In March 2022, my office conducted an inquiry titled “COVID Under Question” to examine COVID and the response measures. Another inquiry was held in August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international health experts, as well as individuals or loved ones who were impacted by the jabs. The inquiry scrutinised all facets of Australia’s COVID response, involving politicians from multiple parties, ensuring a genuinely non-partisan cross-party inquiry.
Channel 7’s Spotlight program revealed widespread public dissatisfaction and concern with the government’s COVID response. Many people are expressing anger and have numerous unresolved questions. Rebuilding trust in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments, medical professionals, media, and pharmaceutical companies cannot happen without fully addressing these concerns.
Call a COVID Royal Commission now!
Transcript
My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on Wednesday 23 March 2022. Another was held on Wednesday 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and relatives of people that the COVID injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia’s COVID response were questioned. Politicians from several parties participated, making it a true non-partisan cross-party inquiry.
Because of the two full days of testimony at these inquiries, my decision-making has been much better informed. That’s what a senator must do. I acknowledge the support of my wife, Christine, as our office team’s workload increased in response to the many serious breaches of Australians’ rights and tens of thousands of deaths due to mandated COVID injections.
Our aim is to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound and flourish. Channel 7’s Spotlight program two nights ago revealed that the public remains very deeply dissatisfied and concerned about governments’ COVID response. Many are angry. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, in politicians, in health departments and agencies, in medical professions, in media and in pharmaceutical companies.
Across Australia, citizens are waking, making an effort to understand for themselves and for Australia. Generally speaking, people are wonderful and deserve to have their needs and expectations of governments met. Citizens are our constitutional democracy’s highest order. As servants to the people, it’s our duty as their representatives to address their questions and concerns. I find it surprising that our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. Listening to their responses in Senate estimates over the last four years, it’s clear they desperately do not betray they’ve made a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest their performance has been exemplary—worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals every Thursday evening. The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a staged standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia—which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group. Heady days, indeed. Those days are over as the reality of their incompetence, self-interest and lies comes home to roost.
To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against a tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must be clear to you now that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; widespread and deep anger remains. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall. I fear where that will lead if it’s not corrected.
Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to the people. Excess deaths, despite statistical sleight of hand, are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a vaccine—a novel vaccine that killed people—is a crime. Banning existing products that have proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of a so-called vaccine is a crime. Covering up this corrupt process is a crime. This is homicide. Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy—an experimental gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing.
Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing that the vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants despite knowing the reverse was true: protection dropped quickly over time, and it did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks is a violation of consumer law in all five of those states. The lawsuit alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people who were criticising its safety and efficacy claims and who even dared to question them—proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022.
The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others ‘to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine’. While Pfizer has indemnity for injuries, under the PREP Act, that indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. The reason this relates to Australia as well is that our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through misconduct from Pfizer, and misconduct there was. Surely, if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. Citizens of Australia deserve this.
Evidence for this lawsuit in the United States was gathered during a grand jury investigation and has now been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate court. It makes for horrifying reading. One, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla—a veterinarian, not a doctor—declined government funding in order to prevent the government’s ability to oversee the development, testing and manufacture of the vaccine. That’s not something someone does with a safe and properly made product. Two, Pfizer’s independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a tailor made contract that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers’ interest. Three, contrary to its representations, Pfizer has wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and has kept data hidden through confidentiality agreements—it kept it hidden. Four, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. A judicial inquiry can determine if such a clause was in the Australian agreement as well.
Five, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the effectiveness and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timetable was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Six, instead Pfizer submitted a ‘Hollywood’ version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety data that their real trials did not, and our health authorities bought it.
Seven, we’re three years into COVID, and scientists still can’t review Pfizer’s COVID-19 raw trial data. Eight, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates that the TGA had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer’s ‘special’ data. Nine, Pfizer kept the true effects of its COVID-19 vaccine hidden by destroying the trial control group, invalidating the study. This was not gold-standard research. This was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour.
Ten, Pfizer rigged the trial by excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or who were immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these people when the vaccine was not even tested on these people? Eleven, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, yet that expanded the potential market. Twelve, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse-events database, which was obtained in court processes and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 159,000 adverse events had resulted, including 1,223 deaths.
Thirteen, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse-event reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff. Fourteen, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Subjects had fetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations, and some subjects failed, at more than double the rate of the control group, to become pregnant and to implant embryos, amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study findings, and it lied about the outcome.
My 10 minutes is almost done, and I’m only up to page 24 of the 179-page brief of evidence. There are another 155 pages yet to cover. If it’s not clear to the listeners by now, the vaccine was criminal fraud. I have plenty more to share with you.
The last word for today is from South Korea, where a study analysed 4.3 million individuals over three months, comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer’s disease, a 68 per cent rise in depression, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders.
In Australia, following my questions to the Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don’t want to know the answer. They want to avoid the answer and hide the answer. A judicial inquiry is needed to get to the truth, and I call on Prime Minister Albanese to call a royal commission immediately.
Coronavirus was the product of 54 years of research aimed at developing a biological weapon. Whether it escaped from the Wuhan Lab accidentally, or was deliberately released, doesn’t matter.
The fact remains COVID-19 is a man-made disaster and those responsible must be held accountable.
It’s been a big week for cross-party collaboration on issues we’ve been strong on from the very start.
Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024
I co-signed the Digital ID Repeal Bill alongside Senators Antic, Babet, Canavan, Hanson and Rennick, which was introduced into the Senate Wednesday, 26 June 2024.
This Bill aims to repeal the government’s dystopian and ill-conceived Digital ID Bill.
What everyday Australians need is a Bill that protects their privacy, not one that removes it.
The way this Bill was rushed through the Senate without debate was reprehensible and an abuse of Senate process.
COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024
2 years ago I promised to hound down those responsible for the damage our COVID measures caused to Australians.
On Tuesday, in company with Senators Antic, Canavan, Rennick and O’Sullivan, a Bill was introduced to immediately commence a Senate Select Commission of Inquiry into our COVID response. The Terms of Reference in this Bill includes the recommendations from my recent committee inquiry.
I confronted government with the story of a woman who has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars after being vaccine injured. The payout under the scheme was just a measly $4,000 when the claimant could show she’d clearly lost a 100 times more than that. Government mandated the jab, coerced millions more into getting it and now won’t compensate people for life-changing injuries.
It’s why the COVID Royal Commission must also investigate the injury compensation scheme to get to the truth of why big-pharma bureaucrats are being allowed to deny victims their rightful compensation.
Transcript | Part 1
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got one question really. It is made up of components. Could I table this document? It’s a matter from a constituent.
