Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.
When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.
One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.
Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?
Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.
Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.
Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?
Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer
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.
During the June Estimates, I asked the Professional Services Review Scheme (PSRS) why there was a 100% strike rate against doctors. I was informed that only a small number of cases make it to the Committee stage after several preliminary steps.
The representative assured me that the system is fair, although she admitted that appeals are restricted to procedural issues and cannot address the merits of the evidence.
While she mentioned that the Committee consists of the doctor’s peers, she did not address my concern about the 100% strike rate.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. At previous estimates, I was told that administrative investigations of doctors conducted by the Professional Services Review Scheme were done in a completely fair manner. Your annual reports reveal that, since 2008, there have been 173 doctors who faced administrative investigations by committees leading to sanctions. How many of those prosecutions were successful, leading to sanctions being placed upon doctors, including suspension of practice?
Mr Topperwien: The 173 practitioners that you refer to were the ones who were referred to committees after a long process. We’ve in fact been asked to look at over 1,800 practitioners. Those 173 were ones out of the 1,800 that we’ve looked at that the director would have had concerns that there was a possibility that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. That concern that the director would have had for each of those cases would have followed an exhaustive process by which they would have looked at samples of their patient records, interviewed the practitioner, looked at the submissions that had been made and then formed the view that for each of those practitioners there was a chance that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. They were not prepared, probably for most of them, to enter into an agreement or the director was so concerned about what looked like their conduct that they thought it ought to go to a committee of their peers to fully investigate what had actually gone on. So the small number of practitioners who end up going to a committee have gone through an exhaustive process prior to even getting there. And, as I said, they came out of 1,800 practitioners.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As I said, there have been 173 doctors who have faced administrative investigations by committees, which is what you’re confirming. I’ve asked you how many were successful. You said 100—
Mr Topperwien: I’m aware that there have been practitioners who have gone to committees where there has been no adverse outcome for them.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the number of those who were suspended were 171, not including two doctors who passed away.
Mr Topperwien: I’m unable to confirm here and now what those numbers actually are, but I can take that on notice and get back to you with the actual numbers of cases that have gone to committees and, in broad terms, the nature of the outcomes of those cases.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d be happy with that on notice. But my understanding is that, as I said just then, the number of prosecutions that were successful for the review scheme, out of 173, were 171, not including two doctors who passed away. So that’s a strike rate of 100 per cent against the doctors.
Mr Topperwien: Of those who went to committees.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m—
Mr Topperwien: Of the 1,800 that we started looking at in the first place, those 1,800 came from many thousands that were first examined by the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. I accept the 1,800 and 173. But, of the 173, there was a 100 per cent strike rate against the doctors. I went to a barrister to check this out—a reliable barrister who used to teach in constitutional law as well as practice and worked in administration for governments. This finding is an extraordinary result, because no court system goes even close to a 100 per cent conviction rate. How can the scheme claim a fair system with a 100 per cent rate of finding against doctors?
Dr Mahoney: Would it help if I gave some extra context around the cases that come to Professional Services Review?
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know the answer to the question. How can a system claim to be fair when it’s a 100 per cent strike rate?
Dr Mahoney: If I give you the context around it, that will explain it. The department may wish to add to what I’m saying, but there are a whole range of compliance activities that are undertaken by the Department of Health and Aged Care. We talk about a pyramid. You may have heard of it. At the bottom of the pyramid, the very largest number, are the practitioners who get an educational activity helping them to understand why their billing might need to be looked at or how to bill correctly. The next step above that are what are called targeted letters, where practitioners who have been identified as perhaps needing a little bit more help will get a letter that gives them some information about their own data and just asking them to look at it. That’s really all those letters do. The next step that the department has in place is an audit program.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s it called?
