as professor Flint pointed out, the policies are almost identical. They’re so similar. And so we need to understand who controls the parliament. I’m going to be asking Professor Flint that in a minute. During the week, David, I was in Senate estimates and I asked Senator Seselja a simple question that anybody should have been able to answer. He’s in the government, as you know. And we were questioning the CSIRO, and in that segment, I said to him, “Minister, your party, led by the prime minister, won the election in 2019 based largely on one particular issue.” He said that the labour party was in favour of the UN’s 2050 net zero policy that the Liberal Nationals Party was not, it opposed UN 2050 net zero.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:04):

“Where is the evidence for that change in policy? What changed in the science?” And David, I have never seen anyone so uncomfortable. He didn’t look me in the eye once. He looked down, head was bowed. He was squirming in his seat. He was just making up words as he went. Then I said to him, “Let’s go back in time. Tell me the basis of your policy.” And the same endless dribble. And he’s a nice man, Senator Seselja, but he was talking absolute nonsense. He could not tell me the basis of the policy that is now gutting air energy sector, stealing land from properties, stealing property rights from farmers, decimating our manufacturing, controlling our water, locking up our resources all on behalf of the UN.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (32:54):

Then I asked him a simple question, policies should be based upon hard data that shows the impact of a certain amount of a specified, quantified impact of carbon dioxide. What it will do to temperatures? Rainfall. I asked him, “Isn’t that fundamental?” And again, more waffle, looking down in the eyes, head bowed, squirming. They haven’t got anything but they get away with it because as Professor Flint said, the media pushes the two party system, which is really one party and the narrative. And then they come up with slogans, as Professor Flint said, doing the right thing. These politicians are lacking practical experience. Very few of them, none of them have worked for a few years at the coalface, as if literally at the coalface underground, lacking practical experience.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (33:43):

I asked a simple question, Professor Flint, who among the politicians came to Canberra to listen to the people at the protest of where every day Australians came out in the hundreds of thousands? I’ll tell you who. Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, George Christensen. You just pointed out some fabulous points with COVID. They have ignored the fundamentals. They have ignored common sense. They have not looked after the vulnerable. They have betrayed the vulnerable. That’s something I’ve been talking about in the senate and publicly for many months now. Then they tied up or they tied down the rest of the people, the healthy people. They stopped exercise on beach. They stopped fresh air. They stopped access to the sun for vitamin D.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (34:33):

And as you said, Lord Acton said that the power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Regulations being made by the minister, just being introduced in the middle of the night. Professor Flint, one of the things that’s emerged from the response to the virus is that the state and federal governments, labour at state level, liberal at national level have worked together on this. That’s completely opposed to the intent behind our constitution. Isn’t it?

David Flint (35:11):

Yes, we’re supposed to have competition and the states are supposed to take decisions in relation to state interests and the federation in relation to federal interests. But you say right, they do work together. And one of the things the media does, which really irritates me is that they attribute to the politicians the fact that our death rate is lower than that of a number of other countries. This completely ignores the fact that the real reason for that is we are a remote island nation. And like all other remote island nations, we’ll have a lower death rate from this sort of virus. And to attribute that to the politicians is ridiculous.

David Flint (35:57):

But then we get them when they stand up there, the politicians will refer to the medical advice and the journalists just accept that. We never know who the medical advice was from or rarely know it. We never see it so it can’t be tested. We are given glib answers like follow the science. Whereas we know that the scientists are divided on a number of significant issues. And we saw that in relation, for example, to ulcers and Australia went to scientists, received the Nobel Prize because they went against the science view that it was just a disabling condition. It could never be a disease, and they found that it was a disease. And for that, they were given the Nobel Prize. And then you’re told, believe the experts.

David Flint (36:52):

Well, having worked in a law office when I was young, in a law office where you are involved in a case concerning two sides and you’re acting for one side and there’s another people, people acting for the other side, each side has their own experts. Whether they be medical experts or engineering experts. They’re all very well paid. And I’m not saying they act in any way improperly, but they give different views. Experts are divided all the time. This idea that you must believe the experts, which means you must believe the expert that the politicians that are trying to adopt as their view is ridiculous.

David Flint (37:32):

But I think the very worst thing they do, Malcolm, this is this rule against medical treatment, including prophylactic or preventative measures in relation to this virus. It’s the only malady I know of where doctors are instructed to do virtually nothing between somebody catching this virus and really getting a serious case of it, be aware when they start putting them onto a ventilator. But nothing happens in between because they’ve ruled that none of the medical treatments, which have been shown in a number of jurisdiction to be very effective, can be used. And we know also that most of the media won’t mention these things, particularly the social media, because it goes against the interest of big pharmacy.