CHAIR: You can circulate it. The committee will have to consider it before it’s tabled.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to ask about a particular deed of settlement that you have offered— vaccine claim—offered under the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme. A woman has been in contact with my office and she has given me permission to talk about her case. She has written a letter summarising what is going on. It is redacted to remove personal identification. I want to be able to table the summary she has made of the impact the injury has had on her life. All of the identifying details have been redacted. So I’ll table the summary. I’ll also provide your internal reference number, that’s ARN6176-1Z-CV. To summarise, she was diagnosed with myocarditis and chronic fatigue after getting the injection. It has completely changed her life. It has completely ruined her ability to work as a lawyer with very high earning potential. It has practically made her bedridden for 17 months. And all you’ve offered her is $4,000. She has paid far more than that in medical bills and lost potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential earnings. Yet, in your assessment, you’ve provided zero dollars for lost income in the past and zero dollars for lost income in the future—zero. This is an open-and-shut case of injuries flowing from the COVID-19 injections. She was a well-credentialled person with high earning potential and all you have offered her is crumbs when she can show she has lost nearly $400,000. How can you be so heartless? And how can you make an assessment of zero lost income, past or future, when she has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars? She’s quoting cardiologists, and it has all been proven to be due to the COVID injections.
CHAIR: Sorry, Senator ROBERTS, what was the question you are posing—and to whom.
Senator ROBERTS: How can you be so heartless and how can you make an assessment of zero lost income, past or future, when she has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars?
CHAIR: The question is regarding the assessment?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Ms Faichney: So the question is regarding the amount that has been provided?
Senator ROBERTS:Yes, it is. And how did you come to that amount?
CHAIR: How that amount was determined, I believe.
Senator ROBERTS: And is it structural—embedded—in the COVID claims scheme?
Ms Faichney: The agency administers the vaccine claims scheme, as you know, on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care, which sets the policy, including the parameters around which the payment is calculated. It is based on a range of factors, including the impact on the individual and what they can demonstrate. The figure itself will be a result of those calculations. It doesn’t necessarily go to a person’s lost income; that’s my understanding.
Senator ROBERTS: So what does it cover?
Mr Moon: Principally, the scheme covers out-of-pocket expenses.
Senator ROBERTS: Those haven’t even been met.
Mr Moon: I couldn’t talk about individual cases. What I can say is that there are a few different parts to the process. The first part of the process is a prima facie assessment of eligibility to the scheme. Services Australia staff would assess things such as confirming that the person has received a vaccine and confirming that there is some manner of out-of-pocket expense. There is a secondary process with our tier 2 and 3 claims and optional with their tier 1 claims, where a medical expert may be referred to have a look at the claim, to have a look at other factors, where our staff don’t have the specialist expertise or where it’s not our role. There is a third part of the process for tier 2 and 3 claims where there is loss over $20,000 or where someone has passed away—where it goes for legal counsel advice as well. I can talk a little bit more, if it’s helpful, about the process.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is why she isn’t being compensated. It’s a vaccine injury compensation scheme. It’s not compensating her for her lost income, her future lost income or even her medical expenses to date. What is it covering for this woman? She’s lost her livelihood.
Ms Faichney: All we can say is exactly what we’ve already iterated, which is that the policy itself is set by the Department of Health and Aged Care, and our officers will apply that policy. If the individual is concerned with the result of their claim, they are able to request a review of the decision. If there is additional information that possibly hasn’t been taken into account, we can certainly look to provide that.
Senator ROBERTS: If we take this woman’s story, it looks like what you’re doing is running a cover-up scheme that has no interest in compensating people for what they actually have lost after a COVID injection. That’s being blunt, and I can’t come to any other conclusion.
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, this is a process of questions and answers. If you are seeking to put a question to the officials, I’ll allow you to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Where do I go next? Where does this woman go next?
Ms Faichney: I think the department of health is up in the next couple of days. You could raise commentary there. You’ve given us the claim, and we can certainly have a look, but I would suggest that the individual would need to advise the agency if they would like to have a review of the decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Transcript | Correction of Previous Statement
CHAIR: The committee will now resume. I will be passing the call to the opposition and then Senator Roberts.
Mr Hazlehurst: If it’s okay, with your permission, we just wanted to correct one thing from the earlier evidence that was given.
CHAIR: Of course.
Ms Faichney: My comments in response to Senator Roberts, in reflecting on them, I think, just to remove all doubt and to be very clear about what losses can be compensated under the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme: the scheme can provide compensation for various past and future losses, including out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, care services, and pain and suffering.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Transcript | Part 2
Senator ROBERTS: I want to return to my earlier line of questioning. In answers to my previous questions about that correspondence with a constituent who had been given $4,000 in response to a vaccine injury claim, you said, ‘The department of health sets the parameters for the scheme.’ Is that correct?
Ms Faichney: The policy is set by the Department of Health and Aged Care.
Senator ROBERTS: So Services Australia assesses against those parameters. Is that correct?
Mr Moon: Yes.
Ms Faichney: We assess against the policy, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: The claim comes in, and you look at the parameters and the policy settings set by the department of health. Who looks at the evidence and makes a determination?
Ms Faichney: We have a number of panels that we refer to. I think we’ve had this conversation in estimates previously—that our officers in the agency will do an initial assessment as to base eligibility. They will do their first assessment as to whether it’s a vaccine that’s recognised and whether the damage or the injury being claimed is consistent with what the policy says can be claimed for that one. They will double-check that it’s not a person who might be known for doing fraudulent things. They’ll do all that base stuff to begin with and say, ‘Okay, this looks like a claim that we will now process in the system and keep going.’
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s now acceptable to look into the medical or whatever—
Ms Faichney: That’s right. Depending on what tier they’re claiming or where they’re going, we may engage medical experts, which tend to be through the TGA or through the department of health. Then, depending also on what they’re asking—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me. Did you say ‘medical experts through the TGA’?
Ms Faichney: Yes—or the department of health, yes. Then, depending on what they’re also requesting, we may send it on for legal advice as well.
Senator ROBERTS: So it depends on the nature of the claim.
Ms Faichney: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: For Services Australia internal reference number—I gave it to you before—ARN6176- 1Z-CV, there is a deed-of-settlement line item stipulating loss of income. Why would a value of nil against income loss be assessed when she lost close to $400,000?
Ms Faichney: We would not discuss the specifics of cases regarding what the claim is that they’ve put forward. We can talk about the outcome. They’ve obviously been assessed and found to have out-of-pocket losses of $4,000, based on the comment you made earlier as to the amount.
Senator ROBERTS: If it meets your parameters or guidelines set by the department of health, is income loss a factor that’s considered?
Mr Moon: Yes.
Ms Faichney: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Are expenses and reimbursement considered?
Mr Moon: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Is projected future income loss considered?
Mr Moon: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can’t discuss this with me now—and I understand that—but how can this person have a review of the ruling?
Mr Moon: There’s a process that I understand is outlined in the correspondence with all claimants that outlines people’s review and appeal rights.
Senator ROBERTS: How would someone with $400,000 in documented losses be assessed and given $4,000?
Mr Moon: It would be difficult to comment on that without going into individual cases.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any way we can intervene in it?
Mr Moon: Senator, we will always look into anything that’s raised with us in estimates or through correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Tabled Document | Outline of Events from Vaccine Injured Constituent
The public hearing on Excess Mortality was profoundly poignant and unsettling in equal measure.