Dr Mahoney: Audit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Dr Mahoney: That sometimes gets confused with other activities. But the audit program, again, is very specific. It’s done by the department. I can talk about this because my previous role was exactly in doing the work with the compliance section of the department. With audit, it’s very specific. Again, it’s particular Medicare item requirements that can be audited, as in, ‘Did you do a specific thing?’—was there a referral, for example, for a service that requires a referral. The team that do the audit work, that’s what they do. They ask a practitioner to send in a set of documents with the proof that they’ve met a requirement. That’s a compliance activity. They’re the next level up in the pyramid. Then we come up to what’s called the Practitioner Review Program. That Practitioner Review Program is going up the pyramid where the concerns about the practitioner’s billing data or prescribing data is of more concern than any of those lower levels. That, again, is a much smaller group. For those practitioners, their data is looked at very thoroughly by senior medical practitioners who are experienced in practice as well as in looking at this data. If those practitioners think that there needs to be some intervention—the department’s medical staff—then that practitioner is contacted. They are given their billing data. They are given an opportunity to have an interview with one of the medical advisers in the department. The outcomes of those—there are three possible outcomes. The first is that the practitioner has explained their billing data, it makes sense and there is no further action taken. The second, and this is by far the largest group, is where there is some concern. The practitioner is given education about why there is concern with their billing and they are given what is called a period of review to change or to make changes to what the issues are. Then their data is looked at again. Again, the majority of practitioners understand that. They take that on board, they learn it and there’s no penalty. This is all what’s gone on before anybody gets to PSR. The third possible outcome for cases that are of really serious concern to the medical advisers in the department is that those cases are referred to Professional Services Review for the next stage up the pyramid. So we’re getting quite close to the top now. The only ones above us are those that are outright fraud that we don’t deal with. That’s not compliance. I need to add a little bit to that. After interview, a very small number of practitioners will go straight—will get referred to PSR because of the level of their concerns. A small number of practitioners who are given that six-month period of review do not make changes and they may go to PSR as well when their data is reviewed after six months. Then there’s the third group of practitioners that are referred to Professional Services Review. As you would know, under the 80/20 and 30/20 rules, if a practitioner breaches those then the department’s required by law to refer those cases to Professional Services Review. So the only cases that we are looking at in Professional Services Review are those that have already been through all of that and they are near the top of the pyramid. So that’s the context around the numbers that you’re talking about. The further context, as Mr Topperwien has said, is that even of those that get to Professional Services Review, only a small number go to committee. So I hope that helped.
Senator ROBERTS: That has. It’s confirmed some of my fears, but I’ll explain that in a minute if we need to. Isn’t this strike rate of 100 per cent of those who get referred to a committee indicative of a system loaded against doctors with little or no chance of a doctor being able to raise a fair defence to allegations made?
Dr Mahoney: No. They have chances right through the whole process, as I’ve described, or all the processes at the department of health.
Senator ROBERTS: I got that. You’ve given me the answer—it’s no, in your view.
Dr Mahoney: At Professional Services Review, they again have chances to explain, describe and discuss.
Senator ROBERTS: The system is loaded against doctors, in our view, having listened to some doctors and consulted legal advice. Is it because in the process there’s no meaningful opportunity to challenge or explain the evidence being given against the doctor? My understanding of legal practice, which is pretty limited, is that there are two aspects. A case has to be taken through the process properly. If it’s not taken through the process properly, it’s dismissed. But if it’s taken through the process properly, then they consult the evidence. If the evidence is sound, there’s a conviction. If the evidence is not sound, it’s dismissed. So process has to be followed and evidence has to be strong. Now, doctors cannot appeal the merits of the evidence. They can appeal the process. So your process is fine, but they can’t appeal the evidence. Is that correct?
Mr Topperwien: I’d just say here that the practitioner has multiple opportunities at the PSR end of the process to challenge the evidence, bring their own evidence and have their own witnesses. They have a lawyer in virtually every case, and the evidence that is the—the substantive evidence on which the committee makes findings is the doctor’s own practice notes. It’s the doctor’s own evidence that shows that they have engaged in inappropriate practice. They have every opportunity to put other evidence if they choose to.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it correct that a result of the process is that appeals are limited to arguments about process and not about merit or evidence of the case?
Mr Topperwien: They have an opportunity to take an action in the Federal Court at any stage of the process about whether we have acted fairly and have taken into account irrelevant considerations. We’ve not taken into account irrelevant considerations. Those are the bases on which a challenge may be made in the court.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as I said, the doctor can appeal the process but not appeal the merits of the evidence.
Mr Topperwien: That’s right.
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, perhaps I’d add some more context about the scheme—the PSR. Where people are referred to committees, that’s a committee of their clinical peers that hears evidence and makes recommendations and determinations about their clinical practice from a place of clinical expertise.
Senator ROBERTS: In theory that’s correct. But in practice it’s not.
Ms Shakespeare: I don’t think we would accept that either.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. At the next Senate estimates maybe we can talk further—or maybe before then if you’d be willing to. Would you be willing to engage in a conversation before then?
Ms Shakespeare: About the makeup of committees for the PSR? I think that’s probably something that we would be able to engage in.
CHAIR: Senator, via the minister’s office we can seek a briefing for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, an earlier review of the scheme said the scheme must be overhauled to make it fair and allow appeals to be made on merit. What’s your government’s timetable for a review of this system?
Ms Quinn: Senator, there have been a number of reviews conducted around the Professional Services Review. You would understand that it’s established under the Health Insurance Act, so it is a lawful—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt it’s lawful.
Ms Quinn: And considered by the parliament of the time. Concerns about possible inappropriate practice, as you said, are able to be elevated to the courts.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that perfectly. I’ve had it explained before and now again today very well. I understand that it was recommended earlier in a review that the scheme must be overhauled. I want to know the progress of that and when is it going to be done.
