Posts

TGA Defends COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Amid Spike Protein Concerns

,

During my session with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at Senate Estimates in November, I questioned them about a number of concerns.

Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic in COVID-19 vaccines? Professor Langham clarified that the spike protein is not pathogenic and is designed to trigger an antigen recognition and antibody response. 

Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse events related to the spike protein? Professor Langham responded that no such events have been observed, as the spike protein is quickly degraded by the body once it’s introduced s part of the mRNA vaccine.

What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the spike protein’s suitability before vaccine approval? Professor Lawler agreed to provide detailed information on notice.

It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?  Professor Langham explained that while the spike protein attaches to receptors, it does not cause harm on its own. 

Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians?  Professor Lawler responded that there is no accepted evidence to confirm such a link.

Has the TGA received any applications for treatments to remove spike proteins from the body and has the TGA engaged with research institutions on this matter? Professor Lawler clarified that the TGA has not received such applications, does not commission research, and focuses on regulating therapeutic goods.

The TGA emphasised that the overall risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.

    Transcript

    Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic?

    Prof. Langham: Thank you for your question. The spike protein is not pathogenic. It does not contain any of the other parts of the COVID-19 vaccine that brings about a pathogenetic state. The spike protein is really there to encourage an antigen recognition and an antibody response by the body.

    Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse effects of COVID vaccination that may be associated with the likely effects of spike protein?

    Prof. Langham: As I said, the spike protein is not pathogenic. We’ve not seen any adverse events related to the spike protein, because—and we’ve discussed this previously—the spike protein is rapidly degraded by the
    body once it’s introduced as part of the mRNA vaccine.

    Senator ROBERTS: Really? Okay. What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval? Could you please provide me with that material on notice.

    Prof. Lawler: I’m taking that question to be: what did the TGA know about spike proteins prior to approving the COVID vaccines? Is that a fair—

    Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what analysis you did regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval, and I’d like that material on notice.

    Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to respond to that question on notice. We have responded to similar questions previously.

    Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the analysis?

    Prof. Lawler: As I said, I’m happy to take that question on notice.

    Senator ROBERTS: Do you know about the analysis now? The question on notice is only if you don’t know something now.

    CHAIR: Senator, the official is well entitled to take a question on notice. It’s not about not answering the question; it’s about taking an answer on notice.

    Senator ROBERTS: Well, as I understand it, the guides to the witnesses include that if they want to take something on notice it’s only because they don’t know the answer now.

    CHAIR: Yes, or they need to qualify or check the information or they don’t have the extent of the information.

    Senator Gallagher: They don’t have the information with them to provide you a comprehensive answer, which is not unreasonable.

    Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have you received any reports, data or discussion from your pharmacovigilance system highlighting concerns about spike proteins following the introduction of the COVID vaccines? If so, could you please provide that information?

    Prof. Langham: Again, I’m at a loss to understand the specifics of your question as to how our pharmacovigilance would relate to the specific aspect of the vaccine which is the spike protein. I think we can
    answer very clearly what our pharmacovigilance results have been for the vaccine itself. But as to the specific aspects of the spike protein, the reason the mRNA vaccines include the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus results from many years of research that had been undertaken in the US by the National Centre for Vaccines to develop mRNA vaccines.

    Prof. Lawler: And I’d just add to Professor Langham’s answer that the purpose of our pharmacovigilance and the way in which it monitors for and identifies to enable us to respond to emerging safety signals and trends is that it’s based on adverse events.

    Senator ROBERTS: That’s all it’s based on?

    Prof. Lawler: These are clinical events. So, there’s an expectation—indeed, an encouragement—that adverse events are reported, and these are reported on the basis of clinical nature. We also, as I mentioned previously, work with international partners on a network of pharmacovigilance activities that Dr Larter might like to speak to.

    Dr Larter: We continue to engage with our international regulatory counterparts to look at not only spontaneous adverse event reporting but also linked data, and many of the rich datasets that are available globally,
    to inform our safety monitoring. These processes enable us to identify emerging safety concerns well before we understand how they might be occurring, before the mechanisms of action are identified. That’s a strength. We don’t need to know exactly how they’re being caused to take regulatory action to ensure that the safety profile is up to date and available for treating health professionals.