It has sparked further concerns and raised questions that require answering about excess deaths since the rollout of the COVID vaccination and why there is such a concerted effort to deflect closer scrutiny.
COVERSE and the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS)
It was good to speak with a group of professionals that are prepared to dig into COVID ‘vaccine’ mortality. My questions were about suppressed or disguised data. It’s been well established that the modelling during COVID was not done well – potentially to support the government program regardless what the data was actually showing.
There are numerous methods through which excess mortality can be hidden. We simply cannot trust the government data when it stands in such stark contrast to the widespread experiences of everyday Australians.
A study of excess mortality in Queensland in 2021 offered warning signals. There was a huge spike in deaths immediately after the COVID injection rollout began, even before the virus itself arrived in Queensland. Similar patterns was seen in Western Australia and other parts of Australia. This spike then came back to near normal levels once the “vaccine” rollout slowed down.
It is not acceptable that instead of seeking to understand the reasons behind these findings, our health authorities are attempting to discredit this data.
Australian Health Department
I asked the Department of Health to explain peaks of excess mortality in 2022.
Significant peaks observed were higher than expected, with the explanation being that it can be contributed to COVID itself, although there was still a peak outside the average.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) revealed it’s possible to match COVID jabs with mortality, however Australia’s Health Department appear to be quite reluctant to do this. They commissioned a report from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance to conduct an analysis comparing ‘similar populations with each other’ to give a “better sense of mortality”. Predictably, the outcome of this “critical research” is that COVID vaccines provided significant protection against mortality from COVID and extended this to all-cause mortality.
National Rural Health Alliance
The points raised by Susanne Tegen, Chief Executive of the National Rural Health Alliance, went to the heart of the struggles faced by rural and remote communities during the federal and state governments’ COVID response.
National Rural Health Alliance commented on limitations in mortality data. It strongly advocates for the creation of datasets demonstrating excess mortality in relation to remoteness.
The Alliance wrote in their submission that the absence of geographical data makes it impossible to fully understand the impacts of excess mortality on rural and remote consumers, and that “Tailored datasets and rural specific models of care are imperative to addressing ongoing healthcare inequities.”
Research should be prioritised to examine how pandemics and other disasters impact health systems in rural Australia.
Transcripts
COVERSE and the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society
Senator ROBERTS: Mrs Potter, I feel very ashamed of our country. As a result of lies, you’ve had your life altered completely and what we’ve given you instead of care is gaslighting. Thank you so much for your courage in being here. I also want to put on the record my appreciation to Senator Rennick for his previous two questions that Dr Neil answered and answered so capably. They were fine questions and excellent responses. Mr Faletic, you came before us at the terms of reference inquiry. I want to thank everyone for being here in person. Thank you for your commitment. You said in your opening statement, Mr Faletic, ‘newly disabled and chronically injured’, and there are thousands of them. You also mentioned in the terms of reference inquiry that doctors were coerced, so I don’t need to put questions to you. I would love to, but I’ve got some other questions. Dr Kunadhasan, you mentioned ‘peer reviewed paper unaffiliated by trial sponsors Pfizer’. Could we get that paper on notice, please?
Dr Kunadhasan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You also told us that more than 50 per cent of Australians took Pfizer. I’d like to learn more separately on notice. I’ll think of some questions for you with regard to your correspondence with Dr Lawler, because I read it in your submission and I’m stunned. I want to also acknowledge the courage of your stance. Dr Neil, on pharmacovigilance, if I could have a one-word answer at the moment because I want to get on to Dr Madry. Pharmacovigilance is not independent, is it, in this country?
Dr Neil: A one-word answer? I don’t believe it is sufficiently independent and the access is very difficult for the average doctor.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you send us the peer reviewed paper that you’ve published on notice, please?
Dr Neil: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Dr Madry, can you comment on the use of models used for predicting excess mortality, please?
Dr Madry: I want to thank Mrs Potter. You moved me. That’s part of the reason we do some of this work. There’s been an epidemic of bad modelling during this pandemic. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis published a paper about how bad the modelling was. When we do modelling we need to apply a range of models to look at best case and worst case scenarios. Models rely on assumptions. Those assumptions can be wrong. I know time is short, but a quick comment on the models that the government is relying on at the moment for predicting the numbers of excess. That model changed last year and predicted lower numbers. There are a number of fundamental issues with that model. It uses a time series modelling that one wouldn’t use in a modern analysis, fitting a sine wave, which doesn’t actually fit the sort of seasonal trends. A strange thing happened. The standard years were 2015 to 2019, and then there was a decision to reach back to 2013 and it turned out 2013 is a low year for mortality; 2019 is a high year. So, if you wanted to tip up the baseline and make the excess less, that’s what one would do. In our submission, we’ve provided a range for what it should be. The estimates at the moment are very much at the low end of the estimates. We need to look at the low end, the high end, and the real result should be somewhere in between. There’s another issue about subtracting all COVID deaths from and with. We know the convention shouldn’t be to count the deaths that are with someone who dies from cancer, for example, who tests positive with a PCR test. They shouldn’t be subtracted. We know influenza was down during those years. So, should we be subtracting all of those deaths? Because clearly some of the COVID deaths were deaths of frail elderly people who, sadly, would have died anyway. So, if we’re trying to come to what’s the clear non-COVID excess there are more professional ways to look at that. Modelling has been done poorly. That’s well established. I think independent groups like ours that can talk to what’s really happening have a better understanding and can try to fit ranges to those models. Especially when it’s a high-risk situation where people are dying and getting injured, we need to understand the best case and worst case scenarios.
Senator ROBERTS: What other data is needed to clarify what could be causing the non-COVID excess mortality?
Dr Madry: If you wanted to rule out COVID vaccinations as a possible cause of this excess, with these datasets that Senator Pratt was talking about where there’s a linkage between immunisation registers and mortality registers we understand that a linking of tables has been done by the Institute of Health and Welfare and the ABS. Basically the data that’s needed is the date of last vaccination and date of death on an individual record basis. We can go through that and find out if there trends that shouldn’t be there. They should be independent, but there could be trends. If we can get access to that, we can provide some insight.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you intend to apply for access to that data?
Dr Madry: Yes. Since we’ve heard more about this we do intend to apply for it.
Senator ROBERTS: You said you did an analysis of mortality in Queensland. What did you find?
Dr Madry: Queensland kept out COVID until right up to the end of 2021. So, with Queensland we had a 10- month window where we could look at mortality without the effects of COVID. Any deaths from COVID in Queensland were from cruise ships or out of the state. We purchased data from the ABS with narrow age ranges. What became clear was that in the older ranges, which is where we saw in the database of adverse event notifications a lot of the deaths occurring—ages above 60—we saw the trend of mortality start going up in the second quarter of 2021. That went up right until the end of the year. That was clearly a warning signal.
Senator CANAVAN: Have you looked at Western Australia, which had a similar experience? When I look at the ABS data, again, the deaths seem to start ticking up in late 2021, even before the WA border was open.
