Posts

COVID Jab Injury Compensation Scheme Scam Exposed

,

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

TabledDocDownload
/5 Comments/by

CASA Accountability Continues to Crash Land

,

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. 

/by

Public Hearing into Excess Mortality

,

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.

/by

Andrew Bogut’s In Conversation Series

I joined Andrew Bogut in his studio on the Gold Coast for a very enjoyable conversation. Listen for free!

/by

WHO Announces Failure of Pandemic Agreement

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.

UPDATE: 29-May-2025

WHO Will Not Be Deterred By Public Opinion

/23 Comments/by

CASA Relied on Chief Medical Officer’s Advice Only

,

At the last estimates in May, I asked CASA which experts they had consulted for their advice. After some delay, CASA admitted they had relied solely on information from the Chief Medical Officer, without conducting any independent research. They stated their sources were limited to the TGA and FDA and that the only data used came from Pfizer, which has since admitted to numerous fatalities.

Ms. Spence said she was aware AstraZeneca had been withdrawn and that Novavax had also been withdrawn. However, she noted that there had been no reported adverse events in the cockpit.

I raised concerns about CASA’s varying health test requirements for pilots of large commercial aircraft versus small private planes and pointed out that these differing standards posed a risk in shared airspace.

Transcripts

ACTING CHAIR: Thank you to your legal officer. Senator Roberts?  

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Marcelja could not tell me the specific names of the experts upon which CASA relied for turning a blind eye to Qantas and Virgin on mandates, which weren’t government mandates. Dr Manderson, can you tell me specifically which medical experts you relied upon for allowing Qantas and Virgin to mandate the vaccines? Who gave you the advice? Dr Manderson: The chief health officer of Australia at the time would be one important name.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did you actually get his advice?  

Ms Spence: I think we have gone through this previously. I appreciate—  

Senator ROBERTS: That was with Mr Marcelja—  

Ms Spence: But I think what we—  

Senator ROBERTS: and he wouldn’t tell me the names of the chief medical officer—  

Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator. Do you want me to finish?  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to allow you to keep interrupting?  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, come on. You know that’s against standing orders.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s been a lot of protection of—  

ACTING CHAIR: No. Allow Ms Spence to conclude her answer to your first question.  

Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering my question; Dr Manderson is.  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought I heard Ms Spence, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: She interrupted.  

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll allow CASA to answer your question. CASA?  

Ms Spence: All I was going to say is that we’ve tried to explain before that we don’t get individual advice on specific issues; we rely on the advice of the health experts, and, in this case—as Dr Manderson has said—the chief health officer of Australia was basically a key source. But the TGA was also providing advice. I think we have actually put that in response to questions or in some of the Hansard previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: The reason I’m frying up is that Mr Marcelja said that it was the experts, and he wouldn’t name them, and the experts wouldn’t name them. And then we went to international experts, to I gave up. Your answer is the Chief Medical Officer—not the chief health officer. I presume you’re talking about the federal Chief Medical Officer.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s important. The Chief Health Officer is—  

Mr Marcelja: Senator, perhaps you could refer me to your question specifically so that I’ve got in front of me what you’re talking about. What date was that? I’ve got the Hansard in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I can’t remember the date.  

Mr Marcelja: You can’t remember it. My recollection of the conversation was that you were asking me on what basis we were taking the actions we were taking, and I told you that we were taking no actions to intervene in the Australian government’s response. The advice, as Dr Manderson pointed out, about Australia’s response was not being led by us; it was being led by health authorities. So we did not intervene and override the advice of Australia’s Chief Medical Officer or other health experts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You have told me that the buck ends here for aviation safety. You did not do any testing at high-altitude pressures, correct?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just assumed Pfizer, the Chief Medical Officer and the TGA knew that the pressure would be okay at high altitude?  

Mr Marcelja: As I tried to explain a moment ago, what we’re interested in from a vaccination or medication perspective is: is it likely that you will get into a cockpit, have a sudden, incapacitating event and be unable to fly the plane? That’s our primary concern. For all vaccinations, including the vaccinations that were being—  

Senator ROBERTS: In the cockpit at altitude.  

Mr Marcelja: at altitude—our primary concern was whether that medication, the vaccination, would cause that event to happen. There is no evidence in Australia or anywhere around the world. We’ve checked with our regulatory authorities and colleagues in the US and Europe. There is no evidence of that event occurring anywhere in the world over the last several years. I think we were on pretty sound footing not to intervene and prevent a particular cohort of the population from being vaccinated when that’s not our role.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me ask you a few more questions around that. I want you to remember at all times in your answers to me that, when it comes to safety, the buck stops with you, CASA. There is no high-altitude testing done that you’re aware of. Are you aware that the TGA, when I asked them what tests they did in Australia on the vaccines, said they did no tests and relied on the FDA? Are you aware of that?  