David Flint (38:25):

And we know that big pharmacy needs under American law, they needed to get approval for their vaccines. They needed to be able to show that there were no preventative measures, which could be taken against the virus. Hence, this campaign to kill off Ivermectin and other. This is not just the magic cure but there a number of things used either to prevent it or to cure it in the early stages. And these proved very effective. Yet in Australia, we’re told that you can have no medical treatment and no serious medical treatment between catching it and really getting a very bad dose when you’re … There’s nothing much they can do if you are in a weak condition. Otherwise, you might get out of it and they put you onto a ventilator.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (39:26):

Well, David, perhaps I could summarise your points again. The media has been silent on the live and the prime minister has repeatedly said, “Australia has no vaccine mandates.” Yet the Morrison, Joyce Federal Government drives the vaccine mandates, and at the very least enables mandates through many means. The Morrison, Joyce government bought 280 million doses of these things. They could easily stop the mandates at the state level by withholding these injections from states that don’t make it optional, but make it compulsory through stealing people’s livelihoods. The federal government indemnified the states. Senator Hanson’s bill could amend that so that the federal government can stop mandated injections.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:15):

The states said, this is the fourth point I’m making, the states say that the vaccine mandates are in line with the unconstitutional so-called national cabinet that the prime minister leads. The prime minister, as you’ve just pointed out, his government withdrew the proven, safe, effective, affordable treatment using Ivermectin and various other drugs. And it’s significant, Professor Flint, that you can freely mention Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and alternative natural treatments on this TNT Radio station. But you can’t mention it on any other network apart from podcasts. You can’t mention it on social media without being banned.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (40:58):

The federal government health department provides the data and systems that the state’s access to enforce the mandates. The federal government mandated vaccines in aged care workers. The federal government mandated vaccines in the Australian electoral commission poll workers. They’re mandating it in some defence personnel to inject. They drove the employers to mandate injections, BHP, for example, and they funded ridiculous policies by the premiers of the states. And yet, despite all these things showing completely that the states could not have mandated injections without federal government enabling them to do so, supporting them to do so, the prime minister of this country has repeatedly lied to the people.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (41:47):

“Australia has no vaccine mandates,” he says. That doesn’t get reported in the media, or if it does, it’s done in a positive way that the prime minister says that. And yet at the rally last weekend in Canberra, hundreds of thousands of people were walking up and they were saying he’s a liar. The prime minister is a liar. So we come back to government control and that is only one on side controls the media, and that’s the money side, the corporate side. Professor Flint, do they also control the government?

David Flint (42:25):

Well, I think they have a very strong power over the government. It’s in the interest of government to follow what is in the interest of big pharmacy it seems. You can only judge politicians by their results when they’re in government, not what they say. For example, in education, for example, they say that they’re very interested in children’s education, but the fact is that we know that there’s a very strong Marxist influence in education departments. We know that notwithstanding the increase in funding, which I think is about 40% increase since that was introduced, we know that standards in Australia have fallen more than any other OECD country except perhaps Finland.

David Flint (43:22):

So the more money we’re putting in, the standards are falling and that’s because our education departments are not allowing or not encouraging the teaching of children in the really important disciplines. They’re filling their minds with all sorts of propaganda and Marxist rubbish. Their obsessions, for example, you get some new dogma for example, about gender fluidity or something like that. And that becomes an important issue as we saw in relation to the religious legislation. But as you say, there’s this obsession with vaccines as though it’s the only thing which should be followed. And that’s where the money is. That’s where the very big funds are being made by big pharmacy, instead of things which should be associated with vaccines.

David Flint (44:12):

For example, early treatment, that should be the first thing that they should be following because that would’ve saved lives in relation to the vulnerable. And it’s something which I don’t think we should be considering seriously for children, given that these only have a temporary authorization. We don’t know the long term consequences of some of the things which are being put into children’s bodies. They’re very serious things, which are being done. And the national cabinet has gone along with what a really communist solutions that is lockdowns. Lockdowns don’t work. They regiment the people even more, but they certainly have had no effect in relation to getting rid of the virus because they don’t get rid of the virus. And they’ve resulted in more deaths in Victoria, which had the most serious lockdowns, had more deaths among people from suffering from the virus. But you are so right-

Senator Malcolm Roberts (45:17):

Yeah, go ahead.