Dr Madry: Western Australia has a few more months, because they opened up in March, I understand. We’d have a full one-year window with Western Australia. The reason I picked Queensland was partly financial, because you have the largest state with the longest time. South Australia and Western Australia would be other ones that would be worth looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Dr Neil, there are many ways excess mortality can be hidden. Classification of causes of death—can you answer yes or no to each one as to whether or not it’s possible to hide a death?
Dr Neil: Excess mortality typically just considers all-cause mortality. Then there’s a secondary sort of inquiry as to what the subcauses might be.
Senator ROBERTS: So with doctors placed under coercion, we could hide a death due to a COVID injection by classifying it as ‘not due to an injection’?
Dr Neil: There are two avenues to highlight a death as a doctor where as a doctor you might have the opinion that it’s a vaccine death. One would be by registering the death on the pharmacovigilance database, and 75 per cent of the deaths were registered by doctors. The other would be to write a death certificate—I believe that’s rarely done—in a way which would note a vaccine injury as a cause of death, but it is possible.
Senator ROBERTS: They can be statistically hidden or misclassified, correct.
Dr Madry: Correct. Misclassification is one of the biggest problems we have as analysts.
Senator ROBERTS: A barrister I talked to said you can hide evidence, and the best place to hide it is in plain sight.
Dr Madry: That’s a very wise statement.
Senator ROBERTS: Are these things being done?
Dr Madry: Is it being hidden? There are certainly strange things happening where the ICD cases with categorisation going into vague categorisations; it might have been very specific cardiac, respiratory. There are strange things going on. We can detect those things happening. As you said, from a forensic point of view, being able to see those sorts of things is insightful in itself. Even though it may make it harder to find the actual result we’re looking for, that’s important.
Senator ROBERTS: So, keeping on theme of hiding data, we can also have alternative narratives, such as long COVID instead of vaccine injuries? We can also have the use of labels to denigrate people, shut them up, condition an audience that it could be something else, propaganda to dissuade people’s perceptions? Do any of these things tie in with you?
Dr Neil: As a society, we’ve been concerned about the culture in medicine that tends towards censoring doctors from speaking about some of the key issues of pandemic management, including the vaccine. We believe that’s real, we believe we can document it, and it could well have had an effect on the information that’s able to come to light.
Australian Health Department
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On that last question that Senator Rennick asked, Dr Gould, are you familiar with the Australian Bureau of Statistics submission?
Dr Gould: Yes. If you just give me a moment, I will fumble on my iPad to have that. What page, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: It is on page 7 of their 14-page submission—top of the page, graph 1. Have you done any work on trying to understand and explain the first peak in March 2021 and the next peak in August 2022? Can you tell me the causes of those peaks? Take it on notice if you want.
Dr Gould: I’m not actually seeing a peak in March 2021.
Senator ROBERTS: You are not seeing the actual deaths?
Dr Gould: Yes, I’m looking at the same graph as you, I believe, with expected, actual and—
Senator ROBERTS: There is a peak well outside the upper range.
Dr Gould: Oh, yes, there is a small period—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s quite marked.
Dr Gould: The graph that you see, the expected mortality, is a modelled number. We have talked about this before. And, as with any modelled number, it has strengths and weaknesses, so that is acknowledged. There are a number of different ways—
Senator ROBERTS: This is a startling peak.
Dr Gould: Yes, so—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that all due to the model?
Dr Gould: The peak you are referring to is a peak because it goes above the confidence intervals of the model, so it is a function of the model and it is also a function of mortality.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way, way, way above.
Dr Gould: I’m concerned that we are looking at different graphs. I’m not seeing a large peak in 2021—
Senator ROBERTS: Graph No. 1. End of February, early March 20—sorry, 2022.
Dr Gould: Oh, 2022.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, you’re right. What is the explanation for the big peak there?
Dr Gould: You see a very significant peak with the actual number, so that is the dark red number, and that represents total mortality over that period. And it is higher than expected. Importantly, this graph also shows what it looks like without COVID, so that is the—dare I say, salmon coloured or pink coloured line—which is a much less dramatic peak, so that indicates how much COVID itself contributed to that large peak. That said, I would acknowledge that, without COVID, the light pink line is still outside of normal expectations. So that would be considered a period of excess mortality.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on explaining why that is the case? It is above the mean of the range and it’s above the upper limit.
Dr Gould: Again, the ABS reports look at different causes of death, and complementary analysis of the Actuaries Institute also looks at potential causes there. That includes ischaemic heart disease.
Senator ROBERTS: So we go to the ABS?
Dr Gould: The ABS is—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. I want to follow up on a question from Senator Rennick that I did not hear that you answered, and that turned on something I asked earlier in the second session. The Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed in estimates last week that it is possible to match ABS deaths data against COVID status to see what the respective death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians are. Have you done that analysis? I did not hear you respond to Senator Rennick.
Dr Gould: Again, it is the same concept where I was talking about the time series analysis. We need to be really careful about producing—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done it?
Dr Gould: I will get to that. Producing raw mortality counts by vaccination status is of very limited value. Obviously, the counts we would expect to be higher for vaccinated Australians because the vast majority of Australians were vaccinated. So we needed an appropriate denominator. So that work needs to be done. We also need to—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Gould, you can still have comparison of people who have had one vaccine, two vaccines, three shots, four shots et cetera.
Dr Gould: Yes, and what I wanted to get to: you could do that with raw mortality rates, but, as we have discussed, age is a really important factor for mortality, so age standardisation is really important there. But there are other forms of work there that we need to do to ensure that we are comparing like populations with each other—so, effectively we are comparing statistical apples with each other. And that was the whole purpose of the research that we commissioned by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance—that they could do that challenging but really critical work so that they could give a better sense of the mortality outcomes for people—
Senator ROBERTS: What is the answer?
Dr Gould: The answer is that it is very clear that COVID vaccines provided significant protection against mortality from COVID. They also extended that research to all-cause mortality. As we have said, COVID was the last—
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get a copy of the report please?
Dr Gould: Absolutely. It is publicly available, and we would be happy to send you a link for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Where abouts?
Dr Gould: I can’t quote the exact web address, but it is—
Senator ROBERTS: When did you ask them to do that report?
Dr Gould: I believe the date is current to 2022. We could take on notice when we started conversations about the report.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could please. What is the death rate comparison amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians? I know you said there are many qualifications but, filtering through the qualifications, what is the death rate?
Dr Gould: It is lower for vaccinated Australians as per that research.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have those numbers please?
Dr Gould: The way that they describe it is actually in terms of the protection against death from the—
Senator ROBERTS: Not the death rates?
CHAIR: Just one moment please, Dr Gould. Senator Roberts, just the last five minutes you have been interrupting quite regularly while they are answering—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Could you maybe wait until they finish and then ask your next question.
Dr Gould: I think that research should answer a lot of your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Has anyone ordered you not to analyse deaths, or excess mortality, or to do so in a certain way to hide anything?