Senator Gallagher: Let me see if there’s—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I also make it clear that fraud hurts the taxpayers. I detest it and it must stop. So we’ve got no problems there. I also can see that a doctor who stands up and has got the courage of his or her convictions can go right through that process and won’t buckle. I can see some doctors will buckle because it’s just too much. They’ll let go. So some strong doctors, I believe, are being punished. That’s what I would like to talk to. I don’t want to raise individual cases with you. That’s not my position. I’m not an advocate for individual cases. I just wanted to understand the process better. So I look forward to a conversation.
Mr Topperwien: We are happy to talk to you in general terms about how the process works, the way that the scheme is structured, the qualifications of the practitioners who are on our panel and who are appointed to committees and how that appointment process works.
I don’t speak the bureaucratic jargon used in Canberra, so sometimes the bureaucrats struggle to grasp a straightforward question in plain English. It took some time for the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to understand my question, which was about our high migrant intake from a health perspective.
For years, Australians were mandated to get vaccinated. They couldn’t access certain places or participate in activities without being vaccinated. The latest COVID mandates were only lifted for firefighters and healthcare workers just last month.
The ABS is responsible for maintaining official records on these matters, particularly provisional and final mortality reports. I asked whether they have records of the vaccination status of new arrivals so that vaccination rates of all Australians (both new and existing) could be graphed against known health outcomes. I sort of received a response, but the reality is the ABS does not know the vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals, rendering any data they generate inherently inaccurate. This also applies to births by vaccination status, suggesting that new arrivals from countries where vaccination wasn’t pushed have a higher birth rate compared to vaccinated Australians.
This data is really important for two main reasons: first, to understand the harm our COVID response did to Australians and second, to assist in the planning and resourcing of the next response. I will continue questioning the accuracy and relevance of ABS data.
Transcript
CHAIR: I might share the call and come back. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. It’s good to see you, Dr Gruen. Do you know the COVID vaccination status of the 2.3 million new arrivals under the current government? Is that data you’re provided with?
Dr Gruen: No, I don’t think we know the vaccination status of immigrants—at least, not that I’m aware.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t think so. It’s just striking that we locked down the whole population and mandated a shot that’s still experimental—in fact, for some people it’s still mandated—yet we’re letting people in without any question.
Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, there isn’t a mandatory vaccination program now in the country. It’s a voluntary vaccination program.
Senator ROBERTS: No, there are still some states and employers that are doing it.
Senator Gallagher: As a requirement of their employment?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator Gallagher: Well, the Commonwealth vaccination program is a voluntary program.
Senator ROBERTS: Not if you’re in the Department of Defence, Australian Electoral Commission or aged care. It doesn’t exist anymore—I accept that—but it was never voluntary. If someone on a temporary visa, people who can be here for 20 years, has a baby, does that count as a domestic birth?
Dr Gruen: I’m not quite sure. You mean it’s a birth in this country?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’m sorry; I didn’t make that clear. People can be here for 20 years on a temporary visa. If they have a baby while they’re in Australia, does that count as a domestic birth?
Dr Gruen: I’m not sure that we have a category called ‘domestic births’.
Senator ROBERTS: So they’re all lumped in?
Dr Gruen: No, I’m just saying that I’d have to look at exactly what the categories are in our birth data. I haven’t got our birth data with us.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take that on notice, please?
Dr Gruen: Certainly.
Senator ROBERTS: If we got a temporary arrival in this country who was not vaccinated and had a baby, they could be providing an inaccurate picture of the Australian domestic birthrate post COVID. If there’s a problem—and some gynaecologists are saying that there certainly is—then that would be covering up a decrease in the birthrate.
Dr Gruen: I don’t think I understand. Most people are free not to get vaccinated if they choose, whether they’re immigrants or whether they live here.
Senator ROBERTS: There are studies and also anecdotal reports of a significant decrease in birthrate.
Dr Gruen: I think we’ve had this discussion before, when you were suggesting that the birthrate in December had plummeted, and we explained to you that that was preliminary data. I think I said to you at the time that people who give birth have got other things on their mind than making sure that their reports are up to date with births, deaths and marriages. As we demonstrated to you at the time, there is no decline in birthrate in December. That was simply a function of looking at preliminary data, and, when the data was more complete, that effect went away.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I understand that. But, if we don’t trap immigrants by their vaccination status and they have a baby here, then it could be covering up any decrease in birthrate.
Dr Gruen: We measure the birthrate.
Senator ROBERTS: If we’re bringing in foreigners who are having babies her, and we’ve had a domestic decline in birthrates, then that’s covering it up. That’s the reason for my question. How do you categorise people?