    Senator ROBERTS: There has been a multitude of papers about potential health impacts from spike protein on the renin-angiotensin system in the human body. It appears to be basic to human health—if not the key system then certainly one of the key systems to health. Is it your testimony today that the COVID vaccines containing spike proteins are still perfectly safe.

    Prof. Lawler: We’re aware of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Professor Langham is a nephrologist. The reality is—I’m happy to come back if I’m wrong, but I don’t know whether we or any other regulator has ever said that a medication is perfectly safe. There are a number of processes that we follow in the assessment and market authorisation of a number of medicines. We have product information that clearly states the risks and potential adverse events—

    Senator ROBERTS: Who is that from? Who is the product information from?

    Prof. Lawler: The product information is produced—I guess, to the question, I’d like to say that we don’t maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe. Every time we come here, we discuss with you the adverse events and the recognised and accepted potential adverse events. So, no, it’s not our position that the vaccine is perfectly safe. It is our clear position, and this is the clear scientific consensus, that the risk-benefit of COVID vaccines has been shown to be very safe and, in fact, the risk-benefit is significantly positive.

    Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I won’t explore that any further. It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2, leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?

    Prof. Langham: It’s well known that the angiotensin receptor is important in how the virus exerts its effects on the body. As to what you are describing with the spike protein itself, on its own, it’s not able to cause any
    problems. It connects to the receptor, but there is nothing else there behind the spike protein. It’s the virus itself that does cause problems, and the receptor that that virus attaches to is absolutely the angiotensin receptor.

    Senator ROBERTS: Was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines? I’d also like to come back again and ask: on
    whose advice do you take the product safety?

    Prof. Lawler: There are two questions there.

    Senator ROBERTS: Yes, there are.

    Prof. Lawler: I’d like to answer them in turn. Which one?

    Senator ROBERTS: The first one is: was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines?

    Prof. Lawler: The process of the market authorisation and evaluation of medicines, including vaccines, is a comprehensive process that is based upon a significant dossier of information that goes to the safety, quality and efficacy of that particular medicine. In terms of whether that was a specific issue, I’m very happy to have a look at that and come back to you on that.

    Senator ROBERTS: On notice—are you taking it on notice?

    Prof. Lawler: Yes.

    Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Recently, German doctor Karla Lehmann, in her peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal of the European Society of Medicine commented that spike protein is ‘uniquely
    dangerous’ for use in vaccine platforms—and this woman is generally pro-vaccine—because of the effects of spike protein causing ACE2 inhibition, leading to excessive angiotensin 2 and harmful overactivation of AT1R, the angiotensin 2, type 1 receptor. This analysis is supported by other research providing clear evidence of the pathogenic nature of spike protein and its unsuitability for use in vaccine platforms. Is the TGA aware of this review and analysis conducted by Karla Lehmann and her damning conclusions about the dangers of spike protein based vaccines?

    Prof. Lawler: I don’t have that article. It would be useful, obviously, to review that. I think it’s also worth noting that a lot of the theoretical conversations around spike protein are mechanistic in nature rather than
    supported by phenomenological or observational studies. So there are a lot of inferences drawn between a cellular mechanism and a clinical scenario that is very difficult to distinguish from the disease itself. Professor Langham, is there anything you would like to add?

    Prof. Langham: I guess I would just support those comments that, when the vaccine with the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus is trialled in clinical trials, the sorts of physiological derangement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system that might be described is not seen. So we do not see activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the clinical trials in terms of understanding the specific safety signals that have come from them. It has been quite widely demonstrated that the vaccines themselves are very well tolerated.

    CHAIR: Senator, I’m due to rotate.

    Senator ROBERTS: I just have two more questions on this thread.

    CHAIR: Sure.

    Senator ROBERTS: Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected
    repeatedly in Australians?

    Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe there’s accepted evidence to confirm that that’s the case.

    Senator ROBERTS: Has the TGA received any applications for treatments or protocols to remove spike proteins from the human body? Have you asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to advertise a
    grant for this purpose? Are you working with any university around this topic—anything at all—either to cure spike protein damage for long COVID, if it exists, or for vaccine injury?