Dr Gould: Absolutely not.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
National Rural Health Alliance
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here, Ms Tegen. Your submission’s third paragraph includes this statement: The absence of geographical data makes it impossible to fully understand the impacts of excess mortality on rural and remote consumers. NRHA strongly advocates for the creation of datasets demonstrating excess mortality in relation to remoteness. We need to ensure that the committee notes this, Ms Tegen. Is this something that must be in this inquiry’s report?
Ms Tegen: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: What about preparedness? You should have been aware that there was a preparedness plan for rural areas for a flu epidemic. Were people in rural areas aware of such a plan, and was it followed?
Ms Tegen: I am not sure whether they were all included in such a plan. If there is a federal plan, it needs to be taken to those rural communities. A classic example, again, is through the PRIM-HS model where, at a local level, they start looking at, ‘How do we manage a risk like this if it comes to our region?’ It’s no different from a fire plan or a flood plan that rural communities have. It’s really interesting. Why is it that the Defence Force and police forces are all funded to do this, to support their workforce to do this well? We need to do it in health. It needs to be done under a national health strategy, and there needs to be a compact between federal, state and local government, with the community.
Senator ROBERTS: I must commend the witness, Chair, for providing clear, concise and very strong advocacy. It’s refreshing. What discussions, meetings and planning occurred in the early stages of responding to COVID to guide your response in rural areas to COVID, once we were told there was supposedly a major virus on the loose?
Ms Tegen: The National Rural Health Alliance started a series of teleconferences and updates with not only its members but also its Friends of the Alliance, which are the grassroots people. In addition to that, we held meetings with the government to provide real-time feedback to those communities, and the clinicians. Again, clinicians on the ground were really stretched in rural areas because they already had workforce shortages. It needs to be revisited, taking into account the learnings of the populations and the response on the ground.
Senator ROBERTS: Your submission raises the topic of a shortage of health professionals in rural areas. You have said it repeatedly today. How did the shortage of health professionals in the bush make the impact of COVID worse, and what can be done about it?
Ms Tegen: It burned out a lot of the workforce. It made people feel that they weren’t supported, because as soon as we felt that COVID was finished and it was ‘business as usual’, they are still trying to recover from what happened over the last four or five years. They still feel that they are not supported. We are now focusing on the future workforce, yet we are not able to support or provide more bolstering for the current workforce. The communities are back to normal in terms of living their life. They’re working in an environment where there is a higher inflation rate.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s tough.
Ms Tegen: It’s tough. These communities are the most underfunded. If you’re looking at agriculture and primary industries, they are the only communities around the world that are not subsidised. Here we are, expecting them to deal with health issues, with global markets and with weather patterns. We don’t expect that from the city. Why do we expect it from the country? It is because it’s out of sight, out of mind.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things I’m picking up, between the lines, is that you don’t see the imposing of systems and processes from the city on rural as being effective. You are calling for a national rural health strategy. You’ve also made the point that people need to be accountable for their own individual health.
Ms Tegen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that something that could be said about the whole country’s health?
Ms Tegen: Absolutely. By increasing the amount of data that is available, by increasing an understanding of health care, not only the healthcare system but also your own health, you are more likely to be able to deal with your own health issues because you have an increased health literacy level. I will make a comment about the death recently of a person that was raising the awareness in the population. That was Michael Mosley. Australians loved watching him. He increased their understanding of health care. Norman Swan is increasing the understanding of health care. His Coronacast was listened to by millions of people around Australia. Rural Australia still has a very high readership of and listening to the ABC, and those initiatives were really important to rural people. We need to make sure that they are not forgotten, and that we have a social contract to do something about this, rather than having reforms and inquiries, and nothing happening with them.
It’s time for a Royal Commission into COVID – as recommended by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry.
Before the last federal election, Anthony Albanese promised to hold a Royal Commission into COVID, yet once elected into government, he changed his attitude and now seeks to cover up government actions during COVID.
One Nation secured a Senate Inquiry to write Terms of Reference for a COVID Royal Commission. I am proud to say the Committee agreed this was the right course of action and recommended a Royal Commission be called. The Committee also set out an appropriate terms of reference – which are excellent – covering all aspects the public would expect to be examined.
It is time for the Prime Minister to stop shielding bureaucrats, the media and multinational pharmaceutical companies. The Prime Minister is making a mockery of the Labor Party’s legacy. PM Gough Whitlam initiated thirteen Royal Commissions during his tenure, and PM Bob Hawke called for eight. This current Labor government has only called for one, despite public opinion polls indicating over 70% support for a Royal Commission.
It’s time for the Labor Party to prioritise people over its donors in the pharmaceutical industry.
It’s time for the Labor Party remembered who they are.
It’s time for a Royal Commission into COVID now!
Transcript
On behalf of One Nation, I thank the committee and the secretariat for their marvellous work during this inquiry into a COVID-19 royal commission, work that resulted from a One Nation motion. Many submissions were received and witness testimonies taken. The report that Senator Scarr has just tabled is a faithful representation of their evidence and reflects some amazing work by the secretariat, him and the committee.
Australia now has the recommendation that a royal commission into Australia’s response to the COVID pandemic be called, and it has appropriate terms of reference. So what happens now? To this point, the process has been one of which I’m proud. This Senate has held true to its fundamental function as the house of review. The Australian Parliament House website says of the powers of the Senate:
Democratically elected, and with full legislative power, it is generally considered to be, apart from the Senate of the United States of America, the most powerful legislative upper chamber in the world.
It’s time to use that power. Indeed, it’s our duty to use that power. It’s time to remind health care, the military and the bureaucracy: they do not run this country; the Australian people do. It’s long overdue to remind the crony communist establishment: they do not run this country, the Australian people do. And it’s time to restore trust in government and confidence in our healthcare practitioners, hospitals and medications. A royal commission is the only way to get to the truth, punish wrongdoing, praise the noble and set a future direction for pandemic preparedness in which the public can have complete confidence.
Support for a royal commission came from every witness at the inquiry—a rare and overwhelming display of consensus and unity in what has been until now a highly contentious debate. The inquiry submission from Professor Scott Prasser was most helpful in guiding debate around a royal commission. He said:
As then Justice Holmes, who chaired the 2011 Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry observed there is an expectation in Australia for such inquiries following disasters:
… contemporary society does not countenance a fatalistic approach to such inevitabilities, even if their occurrence is unpredictable. There is an expectation that government will act to protect its citizens from disaster, and that all available science should be applied so that nature and extent of risk is known, and appropriate action taken to ameliorate it—
to protect people. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Remember these facts on Australia’s COVID response: half a trillion dollars was spent, economy and family livelihoods were smashed, freedom and human rights were stolen, and there were tens of thousands of deaths from injections approved yet not tested in Australia, with approval based only on Pfizer’s trial that was cut short after thousands of deaths and without the TGA seeing the patient-level data.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn last week. How the hell do the injected withdraw it from their bodies? The department of health still approves AstraZeneca now. Overnight, a peer reviewed journal published proof that the Pfizer vaccine was contaminated with mutant DNA at levels that are hundreds of times higher than safe levels. The Pfizer vaccine must be withdrawn on safety grounds immediately. This is all for a virus which the Chief Medical Officer advised me in writing in March 2021 was of low to moderate severity, less than some past flus, and had transmissibility similar to that of flu. That was in writing. Australia will not stand for repeating our COVID mistakes and COVID deceit.