Dr Gruen: We look at the resident population and we also record births. But I don’t understand the implication of whether people are vaccinated or not, because the same statements would be true of people who grew up here and chose not to be vaccinated.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but we don’t know because we don’t really have an assessment of the population now because of the inference—
Dr Gruen: I think I do. We have just as good an assessment as we ever did, I think.
Senator Gallagher: Births would be captured through state hospital systems that wouldn’t discriminate on visa status.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s my point. Do you know what I’m getting it?
Senator Gallagher: Okay.
Dr Gruen: All the people who usually live in Australia, regardless of visa status, are included in the statistics.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you trap any data by COVID vaccination status—births, deaths, illness, employment—anything at all?
Dr Gruen: The Australian Immunisation Register records vaccination status for people who are vaccinated, and that data is linked in our integrated data asset, which goes by the name of Person Level Integrated Data Asset. Researchers have done an analysis using the link between the Australian Immunisation Register and other datasets to examine all sorts of questions of relevance. The department of health used that link to find out which language groups in the community had low-vaccination uptake during COVID, and there have been researchers at the University of New South Wales that have looked at mortality by vaccination status. That was a paper published in the Lancet. So the data exists, and it is available to researchers who are doing research that is assessed to be in the public interest, but it’s individual data that has been de-identified and is kept in a secure environment to be worked on. It’s not data that gets published on our website.
Senator ROBERTS: No. Given the minister said there are no vaccine mandates at the moment—
Dr Gruen: I think she said there were no Commonwealth government vaccine mandates.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. That’s true. I’m taking it from what you’re saying then that you don’t trap data by COVID vaccination status, births, deaths, illness, employment or anything else like that.
Dr Gruen: The answer would be that you could uncover that by linking the Australian Immunisation Register to other datasets that capture that information. But, for instance, in our labour force survey we don’t ask about vaccination status.
Senator ROBERTS: Your data on COVID deaths shows deaths by ethnicity, and people were saying that that was very handy to have and it’s significant, with some nationalities having three times the death rate from COVID as the Australian average, as you pointed out.
Dr Gruen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I hope our health officials are now trying to work out why they’re different outcomes— and some of them are. I notice, however, that you are removing ethnicity from the 2026 census. How is that helping—
Dr Gruen: We’re not removing ethnicity from the 2026 Census. We never collected ethnicity in any of the censuses, so it’s not a removal.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, my mistake.
Dr Gruen: That’s okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Moving on to inflation—
CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’ll be one of a series. I’m just flagging that I’ll come back to this topic when we come back again. Moving on to inflation, your official interest rate does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have—
Senator Gallagher: That’s not—
Dr Gruen: Hang on. The official interest rate is the Reserve Bank; we publish the CPI.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s a correction. Your CPI—
Dr Gruen: The Consumer Price Index.
Senator ROBERTS: Your CPI does not agree with the perception everyday Australians have of how much things are going up. Let’s unpack that: the measure you use for inflation is a basket of goods—
Dr Gruen: Yes, and services.
Senator ROBERTS: thank you—which changes more frequently than people might realise.
Dr Gruen: The basket?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the components in the basket. What’s in the shopping basket?
Dr Gruen: The basket is enormous. For instance, we capture every item—in a de-identified way—that is sold in the four major supermarkets. It’s a very extensive measure.
Senator ROBERTS: In the last change of weighting, the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent. That category happened to be one of the leading disinflationary categories dragging down the CPI figure. Are you telling Australians that in the middle of the worst cost-of-living crisis in decades they are spending 16 per cent more on recreation and culture than a year ago?
Dr Gruen: I don’t have the weights for the CPI in front of me, but I’m happy to take that on notice. Do you mean 16 percentage points or 16 per cent?
Senator ROBERTS: The weighting of the category of recreation and culture increased by 16 per cent.
Dr Gruen: We can check that. I can tell you that we update the weights every year so that they are an accurate reflection of expenditure by average households in the capital cities. That’s the point of the exercise. Most of the time, those weights change gradually, but I don’t have in my head the particular weight that you are talking about.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll return to that topic in the next one.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/g0qI5QJGuX8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-20 16:01:052024-06-20 16:01:11ABS Data Important for Evaluating COVID Response
During questioning of the National Blood Authority at last week’s Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of Canada and the UK accepting responsibility for deliberately covering up the exposure of individuals to contaminated blood products from blood transfusions from the 1970’s onwards. I asked the Minister if Australia was going to follow suit and provide compensation, however the Minister appeared disinterested and took most of my questions on notice.
I also raised concerns from constituents who were concerned that blood is not being screened for spike proteins and is sourced from vaccinated individuals, potentially spreading the spike protein widely within the community, including those who had opted not to be vaccinated. The Minister simply replied that there was no evidence to support this statement yet.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: When will government hold a royal commission into the infected blood scandal in Australia, Minister?