    Prof. Lawler: The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. The answer to the second question is that it’s not the role of the TGA to commission research from the National Health and Medical Research Council. And the answer to the third question is it is not the role of the TGA to generate knowledge; it is the role of the TGA to regulate therapeutic goods.

    Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of my questions on COVID spike protein. I have two more sets of questions.

    CHAIR: Do you mean for the TGA?

    Senator ROBERTS: Yes, for the TGA but on other topics

    /8 Comments/by

    Illegal COVID Fines: Royal Commission NOW!

    ,

    The New South Wales government recently withdrew and intend to refund over 23,000 COVID fines, in addition to the 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. These fines were unlawful and should never have happened.

    I criticise the Albanese Government’s whitewash COVID “review” for ignoring state government actions, including these unlawful “fines”. There is so much about the State and Federal Government actions during COVID that must be examined immediately by a Royal Commission. Only a Royal Commission has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to appear and testify truthfully.

    Senator Wong responded to my questions that the fines are a state matter and then defended the government’s approach, saying that they were focusing on learning from the pandemic rather than assigning blame.

    I questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, pointing out the lack of a royal commission into COVID-19 despite a promise of transparency. Senator Wong reiterated the government’s focus on preparing for future pandemics rather than prosecuting past health policies.

    There is a need for accountability and justice, especially for those affected by vaccine injuries, and I question why the government is reluctant to call a comprehensive COVID royal commission. What do they have to hide?

    Transcript

    Senator ROBERTS: My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for
    offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn’t say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won’t you commit to calling a royal commission now?

    Senator WONG: Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can’t comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That’s a matter for the relevant state authorities. I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I’m sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government’s response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.

    The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

    Senator ROBERTS: Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It’s now
    30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government’s transparency promise only apply when it’s politically convenient to you?

    Senator WONG: I’d refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn’t do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It’s an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that’s what we’re focused on.

    The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

    Senator ROBERTS: We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We’re not interested in blame. That’s for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments’ COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?

    Senator WONG: I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They’re not shared by the government. I don’t think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they’re not shared by many people in the public health space. You’re entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia’s economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. ( Time expired )

    /2 Comments/by

    COVID Under Trial: Uncovering the Truth

    ,

    This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. Our witnesses include Senator Ron Johnson (USA), Tanya Unkovich MP (New Zealand), Christine Anderson MEP (EU Parliament, Germany), Professor Angus Dagleish (UK), Dr Peter Parry, Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Raphael Lataster, Julian Gillespie (former barrister), Dr Melissa McCann (via YouTube video) and Professor Gigi Foster.

    The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation.

    The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments.

    We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes.

    This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.

    Introduction

    Senator Ron Johnson | United States of America

    Tanya Unkovich MP | New Zealand

    Dr Peter Parry

    Professor Ian Brighthope

    Dr Raphael Lataster

    Julian Gillespie

    Dr Melissa McCann

    General Comments

    Professor Gigi Foster

    Christine Anderson, MEP | Germany

    Professor Angus Dagleish | United Kingdom

    Conclusion

    /10 Comments/by

    Australians Deserve a Proper COVID Royal Commission

    , ,

    The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews

    Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency

    Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.

    It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.

    Transcript

    Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they? 

    Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk. 

    Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct? 

    Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct. 

    Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right? 

    Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations. 

    Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct? 

    Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct. 

    Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made? 

    Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister. 

    Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all. 

    I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system. 

    Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used. 

    Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity. 

    Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was— 

    Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer. 

    Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I agree. 

    Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely. 

    Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people. 

    The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country— 

    CHAIR: Senator Roberts— 

    Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people? 

    CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question. 

    Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process. 

    Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister! 

    Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received— 

    Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence. 

    Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do. 

    Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether. 

    Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles— 

    CHAIR: Or HPV. 

    Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID. 

    Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability? 

    Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that. 

    Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated? 

    Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice. 

    Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are— 

    Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental. 

    Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental— 

    Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree. 

    Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children. 

    Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations. 

    Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability? 

    Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we? 

    Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question. 

    Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a— 

    Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability? 

    Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is— 

    Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. 

    Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental. 

    Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely. 

    Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’ 

    Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and— 

    Senator ROBERTS: This is medical evidence. 

    CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

    Senator ROBERTS: You can’t deny evidence. 

    /by

    COVID Report a Whitewash: Royal Commission Now

    ,

    I joined Ben Dobbins on Rural Queensland today to talk about the Government releasing their COVID cover-up report. There were more holes in this inquiry than a block of swiss cheese, we need a Royal Commission to get the evidence so charges can be laid.

    Transcript

    Ben Dobbins:

    Welcome back to Rural Queensland Today. I normally don’t get two politicians in one day, but this is very important. Malcolm Roberts joins us this morning, the One Nation Queensland senator, and rightly so, is pissed off. Now, the federal government have released a report after holding an inquiry into the COVID-19 response. Well, it was meant to come out in September, but their delay is typical. But gee whiz Malcolm, a lot has come out now to show that, jeez, we handled this poorly. We handled it so poorly and a lot of what everybody was saying was wrong from the government. Good morning.

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    Good morning Ben, and thank you for having me on. You’re absolutely correct.

    Look, let’s face it, mate. This is a whitewash inquiry. And despite the fact that it was a whitewash and a cover-up, they couldn’t suppress some key points that you just very clearly articulated. The inquiry members were three supporters of lockdowns. They’re insider appointments from the government. They choked the terms of reference, they had left out the states, and yet the states were so egregious in the handling of this virus that they couldn’t help but condemn the states. There was no power in this whitewash inquiry to compel witnesses and to compel the giving of evidence.

    And Ben, it’s so ironic. I moved a motion that was successful in the Senate last year, about this time last year, to have an inquiry into developing … Drafting the possible terms of reference for a possible future Royal Commission. That was an outstanding inquiry. We have got terms of reference, and I must commend Senator Paul Scarfe and the Liberal Party, who was chairman. Gave us free rein. And mate, we developed a phenomenal, and he in particular developed a phenomenal set of terms of reference, and that work has been used by the Kiwis in now extending their royal commission and making it a fair dinkum Royal Commission, and yet here we are in Australia with no Royal Commission.

    Ben Dobbins:

    Okay. What do you want to see now happen? Because it caused a lot of heartache for a lot of people, financially, emotionally. The whole thing has been a disaster. What would you have liked to have seen and what were the recommendations that come out of this report?

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    Well, first thing I’d like to see is a proper fair dinkum Royal Commission. A judicial inquiry that can compel witnesses, compel, evidence. The bureau of-

    Ben Dobbins:

    What are we going to get from that, Malcolm it’s a dog’s breakfast.

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    What we going to get is details around what was a dog’s breakfast. For example, I’m just going off some of the words from Minister Butler, the Labour Party minister and the Senate Health Minister in Canberra, who introduced the report from these commissioners yesterday. There was no shift. Listen to this. There was no shift from precautionary principle, which was used at the start, and we accept that, to a more evidence-based approach, including non-health aspects in a proportionate response. He is basically saying, in nice words, that was not evidence-based, it was not data-driven. It was disproportionate and completely over the top. That’s what we need to understand why and how that happened.

    Then he said there’s a lack of transparency about the profound effect, exactly as you just said, on the lives of Australians and the loss of freedoms, their words from the report and from the minister. And then he said that there’s been a massive decrease in trust because a lack of real-time evidence-based policy. In other words, the policy was not based on real-time evidence. It was not based on data. And he said, “There’s been a huge decline in trust,” and that’s what the committee has said. We need to go into the details of all this and hold people accountable.

    Ben, you will not get people to trust again until we know what went wrong in detail. You’ve got to have accountability. The government did not … And he also pointed out the government did not trust the people. So what we’ve got to do is restore basic freedoms, restore basic trust from the government and the people and get the details about this.

    Ben Dobbins:

    Yeah. I absolutely, absolutely agree with you 100%. I think it’s imperative that this happens, and something that I think needs to happen more and more. I absolutely fundamentally think that this should be something long-term that we look at even more and more. It’s important that we do this. It’s important that we have a long-term plan to make sure that this never happens again. We absolutely never go down this same road. So is that the reason why you want to get this … So if it does happen again, we never get locked up, vaccinated, our liberties absolutely taken away from us, families seeing loved ones die in the hospitals and not having any say of seeing them goodbye. Is that what you’re trying to get to so we never see this happen again?