As I travel through Queensland and listen to everyday Australians, I continue to hear of COVID harms. It’s clear that COVID may be over, yet the harm from our response continues. Businesses weakened during COVID and kept alive with JobKeeper payments are now failing in the recession that inevitably followed the big spend. Victorians have been hit with a COVID tax to pay for the state’s response, a tax making it harder for homeowners to keep their homes in the face of rising interest rates. In turn, rising interest rates are a function of the inflation caused when the Reserve Bank printed $508 billion to fund COVID measures.
Our COVID response affected every life in this country and every corner of our economy. A quickie cover-up whitewash pseudo-inquiry into bureaucratic performance during COVID will not get to the truth of matters into which it’s not even looking. issues like unexplained deaths, which have started to increase again and are currently sitting at around 13 per cent, or 25,000 deaths a year. These are people who should not be dying—young people. In part, these people are dying of the side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine that Craig Kelly specifically called out in 2021. Our health authorities claimed it was safe and effective until court cases caused AstraZeneca to withdraw the product worldwide, citing a fatality rate of 3.8 per 100,000 cases. Australia bought 56 million doses.
The official death figures from COVID injections are a fiction. Evidence of this is the TGA’s refusal to provide independent verification of their case analysis. Reports of deaths and serious injuries from COVID jabs stopped being made in full early in the rollout. Medical practitioners who reported adverse events were inevitably harassed and threatened with punitive action from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, who acted as the pharma police. Their actions in suppressing the truth of vaccine harm must be of special interest to the royal commission.
Pfizer conducted aborted safety testing on a version of the vaccine they never used. The shots they did use were never safety tested, and this was the big lie: that the vaccines were tested and proven safe—a lie. ‘Safe and effective’ was not one lie; it was two. Pfizer are currently settling their lawsuits out of court, but for how much longer, as one successful lawsuit leads to another? Australia offered taxpayer funded immunity on these products. Remember: if criminal behaviour is detected from Pfizer, the immunity can be voided—behaviour like baiting and switching the test vaccines, covering up adverse events in the testing phase and erasing anyone with a serious adverse event from the trials as though they were never a participant. Ghost test sites were used, along with ghost participants who, miraculously, never had an adverse event. Window shifting was employed. Adverse events in person that was single dosed were counted against the unvaccinated, because one is not classified as fully vaccinated until after the second dose. How’s that for deceit? Likewise, even a person who was double dosed had their adverse event counted against the unvaccinated if it occurred within the first seven days for Pfizer and within 14 days for Moderna.
Behaviour like this is why we have royal commissions with powers to compel witnesses and obtain documents that have been hidden behind redactions. There have been 54 royal commissions since the Menzies era. The Hawke-Keating government called eight and the Whitlam government called 13. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government called eight. After so long in opposition, the Albanese Labor government has only found cause to call one. What a compliment to the quality of the last government! In all of that time, only one thing was done badly enough to call a royal commission. You on this side must be so proud!
Prime Minister Albanese has turned his back on Labor Party history and seeks now to cover up for bureaucrats, multinational pharmaceutical companies and crony capitalist companies like Woolies and Coles. These companies implemented onerous staff vaccine mandates, required customers to behave like they were diseased and blasted out pro-vaccine anti-human propaganda over their PA non-stop for three years. It’s no surprise that their share register includes names like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These same names appear in the share register of the pharmaceutical companies that profited from killing people in this country.
These foreign predatory wealth funds appear on the share register of Australian media that contributed unending fear to drive the pharmaceutical response to COVID. The media also policed public opinion, destroying the careers of presenters, medical professionals and politicians, despite those opinions now being proven correct. Even worse, their opinions were known to be correct at the time these brave people were speaking out against the official narrative during COVID. Was COVID an evil exercise in crony capitalism, in racketeering for the benefit of foreign predatory wealth funds, or crony communism? Yes, it was. Those funds have ripped $5 trillion—trillion—from the pockets of everyday citizens around the world in the name of keeping us safe. What an eye-watering transfer of wealth, unprecedented even in wartime. Thanks to COVID, the rich are richer, while everyday citizens struggle with reduced wealth, unprofitable businesses and poor health.
And yet the Labor government refuses to call a royal commission. You don’t care! Is this who the Labor Party has become—protectors of racketeering wealth funds and their parasitic, predatory billionaire owners? Is that it? One benefit of misinformation laws is that they may stop you calling yourselves the party of the worker when you are clearly the party of predatory billionaires—parasites.
Prime Minister Whitlam called 13 royal commissions, Prime Minister Hawke called eight and this Labor government has called one. Talk about not being able to handle the truth. Your position defies history, it defies the will of the Senate and it defies the will of the people. Talk to anyone in the street; they’ll tell you they want this. Your position defies history. I urge the Senate to send a clear instruction to the Prime Minister that his quickie cover-up inquiry has fooled nobody—nobody. It’s time to begin the royal commission; it’s time to care about people, not corporate profits; and it’s time for this Labor Party to remember who they should be. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
The final report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee regarding the Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission into the federal government’s handling of COVID-19 has been released.
This inquiry was initiated after the Senate passed my motion to establish it, which comes after extensive efforts by One Nation to uncover the truth about Australia’s COVID response.
The good news is that the committee recommends the federal government establish a Royal Commission to thoroughly examine Australia’s response to the pandemic and its impacts on the community. The report includes comprehensive terms of reference, covering all aspects that Australians are keen to see addressed, including the vaccines.
I appreciate the committee’s diligent work and welcome this report. I will address this matter further in Parliament next week.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/COVID.jpg?fit=1007%2C667&ssl=16671007Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-05-09 12:52:462024-05-09 14:26:59Senate Committee Calls for a Royal Commission into COVID
I called on the Senate to support the inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme and restated my demand for the people of Australia to have their Royal Commission in COVID.
Australians are dying at a far higher rate than normal. Surely even the pharma industry lobby in the Senate can see that there’s a high probability that the cause, the one thing that has changed in the last 4 years coinciding with the increased mortality, is the jabs that everyday Australians were coerced and bullied into taking.
Why is the Labor Government so afraid of uncovering the truth? If they’re confident it’s not the cause, then shouldn’t they be prepared to have an inquiry into it?
This is an issue of life or death for the Australian people and it needs to be above suspicion. We need honest debate and proper scrutiny to understand why over 30,000 people more than normal have died so far.
In this speech, I go further into messenger RNA “vaccines”, the technology used to protect them and the actual mechanism by which these jabs could be causing the harm we are seeing.
I also talk about the “bait and switch” that was used during clinical trials, which saw trials conducted using the long-established method of using albumin to grow the vaccine. After testing, this was switched out for a new and untested method using a derivative of E. coli bacteria, which multiples much faster but contaminates the vaccine in the process.