Senator McCarthy: I will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: When will financial assistance be provided to victims still living with their contaminated blood caused illnesses?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: When will an apology be made to the victims of this scandal?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the Canadian government has recognised the disaster of contaminated blood and has compensated victims since 1994?
Senator McCarthy: I’m not going to answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a major report into infected blood in the UK has just released its findings confirming the epic scandal and cover-up by the UK government that had provided previously negligible support for victims? They knew about it and they kept doing it—infected blood. Are you aware of that?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: When will the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory and the Red Cross be held accountable for their actions in knowingly transfusing contaminated blood products into people, killing and disabling many Australians?
Senator McCarthy: I reject the premise of your question, but I will certainly follow up on many of the other matters that you’ve raised.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, when will they be held accountable? What other support will be offered to these victims?
CHAIR: Is that question to the minister or Mr Cahill, who’s at the table?
Senator ROBERTS: To the minister.
Senator McCarthy: I think I’ve answered question.
Senator ROBERTS: What other support will be offered to these victims?
Senator McCarthy: Ms Shakespeare will answer your question. Ms Shakespeare: I wanted to mention the support that’s been provided to people who’ve acquired hepatitis C, in the form of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing of highly effective, highly curative antiviral medication since 2016. They’re available to anybody who has hepatitis C, including those who acquired it through the blood system.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there screening being done to ensure unvaccinated people—this is COVID vaccinations—is being used in transfusible blood products? I haven’t had a COVID injection and I’m not going to get any. If I want to go in for a blood transfusion, can I get unvaccinated blood?
Mr Cahill: Senator, as you would know, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood collects the blood, processes the blood and distributes the blood. As far as I’m aware, they don’t do any tests for vaccinations. The testing processes are regulated by the TGA, and there’s no test for vaccinations, as far as I’m aware.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is the risk that mRNA based vaccines are ending up in transfusable blood products, starting another cycle of contaminated blood being transfused?
Mr Cahill: I think we’ve probably dealt with that question a few times previously, at different hearings and also on notice. There’s no evidence globally that vaccine COVID is transmitted through blood transfusions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m more worried about the spike protein. That’s what my constituents are asking me about.
Mr Cahill: I think those questions have been asked previously and answered.
Senator ROBERTS: Technology is changing quite a bit and quite rapidly, and the understanding of COVID mRNA injections is rapidly changing. When will this government stand up and be counted and take responsibility for the security of blood supply and blood quality?
Mr Cahill: All Australian governments contribute funding to the national blood arrangements. In 2024-25 the contribution being made by governments to that is approaching $1.9 billion—for 2024-25—so that’s a significant investment in the safe, secure, affordable supply of blood and blood products.
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
For years, I’ve been trying to get the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to admit responsibility for allowing vaccine mandates on pilots, and the risk of injury that comes with that. I’ve been shocked at how evasive, argumentative and secretive CASA has been over this simple issue, that there is a risk of injury from vaccines, therefore making them mandatory introduces a level of risk into the cockpit.
CASA has lied, refused to answer questions they could have answered, and hidden witnesses from inquiry. As you can see from this session, there is a protection racket in place for this failure of an agency and Australian pilots are suffering hugely as a result.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Could I have Dr Manderson to the desk, please. Dr Manderson, I asked you previously about the risk of myocarditis because you claimed to pilots that there was a higher chance of getting myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. I provided you with a systematic review that refutes that. It’s entitled, ‘COVID-19—associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review’. It was published in the Clinical Microbiology and Infection journal on 23 March 2022. I asked you to provide me with the evidence you had to base your previous statement about myocarditis on. That was in SQ23-004809. You undertook to provide the evidence that you had, but in the answer you simply referred to the TGA, not to evidence you had assessed to make the comment you made. I’d like to ask: did you write the answer to SQ23-004809 or did CASA officials?
Ms Spence: I think we provided a follow-up answer to that and we advised that the response was provided consistent with the requirements of the standing orders around responding to Senate estimates questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Who did you provide that to?
Ms Spence: That was the answer to 00268 from committee question No. 254.
Senator ROBERTS: Who wrote the first response?
Ms Spence: The question was directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided that response. That’s consistent with the guidelines for officials.
Senator ROBERTS: So who wrote the response?
Ms Spence: I approved the response.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the guideline to responses that the government has just put out?
Ms Spence: No. These date back to February 2015. I can table that response if that would be helpful for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. In the interests of time, we won’t go through it now. One of the studies provided by the TGA in what you reference was from Anders Husby et al. It’s entitled ‘Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study’. Do you still stand behind that evidence to say that the incidence of myocarditis is lower?