Mr Marcelja: I reiterate what I said. They are not matters for us. We look at it from an aviation safety lens. Dr Manderson has been involved in international panels looking at aviation safety on a number of different topics. I’m sure she can step you through that. There is no evidence whatsoever over several years now of there being an aviation safety risk. That’s our concern. Whether the vaccine has other effects or issues—  

Senator ROBERTS: You relied upon the TGA. That was one of the people you relied on.  

Ms Spence: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The TGA admits it did no testing and that it relied upon the FDA. The FDA, prior to the TGA’s announcement, admitted that it did no testing and relied on—wait for it—Pfizer.  

Mr Marcelja: Are you suggesting—  

Senator ROBERTS: Now we find out Pfizer in their trials had hundreds of fatalities.  

Ms Spence: I don’t know how many times we can say this, but we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way we treat all vaccinations, and we don’t do individual, independent testing. But—  

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. Are you aware of AstraZeneca being withdrawn?  

Ms Spence: Yes, but I think—  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware—  

Ms Spence: Senator, sorry. I don’t think it’s quite as clear cut as saying it’s been withdrawn. They’re no longer using it. It wasn’t around inefficacy at the time, but now they’re no longer producing it. Yes, we are aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do blood clots say anything to you. What about Novavax? We understand that has been withdrawn just recently.  

Ms Spence: I wasn’t aware of that one.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Excess deaths, 13 per cent, in line with the COVID injections—before COVID outbreaks in Queensland and Western Australia—what would make you investigate whether or not pilots are suffering from COVID injection adverse events? Because you don’t do testing on pilots; you rely upon pilots to turn themselves in. What would make you investigate it?  

Ms Spence: The only thing that would make us investigate is if there was an adverse reaction in the cockpit which could be directly attributed to a COVID vaccination. 

Senator ROBERTS: What if I told you that pilots are telling us that they know of mates who have had adverse events but they won’t speak up for fear of losing their job?  

Ms Spence: I would encourage them to report through the confidential reporting arrangements that I mentioned, both with us and with the ATSB, because we are not getting those reports, and there are mechanisms for them to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: With pilots losing their jobs, I wonder.  

Ms Spence: As I said, they’re confidential, so they don’t need to report who they work for—but just giving us the information, if that is actually occurring, would be incredibly beneficial.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that CASA use Austroads fitness to drive as a guideline for recertification for TIA or stroke in class 5 medicals, on what are the class 1 and 2 medical recertification guidelines based, and do they differ from class 5 guidelines? If so, how and why?  

Ms Spence: The standards for class 1 and 2, which is the commercial pilot and the private pilot medical certificates, are based on the International Civil Aviation Organization medical standards for certification for pilots—for commercial and private. They are quite different to the domestic Australian class 5 medical certificate, which is not an ICAO certificate and doesn’t need to comply with those medical standards. So class 1 and class 2 reference the international pilot standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: And class 5—you make up the standards?  

Ms Spence: Class 5 medical standard was developed through really extensive consultation through technical working groups with both doctors and pilots, with operational input from pilots in particular. It also went through a really strong risk assessment process within CASA to determine what those standards should be, mapped against the risk treatments for the operational restrictions with the class 5.  

Senator ROBERTS: But my question was: CASA developed those standards? I’m not interested in the process. CASA developed those standards?  

Ms Spence: Yes, CASA developed those standards.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA allow airlines to push pilots to the limit as a routine practice. This is facilitated by a concession given to the airlines masquerading as ‘fatigue risk management’. CASA have allowed airlines to use this system as a shield when continuing to roster pilots to fly unreasonably long hours. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

ACTING CHAIR: What are you quoting? I think the witnesses would like to see the source of that quote.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not quoting from anything here. My research assistant—  

ACTING CHAIR: I thought you were.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not quoting.  

ACTING CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting the fatigue risk management title.  

Mr Marcelja: So, for the record, we don’t agree with the statement you just said.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Do class 5 medical holders and class 1 and 2 medical holders operate in the same airspace?  

Ms Spence: Yes, they do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is a class 5 medical holder a single pilot operation?  

Dr Manderson: Yes, it is.  

Mr Marcelja: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You had some doubts, Dr Manderson?  

ACTING CHAIR: I think they answered the question.  

Dr Manderson: Sorry, only because I felt it was self-evident that—but, yes, it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. So, if a class 5 medical holder with a recent history of stroke or TIA after four weeks of grounding is back in an aeroplane at the holding point at an airport and has a relapse, his or her aircraft taxis out in front of the landing heavy jet fully laden. Class 1 and 2 medical holders can operate with multicrew and autopilots as well as current pilots repositioning as passengers in the cabin on numerous flights. Class 5 pilots have no back-up. Is that correct so far?  