During an interview on the ABC, Greg Hunt, the Health Minister at the time, admitted that “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data”.
Where is that data now and what does it really say about our COVID response? The answer will only come from an inquiry. Clearly the Albanese Government and the Opposition do not want you to know.
Transcript
There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That’s more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected.
Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it’s possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can’t possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I’ll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I’ll do that in a minute.
The COVID products are not vaccines because they don’t stop people getting COVID. They don’t stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, ‘Why are so many people suddenly dying?’ are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny.
One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as ‘plasmidgate’. This is technical, so I’ll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab.
The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they’re using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs.
The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That’s the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn’t. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That’s where the testing was done, if you’ve had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body.
It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It’s a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people’s bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here’s the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they’re created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don’t know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person.
Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body’s natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating when those questions are being asked. It’s time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to.
There’s a long tail to the COVID response that’s affecting a lot of things. There are many changes to the way we work — working from home for example — and the way in which we interact with employees that are a direct impact of the changes made during COVID. The Australian Industry (AI) Group clearly showed in their submission the anxiety levels and the mental health impact on their members and the everyday Australians who work for them. The mixed messaging, the lack of consistent and clear communication made a challenging situation almost impossible to tolerate.
The AI Group made this statement: If we don’t come to grips with the consequences of the sometimes damaging and divisive actions of states to lock down everything from buildings and suburbs to entire states, we ignore the impacts across the community. Their testimony on the disruption to state borders, not just in border communities but to national businesses, makes clear that it was extraordinary. State and territory border closures were so disruptive they should only ever be used as a last resort. Many businesses were impacted also by localised communications and differing ‘rules’ between states which caused chaos.
The Albanese Government’s limited COVID inquiry excludes state governments from its scope. The AI Group feels this is a big exclusion given the fact that state and territory governments were responsible for implementing a lot of the measures which were contradictory and often capricious. The AI Group supports a Royal Commission into COVID with broad terms of reference.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Ms McGrath, thank you for your submission and also for appearing in person. It’s so much better to have people here in person, when possible. Your submission states:
If we don’t come to grips with the consequences of the sometimes damaging and divisive actions of states to lock down everything from buildings and suburbs to entire states, we ignore the impacts across the community.
What are some of the damaging outcomes that support your call for lockdowns to be included as a term of reference?
Ms McGrath: That was the element that really had the most impact on our members. Our members, of course, are people and, as was the rest of Australian society, they were dealing with the challenges of the pandemic and worrying about their own health. I think we’ve clearly shown in the submission the anxiety levels and the mental health impact on our members and their workforces. The complexity of the shutdowns, the mixed messaging and the lack of consistent and clear communication made a challenging situation almost impossible to bear.
Senator Roberts: Basically, what you’re saying is that there are enormous economic impacts that possibly could have been avoided—and I think many of them could have been. Those economic impacts led to anxiety and increased mental health problems, as well as economic impacts on employers. Also, you mentioned contradictions. Something that has been said repeatedly across the whole community by individuals and businesses is that each state had different science.
Ms McGrath: They did. That’s why I referenced the bushfire response. If we think about the language that we use around bushfires, such as ‘prepare to leave’, and even just how we classify, from mild to catastrophic, the nature of a bushfire, we had none of that nomenclature when it came to the COVID pandemic. It meant that whoever was in front of the camera often used terms loosely, such as ‘essential workers’ or ‘authorised workers’. These all had different terms; often they were used interchangeably. It created great confusion amongst our members, who were trying to manage a very stressed workforce.
Senator Roberts: I will mention that we have here the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza, which was released in August 2019. This is a thick document, so it was comprehensively done, yet it was tossed out of the window and wasn’t even referred to. I think that led to some of the contradictions. Would you like to comment on that?
Ms McGrath: I’m not aware of that document; I’m sorry.
Senator Roberts: Let’s move on to another question. The High Court’s decision on the Western Australian border closures, the section 92 judgement, was instrumental in perpetuating border closures and certainly relied on health advice that closures were justified by the health dangers of COVID. Are you familiar with that decision?
Ms McGrath: Not particularly, but I am aware of the impact of the state border closures.
Senator Roberts: Basically, it says that border closures are within a state’s constitutional powers, providing that the state’s response is proportionate to the threat. The High Court decided that, based on the medical authorities’ advice, COVID was a serious threat, yet the health authorities at the time knew it was not. In fact, they gave me, in writing, their conclusion that showed that COVID was of low to moderate severity. If you think about the vulnerable that are a very small subset and you remove that, COVID was less severe than many past flus. Those health dangers have now been proven to be overstated, as I said, which really shows that the High Court made an interpretation of section 92 that was, in hindsight, not only not supported by the facts but also contrary to the facts; the High Court was misled. I note that your submission goes to the section 92 judgement, but it doesn’t offer a better way of doing closures. Can you expand on your thoughts around state border closures, please?
Ms McGrath: As I said in my opening statement, they really should be of last resort. The disruption to state borders, not just in border communities but to national businesses, was extraordinary. The communication often was very localised. Victoria would talk about what was happening in Victoria, not understanding that there perhaps were companies in Queensland that had trucks that needed to come to Victoria; therefore, the message was never conveyed directly to them. The role that the Ai Group played in COVID was to try to gather all these instructions and directives, translate them into easily accessible language and make sure that all our members had access to them, regardless of where they were located.
Senator Roberts: Do you consider that the responses to COVID were excessively politically motivated? Maybe that was intentional or maybe it was in ignorance. Some states ran focus groups to determine what the people thought was necessary, and yet we, the people, aren’t health authorities. It seemed to be driven by political purposes or political ends in some states, and that might have contributed to the contradictions.
Ms McGrath: I’m not in a position to comment on that. I think there are many reasons for the contradictions. One is that the people making the directives were very stressed in their own right and so perhaps were not cognitively prepared for that sort of communication. As I’ve said, everyone was making very many decisions on the run.
Senator Roberts: Your submission notes that JobKeeper benefits were paid to some companies that didn’t need the money; they made excessive profits during COVID and then refused to pay the money back. Is the answer clawbacks to recoup JobKeeper money or is the answer much tougher criteria for JobKeeper, including targeting small and medium businesses over large businesses?
Ms McGrath: When it comes to JobKeeper, as we said, carefully calibrated support is best. The challenge with JobKeeper is that it was made very quickly and was quite broad based. When it comes to public policy, as you would know, that sometimes has unfortunate consequences.
Senator Roberts: Your submission mentions mandatory COVID vaccination policies, yet it doesn’t say what about them should be investigated. Where does Ai stand on mandatory injections?
Ms McGrath: We don’t have a position on mandatory injections; our position is to support members adhering to whatever regulation applies to them. What we found challenging was, again, a mix of communication styles and a mix of messages that came out, which caused a lot of stress in understanding what their obligations were.
Senator Roberts: Just as a statement, your submission talks about the need for local manufacturing of personal protective equipment and related equipment to remove the need for stockpiling materials that degrade over time. One Nation fully supports that; we cannot be reliant on foreign countries for such products. Has Ai come up with any policy with regard to ensuring that we have the security of our own manufacturing?