Dr Manderson: Yes, I do.
Senator ROBERTS: When you actually read that study, it says nine of the 109 patients were readmitted to hospital with myocarditis after COVID, while 62 of 530 were readmitted with myocarditis after receiving the vaccination. That’s eight per cent for COVID myocarditis and 12 per cent for the COVID vaccine myocarditis. Fifty per cent more people were readmitted to the hospital with myocarditis after getting the jab than after getting COVID. The evidence you cited doesn’t appear to support your statement that there’s a higher chance of myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. Can you explain your contradiction?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to make an important point before Dr Manderson answers that question. We have tried to explain to the committee on a number of occasions that CASA’s role, when it comes to vaccinations, is purely related to aviation safety. I can tell you again today that there is no link to aviation safety from the matters that you’re talking about. So, while Dr Manderson can express her medical view about the questions you’ve asked, they actually have no bearing on CASA’s role and CASA’s remit when it comes to vaccinating the population.
Senator ROBERTS: They have enormous bearing on Dr Manderson’s integrity.
Ms Spence: I find that commentary quite disappointing coming from a Senator, but we’ll allow—
Senator Carol Brown: The questions do appear to be out of order. Senator ROBERTS’s questions do not seem to be for CASA. They’re not part of CASA’s core duties. So they really need to be asked in another committee. He’s asking about— Senator McKENZIE interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: Let the minister finish.
Senator Carol Brown: I’m asking the chair to rule whether Senator ROBERTS’s questions are in order for CASA.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I would point out that we have received hundreds of calls from pilots. We’ve received emails and letters. We’ve had person-to-person conversations. Pilots from both Qantas and Virgin are absolutely terrified by what the injections are doing to some of their pilots. This is a fundamental thing, and it goes back to Mr Marcelja some time ago and also to Dr Manderson.
ACTING CHAIR: Do you want to make a quick comment, Senator McKENZIE?
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, I do. Nothing the minister has mentioned goes to the standing orders and whether anything that Senator ROBERTS has asked is in breach of the standing orders. Therefore he has the right in this committee to ask public officials, who earn a lot of money—more than most of the people around this table—to answer the questions on behalf of the constituency that he represents in this place. I would expect that the officials are very experienced and are very patient and will be able to respond to Senator ROBERTS’s questions.
ACTING CHAIR: We will keep going with the line of questioning. I was also going to say that, if there are any particular areas that you, as experienced officials, feel are better answered by another agency or another department, please flag that with us here. I don’t think it’s our role to tell senators what they can and can’t ask, but we’re going to leave it to your judgement too. I think the minister’s concern is that maybe some of these questions may be more appropriate in another committee throughout this fortnight of estimates. Anyway, let’s continue. Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Regardless of what’s in that study, is it your academic opinion, Dr Manderson, that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study?
Dr Manderson: A single population based cohort study is one piece of evidence within many thousands of pieces of evidence that have been published around COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis related to that. It would be scientifically and academically incorrect to rely on a single study or even a single piece of information within a single study to be selectively reported and base an entire policy decision or clinical opinion on that cherry-picked small piece of information. It’s a really fundamental part of research and critical analysis that you understand the breadth and the depth of clinical information that’s reported in the literature, how the reporting is done and even the fundamentals of analysis of individual articles relating to things like sources of bias and sources of statistical significance and relevance in that sort of thing. So a single study should never be relied on and a single piece of data within a single study should never be relied on. It is the breadth of information from a range of clinical literature as well as its interpretation and application—it’s called the concept of generalisability and applicability—to a population, as it applies to a group, when you’re forming an opinion, using that information, as to how it applies to your cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand all the terms you use, believe it or not. You didn’t answer my question. You went around it with a lot of terms. Is it your academic opinion that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study? Which would you put more credence in?
Dr Manderson: A collaborative systematic review—sometimes we call those meta-analyses—is given more weight in terms of evidentiary power, I suppose, than a single study. The more data points you get from the more studies that are published and analysed, the more reliable the evidence will be.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think a systematic review, which I provided, trumps a cohort study in the hierarchy of research?
Dr Manderson: A systematic review is as good as the review process and the way in which it’s done. So there are important academic guidelines on the way systematic reviews should be done. That goes to the inclusion criteria for the articles that they refer to, the way they analyse the data within the articles that they’ve referenced and that they’ve selected to include, and the way that they have controlled for selection bias in choosing those articles. So there are systematic reviews that are—
Senator ROBERTS: Single article-to-article comparison: which is more valid and carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: Unfortunately it’s not as simple as that. A poorly conducted systematic review is not as good as a well conducted cohort study.