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    Correct. But bit more than that. The minister himself and this Whitewash committee has confirmed that it was a disproportionate response along the lines you just said. For example, the panel has said, apparently, many of the measures taken in COVID are unlikely to be accepted by the population again. That means until the trust is restored, there will be no compliance, and there’ll be no voluntary adherence to it.

    But Ben, we need to go further. I’m not going to talk about what you just said because you said it very, very well. We need to go further. Remember, in the early days of COVID we couldn’t get masks, we couldn’t get a lot of other things? We need to develop … One of the recommendations from this whitewash inquiry is to develop a whole of government plan to improve domestic and international supply chain resilience. Mate, we know that the food production is being interfered with in this country. The regions are doing their best to provide food, and the government is undermining their policy. We also know that you cannot manufacture and process without cheap energy, and our energy policies have been destroying our country’s productive capacity. We need a royal commission to get into the details of what is needed for complete recovery of our country. It’s on a highway to hell.

    Ben Dobbins:

    Yeah, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Malcolm, thanks so much for being with us. We might actually get this report up. One Nation Senator, thanks so much for being with us.

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    You’re welcome, Ben. Thanks for telling the truth.

    Ben Dobbins:

    Good on you. We’ll take a break. Come back. This is Rural Queensland Today.

    Thanks mate.

    Senator Malcolm Roberts:

    You’re welcome, Ben. Keep doing what you’re doing, mate.

    /3 Comments/by

    Labor Rejects Royal Commission into COVID

    ,

    Labor refuses to call a Royal Commission into COVID, because they’ve already been given $1 million in donations from Big Pharma.

    One Nation is calling for a COVID Royal Commission now, to ensure we never repeat the same mistakes.

    /by

    DNA Contamination Found in Australian COVID-19 Vaccine Vials

    I sent a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese supporting Russell Broadbent’s request for him to address the concerning findings in a recent scientific report prepared by Canadian virologist Dr. David Speicher.

    My Letter to Prime Minister

    240930 PM-Albanese-MIRDownload

    Report Prepared by Dr. David Speicher

    240909 – D Speicher ReportDownload

    Russell Broadbent MP’s Letter to the Prime Minister

    Australians-Demand-Answers-25.09.2024Download

    Special Council Meeting | 11 October 2024

    Council Meeting Details » Town of Port Hedland

    /2 Comments/by

    A Conversation with Professor Dalgleish & Doctors Marik and Kunadhasan

    , ,

    Disclaimer: The captions in this video are auto-generated and may contain inaccuracies.

    Professor Angus Dalgleish

    Professor Angus Dalgleish, M.D., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., F.R.C.Path, F.Med.Sci is a renowned oncologist practicing in the United Kingdom, who splits his time between clinical patient care and research. Prof. Dalgleish serves as an advisor to a number of biopharmaceutical companies and is a principal investigator in several clinical trials. Prof. Dalgleish has been a Professor of Medical Oncology at St George’s University of London and Consultant Physician at St George’s Hospital since 1991. He has served as the President of the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Section of the Royal Society of Medicine. He is a Fellow of The Royal College of Physicians of the UK and Australia, Royal College of Pathologists and The Academy of Medical Scientists.

    Prof. Dalgleish studied Medicine at University College London, where he obtained an MBBS and a BSc in Anatomy. Among his main interests are: immunology and melanoma, use of anti-angiogenic agents & low dose chemotherapy in resistant solid tumor disease of the prostate, colon & breast. A clinical researcher of international repute, he has made significant contributions to the study of the immunological basis of AIDS and to the field of cancer vaccines. He is the current Principal of the Cancer Vaccine Institute.