Ms McGrath: Not particularly. We work with ICN in each state and with a number of different local manufacturers in sovereign manufacturing.
Senator Roberts: One of the responses to COVID from the previous government was to hand out a lot of money. We were warning at the time that this would lead to inflation and, sure enough, it has. We’re still living with the consequences of the COVID response; would you agree?
Ms McGrath: There’s a long tail to COVID that’s affecting a lot of things.
Senator Roberts: A long tail to COVID or to the COVID response?
Ms McGrath: I’m sorry; to the COVID response. There are all sorts of things—as you say, inflation, which is happening globally, but also work from home policies—and changes to the way that we work and the way that we interact with employees that are a direct impact of many of the rules that came through COVID.
Senator Roberts: On the second page of your submission you state: The existing Commonwealth Government COVID-19 Response Inquiry does include in its terms of reference a review of the responsibilities of state and territory governments and national governance mechanisms, such as National Cabinet. However, it includes the specific exclusion from the scope of the inquiry of ‘actions taken unilaterally by state and territory governments’. Given the fact that the state and territory governments were responsible for implementing a lot of the measures that were contradictory and often capricious, that would seem to be a very big exclusion.
Ms McGrath: We agree.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: The COVID injections or vaccines raise many questions. The TGA admitted to me in Senate Estimates that it did not test them here in this country but relied on the FDA in America. The FDA in America had already admitted previously that it didn’t test them but relied on Pfizer; and Pfizer’s trials were shut down early because of the number of deaths that they had. So, when you haven’t got something consistent, it puts people under a lot of pressure, not only employees but also employers. That puts you in a difficult position, because not all supermarkets forced their employees to get injected; I think IGA didn’t. But I can imagine a Coles or Woolies employee thinking, ‘I can’t go in the back door to the supermarket, because I’m an employee and must get injected; but I can go in the front door any time I want to and stay for as long as I like as a customer.’ How do you make sense of that?
Ms McGrath: As I’ve illustrated, there are many complexities, particularly in communication and rules, that really added to the stress of the whole situation, and employers and employees were all coping with the same challenges.
Senator Roberts: And customers.
Ms McGrath: And customers.
Senator Roberts: And sometimes they were in all three roles. Your final comment on page 6 of the January submission says, ‘A root and branch review is required to ensure that governments work cohesively and respond holistically during the next inevitable pandemic, and Ai Group supports any moves towards consideration of appointing a COVID Royal Commission.’ A ‘root and branch review’ is pretty serious stuff; it would be very detailed and comprehensive and would cover everything.
Ms McGrath: Yes.
Senator Roberts: Is that because it was so variable and there were so many contradictions and inconsistencies that it just didn’t make sense to many people?
Ms McGrath: Yes, it didn’t make sense. Sometimes, there would be a minister or health officer making an announcement and we’d wait for the actual orders, and they would not be consistent with what had been announced. We would have to try to find a way to convey that to the government and ask them which directive we should listen to, and then they would try to reverse it. But it was just incredible, I think.
Senator Roberts: I can empathise with you. I remember watching Yvette D’Ath, the Queensland state health minister, laying out the law in January 2022 or 2023, saying, ‘People in cars must wear masks.’ Someone asked, ‘What about if the driver is by himself?’ and she hummed and said, ‘Yes’. There was no science behind that: sitting alone in a car, with windows up, wearing a mask. These things were not driven by science.
Chair: Is that a question, Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: It is a statement, backing up Ai Group’s concerns.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6_uO31yLa08/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-21 14:19:522024-03-28 15:54:09The Chaos of Lockdowns Impacting Australian Industry
The Consumers Health Forum (CHF) seeks to understand how society in Australia has been impacted by COVID and the COVID response. This not-for-profit organisation was founded approximately 40 years ago and is funded by the Australian Government – as the primary national healthcare consumer organisation under the Health Peak and Advisory Bodies Program.
CEO Dr Elizabeth Deveny seeks to support Australians experiencing ill health as a consequence of the pandemic. She agrees that deferred healthcare needs to be examined in a Royal Commission, as she believes a good COVID response needs to be an enduring one. There needs to be a coordinated response to support unwell Australians to return to health — regardless of whether the cause is from COVID, or the government and health authorities response to COVID.
The CHF seeks a broad and independent Royal Commission into COVID. She says hearing from people impacted by the COVID response will provide Australians with a voice and help restore trust. There will be those who are still suffering trauma or whose lives are still in turmoil. Allowing private sessions will give those witnesses, regardless of their background, an opportunity to come forward and disclose their evidence without exposing them publicly to negative impacts.
The current inquiry commissioned by PM Albanese is run by those who advocated for the very same COVID response the inquiry is supposed to be critiquing. Understandably, Australians need proof of impartiality to have the confidence to trust a Royal Commission. Dr Deveny suggests the selection process should involve the community and build from that point. We need to lift up the voices of health consumers to ensure that the Australian health system meets the needs of every citizen.
Transcript
Coming Soon
Supporting Health Consumers to be Better Informed
In 2019 the government published the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. This substantial document was the result of 8 years of consultation. When COVID arrived, the government tossed this strategic plan in the bin — just 4 months after it was published.
I asked Dr Elizabeth Deveny, CEO of the Consumers Health Forum (CHF), if her organisation was consulted on this strategic health framework. Dr Deveny will respond to my question on notice.
I then asked Dr Deveny if the CHF is interested in investigating the reporting of adverse events and excess deaths due to the COVID ‘vaccines’. Since COVID ‘vaccines’ were rolled out, excess mortality is around 26,000 above normal annual mortality. The DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) is a surveillance system that receives reports of adverse events or side effects from medicines, vaccines, biological therapies and medical devices. It’s monitored by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
Adverse events, including deaths from COVID ‘vaccines’ were reported to the DAEN — although we know there’s always under-reporting of these events. I outlined for Dr Deveny how official downgrading of approximately 1060 deaths originally tied to these experimental and novel COVID shots meant a large number was removed from the database, leaving 14 deaths attributed to the injections.
Dr. Deveny noted that consumers frequently struggle to find the appropriate channels and methods for lodging complaints about negative healthcare encounters. She believes that the current reporting procedures are not easily navigable for users. Consequently, many incidents involving medication, vaccines, biological therapies, or medical devices go unreported.
The CHF is advocating for improved mechanisms, especially during emergencies, to ensure Australians can easily report concerns about their health. They believe that individuals should be able to express their worries and receive guidance promptly. Both the government and the Australian public need to understand the repercussions of adverse events, as they impact everyone financially. As taxpayers, Australians deserve to comprehend the full effects of health interventions and their outcomes. The CHF supports transparency and is calling for a comprehensive Royal Commission into Australia’s COVID response to empower and inform all health consumers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Qc4svb-Oc5k/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-03-20 15:21:352024-03-20 15:21:39Consumers Health Forum Seeks a Broad Royal Commission into COVID