Senator ROBERTS: Given equal quality, which one carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: If they’re both conducted with great quality and equivalent quality, then a meta-analysis and systematic review of multiple data points is better than a single analysis—if they are done with the same level of quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move to my next question. None of the studies you referenced from the TGA were actually published at the time you made your statement to pilots about the risk of myocarditis. Did you actually have any evidence at the time you made the statement to pilots in February 2022? That’s what I asked. What evidence did you have? Nothing in your question on notice was available at that time—nothing. So what did you rely on?
Dr Manderson: By 2022, there had been tens of thousands of research articles published into COVID vaccines and the relationship between those and any adverse cardiac events. In particular, there were very large studies coming out of the countries that adopted COVID vaccination quite early. In particular, Hong Kong and Israel published a lot of data. That research was published in globally—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Manderson—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, sorry, but we should allow the witness to conclude her answer.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering the question.
ACTING CHAIR: It doesn’t matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Keep going.
ACTING CHAIR: Just hear her out, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask her another question.
Dr Manderson: That evidence was published in globally highly regarded journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal cardiology edition, the Lancet and the publications from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC. Those source articles formed the basis of the advice that was provided to medical practitioners in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the advice from the chief health officer of Australia and the public health authorities of each state. In 2022, all of that information was available, and all of that information leading up to when I did that webinar was what I based that on.
Senator ROBERTS: Your diversion is classically known as an appeal to authority. You put so many appeals to authority, and that’s very, very clever, but I asked you a question—’at the time you made the statement to pilots’. That’s what I asked. You gave me a reference that was not available at the time you made that statement. I asked you just now: what evidence did you have, specifically, when you made that statement to pilots? Secondly, nothing in your question on notice was available at that time. Why?
ACTING CHAIR: I think Ms Spence wanted to add something before too. Ms Spence?
Ms Spence: Again, it goes to the direction that we’re going in with the conversation. I totally respect the importance of you being able to ask the questions, but I would like to put it on the record that every other country, every other national aviation authority, took the same approach that Australia did. We did not work in isolation in this space. I hear you’re talking about the information and discussion that Dr Manderson had with the pilots, but I’m struggling to understand what specific issue there is around the actions that CASA took during COVID, which, to me, would seem to be a far more important issue to get to the heart of. If you thought we’d done something wrong, something different or something unacceptable, I’d like to have that conversation, rather than a very detailed academic conversation around which of the thousand articles that were available at the time Dr Manderson relied on.
Senator CANAVAN: Chair, I would like to stress Senator McKENZIE’s point here. The witness is fine to raise a point of order, but any claim not to have to answer a question has to be grounded in the standing orders, precedents and practices of this Senate. Nothing you spoke about then, Ms Spence, did that. Otherwise, we’re just giving opportunities for people to cover themselves to avoid answering questions. I think Senator ROBERTS questions are perfectly fine. They’re about public statements made by witnesses, and that is definitely able to be asked about at Senate estimates inquiries.
ACTING CHAIR: Not to summarise, but I’m mindful of time, and I don’t want to spend too much time on this. I think the point Ms Spence was trying to make was that they’re happy to keep answering questions from Senator ROBERTS. I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think she was just trying to see if there was more available time, with the time we have, to help Senator ROBERTS answer his other questions. Can we just keep continuing? I don’t know where we left to. Senator ROBERTS, do you have another question for the witnesses before us?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. I have lots of questions. Ms Spence, you, Mr Marcelja and, I think, Dr Manderson have all said that the ultimate responsibility for aircraft safety in this country is with you three. With the COVID injections—that’s where this all started—it’s with you too. Specifically, Mr Marcelja, you told me in one of the Senate estimates responses that Dr Manderson is the chief medical expert. That’s where I’m going. Is that clear?
Ms Spence: Is there a question there, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m responding to your comment. Was I clear?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I still really don’t understand the direction that you’re going in. I’m happy to keep answering questions.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t understand safety? Alright. Well, let’s continue. Ms Spence, I asked CASA in November 2023 to do a search of the medical record system in question SQ23-004943 for key conditions, and you told me that was not possible. That’s not true. CASA can do a free tech search of your medical records system for key terms, and report the amount of times a word appears. In fact you did exactly that in a February 2023 question on notice SQ23-003267, where you told me: During 2022 … there were 27 instances where pericarditis or myocarditis was mentioned in the clinical notes for a medical certificate assessment. Have you misled the committee on whether CASA can do a search for the terms I’ve asked for in the November question, given that you actually did that in February?
Mr Marcelja: If I recall, I answered that question. And what I told you, and I stand by today, is that our medical record system is not designed to capture those specific conditions and diseases in a way that reporting would be meaningful. While we could search the free text comments of our medical record system for those terms, those terms can appear in free text because a patient mentions them in a consultation because they believe they might have it, because of an actual diagnosis. We stand by the evidence we gave, which is that our medical record system doesn’t capture information on those specific diseases in a way that can be reported meaningfully. If you’d like to give me the reference of your question, I can reiterate the answer that we gave.