    To view his bio, click on Prof. Angus Dalgleish’s profile

    To view his published articles, click on Prof. Angus Dalgleish’s Work

    Copied from: https://www.ldnscience.org/ldn/ldn-researchers/angus-dalgleish

    Doctor Paul Marik

    Prior to co-founding the FLCCC, Dr. Marik was best known for his revolutionary work in developing a lifesaving protocol for sepsis, a condition that causes more than 250,000 deaths yearly in the U.S. alone.

    Dr. Marik is an accomplished physician with special knowledge in a diverse set of medical fields, with specific training in Internal Medicine, Critical Care, Neurocritical Care, Pharmacology, Anesthesia, Nutrition, and Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. He is a former tenured Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School (EVMS) in Norfolk, Virginia. As part of his commitment to research and education, Dr. Marik has written over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles, 80 book chapters and authored four critical care books and the Cancer Care Monograph. His efforts have provided him with the distinction of the second most published critical care physician in the world. He has been cited over 54,500 times in peer-reviewed publications and has an H-index of 111. He has delivered over 350 lectures at international conferences and visiting professorships. As a result of his contributions, he has been the recipient of numerous teaching awards, including the National Teacher of the Year award by the American College of Physicians in 2017.

    In January 2022 Dr. Marik retired from EVMS to focus on continuing his leadership of the FLCCC and has already co-authored over 10 papers on therapeutic aspects of treating COVID-19. In March 2022 Dr. Marik received a commendation by unanimous vote by the Virginia House of Delegates for “his courageous treatment of critically ill COVID-19 patients and his philanthropic efforts to share his effective treatment protocols with physicians around the world.”

    Copied from: https://covid19criticalcare.com/experts/paul-e-marik/

    Dr Jeyanthi Kunadhasan

    Is an anesthetist and perioperative physician from Victoria, Australia.

    She has been in medical leadership at her previous hospital as well as statewide; as chair of the Medical Senior Group representing consultant doctors,
    as well as a previous chair of the Advisory Committee of Blood Matters Victoria.

    Her clinical interest is Patient Blood Management, where she spearheaded many initiatives that sustainably brought down the unnecessary transfusion rates in major surgeries, leading to improved patient outcomes and lower costs to the health system.

    In December 2021, when vaccine mandates were rolled out, Dr. Kunadhasan requested a risk assessment. Her goal in doing so was to warn her employer at the time about the risks of the shots, while at the same time trying to keep her job and avoid taking the injection herself. Unfortunately, instead of taking a pause and considering Dr. Kunadhasan’s request, in December 2021, Dr. Kunadhasan was fired by her employer.

    She is currently the treasurer of the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS).

    Dr. Kunadhasan is also the lead author on “Report 42, Pfizer’s EUA Granted Based on Fewer Than 0.4% of Clinical Trial Participants. FDA Ignored Disqualifying Protocol Deviations to Grant EUA” and subsequently wrote two articles in Spectator Australia, explaining her findings in the Pfizer documents.

    Copied from: https://wowintl.org/jeyanthi-kunadhasan

    /1 Comment/by

    New Data Shows COVID mRNA Injections Causes Harm and Death

    , ,

    Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.

    I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.

    This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).

    The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.

    It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!

    I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.

    Transcript

    Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’ 

    Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser. 

    Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing! 

    Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations. 

    This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections. 

    I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that. 

    References

    https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-science-catching-up

    https://doi.org/10.29089/paom/193801

    /8 Comments/by

    Labor Delays COVID Inquiry Report

    ,

    Labor is still running a COVID cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission and true accountability for the wrongs committed over COVID, not this delayed whitewash review.

    Transcript

    Chris Smith:  Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think? 

    Senator ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review, Chris. I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased – they were lock-down supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers – investigative powers. They’ve got no power to compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got at. He deserves to be really hammered on this, but he’s no more guilty than, well he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who were mostly Labor. This is a protection racket for the Labor premiers and the Labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now! 

    Chris Smith: You see, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching. The states, as you mentioned and their role when it came to lock-downs and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves. 

    Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at Chris. I moved a motion to get one of the committees, in the Senate, to investigate and developa draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission, and that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it. And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie. He pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages I think it was, 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And it covered – it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid and it covers everything. And the royal, the chair – Paul Scarr, I must say and the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable. There is a draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.  

    /by