David Flint (45:17):

Certainly.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (45:20):

I’d like to interrupt to summarise what you’ve said before getting onto the solutions. Because I know you’re a man of solutions. So let me just summarise what you’ve just said. The media is culpable for serious damage, serious problems in our community. Medicine, it’s enabled deaths because it doesn’t hold the government accountable for its complete obsession with unproven injections and reliance on them. Greg Hunt, the federal health minister has said, “The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial. These drugs, these injections are experimental. It’s a trial. And we are now talking about injecting them into kids without any assessment of long term consequences.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:06):

In the United States you also mentioned that a lot of this is driven by money. In the United States, 70% of American advertising in the media is funded by big pharma. And yet, as you rightly pointed out, the obsession is leading to deaths through the mismanagement of COVID and the application of experimental injections. You pointed out the damage to our educational sector, the 40% collapse in measured outcomes. And yet the manipulation of kids growing at adulthood, children, I should say. You mentioned the early treatment that’s proven affordable, safe, successful around the world. And you also mentioned that lockdowns are effectively a communist solution.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (46:59):

Journalism, Professor Flint, over the decades, journalists have fought for freedom to tell the story and rights to privacy of sources. Yet, they’ve shown no regard for the freedoms and privacies of the people as you just pointed out. Yet, their duty is to provide, freely tell both sides of the story with accuracy and balance. Who holds them to account? And where do we go to from here? How do journalists restore their reputation? Because at the moment they’re feeding on each other and the people are watching them destroy themselves. But we do need a strong, solid press, don’t we? So what do we have to do now? What are the solutions?

David Flint (47:35):

Well, the solutions I think, are by going to those outlets such as this station where the truth is being presented. That is our best solution. I would not recommend the regulation. You can’t have the regulation of the press because they’re free. And there is some protection from defamation laws, but that only relates to individual reputation and not reputation of institutions and things such as early medical treatment, which is important. So we have the power. We have the power to deal with the media and we have the power to put the right politicians in office. And this is something which Australians must seriously do. They did that in America with President Trump, they got a man in who was obviously going, from what he promised, was going to change the direction of the United States.

David Flint (48:36):

And this had a magnificent effect because the Republican Party is so open in the way in which it pre-selects. And it doesn’t restrict pre-selection to even members of the party, any registered supporter of the party can vote in those pre-selections, which gives tremendous power to people in America. We don’t have that, but we can choose people from other parties or at least give our first preferences to people like yourself. Now, you One Nation, New AP parties, which are talking about this, what you said also about the federal government, I’d like to comment on that briefly.

David Flint (49:18):

The federal government had the power to stop mandated vaccines. And you were quite right, the legislation that you proposed, I think One Nation introduced legislation to that effect that I think was within power. The commonwealth has the power to move in relation to quarantines. It can occupy the field. And that’s the core part of the management of vaccines, the control of quarantines. And I think that the commonwealth should have continued in that first case concerning the West Australian border. It should not have allowed the states to close off their borders, locking down whole states that achieved nothing in relation to controlling the virus.

David Flint (50:08):

And it was most inappropriate, in relation to Australia. The whole real economy should have continued. As you rightly have pointed out in the past, it’s not the politicians who are imposing this sort of thing, lockdowns and so on, who suffer. It’s the people who lose their jobs. It’s the people who lose their businesses. The people who are tied up, they’ve put their savings into some business quite often. They’ve mortgaged their house. And an enormous number of people have been ruined by the activities of the government, who’s only just beginning to start again.

David Flint (50:45):

There was no need to close down vast parts of the economy in Australia to stop this disease. What they should have done was looked after the vulnerable. What they should have done was encouraged early measures and preventative measures, prophylactic measures. If they’d done those things, as the media should have been calling on them to do, we would’ve been in a better situation than we are today. And we wouldn’t have this massive debt, which is going to be carried by the next generation of Australians.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (51:18):

So I’m going to have to summarise now before we end the show, because I wanted to do a summary. You’ve raised some marvellous points. The solutions you’ve said are up to the people. The market, choose the media well. We have a choice as to which media we watch. The media is sweating on that. We see Joe Rogan topping the media ratings in the United States with 11.5 million views of one of his podcasts with Robert Malone. The nearest competitor was Fox News with 3.5 million views. That’s a long way behind. CNN, the propaganda experts in America, around about 800,000 views [inaudible 00:51:59]. Don’t have regulation, that just gives more control to the globalists and to the government.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:04):

It’s up to the people through media choice and through political choice at votes. We have the power, you said, Professor Flint. I make a note that pre-selection in the liberal party now on New South Wales is becoming just like labour, fictionally written. You’ve pointed out that the commonwealth government has the power, it just hasn’t exercised it. And you’ve pointed out something that I’ve said repeatedly in the senate, people are paying the price for police stupidity.

Senator Malcolm Roberts (52:30):

The governments and the politicians make the mistakes regardless with no responsibility, and the people pay the price. For goodness sake, people of Australia, wake up. Choose who you listen to in the media with your wallet, follow and vote for politicians who work for you, serve you, and give your preferences at accordingly. Professor David Flint, thank you very much again for yet another wonderful session. I love your practicality, your common sense, your good sense. Thank you so much.