Senator ROBERTS: It is possible to do a search in your database for the words I’ve asked for in SQ23- 004943, like you did in SQ23-003267? I understand your comments. And you can provide an answer for how many times they are mentioned in the clinical notes from medical certificate assessments in 2022 and 2023. I’d like you to take it on notice and to provide it.
Ms Spence: If we do that it won’t be meaningful. Again, we’ll take it on notice, but what Mr Marcelja was saying was that any reference would be picked up, but it doesn’t mean that it’s actually related to that particular condition.
Mr Marcelja: I’ve got 4943 in front of me, and at the end of that question we say: Providing the information requested would require a … collation of free-text information from tens of thousands of records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Senator ROBERTS: Has CASA been provided with the guidebook circulated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet giving advice on how to answer questions on notice?
Ms Spence: Not that I’m aware of. It’s certainly not been drawn to my attention. I did hear the questioning yesterday, but I haven’t seen the circular that was referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: If we go back to my first question of Mr Marcelja, I asked on what authority did Qantas and Virgin inject their pilots with an untested gene therapy based treatment that had not been approved by the TGA and that had not had testing done by the TGA or by the FDA in America. You said you relied upon experts. I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ And when I said, ‘Which experts?’ for the fourth time, I think it was, you said, ‘International experts.’ Dr Manderson, which experts’ advice did CASA rely upon for turning an eye away from the mandated injections of healthy pilots with the COVID injections?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to correct the statement you’ve made, because what I recall—and if you tell me the date I’ve the Hansard in front of me—telling you we had no role in intervening in the Australian government’s public health response to COVID. We did not intervene to prevent the vaccination of pilots, just like we do not intervene in the prevention of any other administration of any medicine or any vaccination. So if a pilot was to have an adverse reaction to a vaccination, the aviation safety response to that is that that pilot excludes themselves from flying. So that’s what our procedures are based on. We have no role in intervening in public health responses, mandating or not mandating the administration of vaccinations or any medicine, for that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, said every night for about a fortnight, ‘There are no vaccine mandates in this country.’ That was a lie. But what I’m asking you is not whether or not you’re going to interfere in a vaccine mandate. What I’m asking you is: what were your reassurances that these vaccines—these injections—would not be unsafe to pilots? Did you do any high-altitude testing? What are the results of that?
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Marcelja.
Ms Spence: Being responsible for the organisation, we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way that we treat all vaccinations. We do not do our own independent testing. What we do ensure is that the system works such that if there was an adverse reaction the pilot would not fly. I’ll be very clear here: as we’ve said at, I think, the last five hearings, there has not been, internationally, any evidence of any pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination while on duty.
Senator ROBERTS: There are 1,000. I was told by a lawyer working with Southwest Airlines in America that 1,000 pilots have not been able to pass their medical since getting their COVID shots.
Ms Spence: That’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of them.
Ms Spence: What I said was that there has not been a single example of a pilot being incapacitated on duty as a result of a COVID vaccination.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator, do you have more questions? I need to move the call around.
Senator ROBERTS: I do have some more questions, but if you move it round and come back to me that’s fine.
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.
WHO Director, General Tedros Ghebreyesus, has conceded the failure of the WHO Pandemic Treaty at the start of the World Health Assembly 77.
This is a great day for those of us who have stood against a global health dictatorship, including myself and One Nation Australia.
Ghebreyesus was a terrorist with the Tigre Liberation Army. While at the helm of WHO, he has actively covered up the rape and sexual exploitation of women in the Congo by WHO personnel, as found by his own investigative commission.
The world has decided that this man and the degenerates at the WHO should not be trusted to lead the next pandemic response. Perhaps by sacking this man and re-empowering the old guard at WHO—doctors who genuinely want to heal and do good—trust in the organisation could be restored.
Additionally, removing the influence of predatory billionaire Bill Gates and his foundation, as well as globalist front groups like CEPI, would also help WHO regain their damaged reputation.
Nations don’t need a Pandemic Treaty to review their COVID performance; they just need the will and courage to scrutinise every aspect and uncover the truth behind the advocacy and fake science. Instead, governments worldwide, including Australia, are avoiding these issues, fearing the loss of sponsorship and protection provided by the crony capitalist world order.
Years ago, I promised to hound down those responsible for the death and destruction caused by corporate cronyism in Australia, and I will continue to do so.
Today is a good day for the resistance. Let this encourage all of us to renew our efforts to bring the guilty to justice and eliminate cronyism from our governance.