Ms Spence: Senator, I— 

Mr Marcelja: Perhaps you could repeat the question. I’m not sure what the question was in that.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got a heavy laden jet coming in to land with class 1 and 2 medical holders, with other back-ups on their position, and we’ve got a class 5 just about to go in front of the path and they have a relapse.  

Ms Spence: It feels like you’re describing—without being derogatory—a weekend warrior landing in the same place as a large commercial air transport operator, and I’m just trying to—  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s continue then. We’ll get on to your weekend warriors. What value does CASA place on the designated medical examiner’s ability to diagnose and recertify pilots? And what situations require CASA to intervene with their diagnosis?  

Dr Manderson: So the designated aviation medical examiners are absolutely fundamental to us being able to make safe decisions about issuing medical certificates. They are the doctors that perform the examination and interact with the pilots and air traffic controllers at every medical certificate renewal application. We trust their assessment as clinicians as to whether or not there is any medically significant or safety relevant medical condition present in that pilot or air traffic controller applicant. We take their clinical information and their advice when we decide whether or not to issue a medical certificate.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why then is CASA advocating self-certification for class 5 medicals—as I understand it?  

Mr Marcelja: We are not advocating. What we’re presenting are options for different types of operations. So a pilot that chooses to operate with a single passenger in a light aircraft can choose a class 5 certificate or they can choose any other certificate. So we’re not advocating any particular medical. We’re creating options and different pathways for different pilots in different circumstances, and those circumstances are adjusted based on risk and the level of medical certification.  

Ms Spence: This is a matter that has been under debate for a number of years, around CASA being a proportionate regulator. Under the class 5 medical, we put restrictions on the way you can operate, therefore you can operate within those constraints and then we will review to see how that’s working over time. We’re monitoring it closely to make sure that we’re auditing people’s self-declarations and the like. So I think people do expect us to be a proportionate risk-based regulator, and I think the class 5 medical is an example of how we can do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m exploring here. I’m trying to understand. I’m not a pilot. Considering CASA AvMed can override opinions of consulting physicians and specialists during the medical renewal process, how could the view of a CASA AvMed doctor come to its own diagnosis of an individual pilot in the absence of face-to-face consultation and overrule the opinions of independent specialists and consultants? Is that possible?  

Dr Manderson: The aero-medical decision-making process is more than and different to the clinical decisionmaking process. The medical assessment process that we’re required to follow by the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the ICAO standards and recommended practices is that we take all of the advice that is available from all of the clinicians—including their expert opinions, the investigations and reports that are available, the medical examination from the DAME—and we apply that information against the medical standard for medical certification. The key difference is that the medical specialists who are seeing the patient and the patient pilot or controller are performing an assessment of the medical status of that person as a clinician for diagnosis and management, not for aero-medical risk assessment and not for medical certification processes. So it’s quite a different role and a different process. We consider their advice, but their advice is about the condition and its disease and severity, not about its safety relevance for medical certification.  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we need to break for dinner. Are you close to finishing?  

Senator ROBERTS: We might put these on next Senate estimates.  

ACTING CHAIR: We are going to release CASA now. Thank you very much. 

/by

Another Non Answer from Labor: High Immigration = Housing Crisis

,

Queensland residents can’t find a home because there are simply more people than homes. Our hospitals are ramping because there are too many patients and not enough healthcare staff, and the number of kids in Queensland classrooms are rising not falling, despite many parents opting to home school.

The COVID response era actually provided a great opportunity to catch up on building infrastructure while immigration was frozen and people were out of jobs. Instead the government paid people to stay at home and NOT contribute to or build social infrastructure.

I asked Minister Watt, who is a Queenslander himself, if the Government opened the floodgates on immigration without the necessary social infrastructure being ready. His answer confirmed the government has not done the sums on the impacts of our record level of immigration and, quite honestly, is not fit to govern.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to social infrastructure. 

For three years, from 2020 to 2022, with the nation mostly out of work, we had an opportunity to catch up on social infrastructure: hospitals, schools, transport, water and housing. Instead, we paid money that could have been used to build those things to people to sit at home and not build those things. It was a trillion dollar wasted opportunity. With a new Labor government in power, the immigration floodgates then opened without the social infrastructure to accommodate the new arrivals. What’s worse is that there are not enough land re-zonings, building applications, approvals and starts to ever make a noticeable improvement in housing. 

The Albanese government created a problem it cannot solve. Australia needs to get a refund on that plan we heard so much about from the Prime Minister in the last election because it’s a dud. It’s not up to the minister in his answer to blame the previous government repeatedly. For three years a so-called National Cabinet of Liberal and Labor leaders ran the country, so failure is on both your hands. It’s true that the neglect of social infrastructure goes back through 30 years of Liberal and Labor governments—the uniparty. 

The message from the last two weeks of elections in Queensland and Tasmania is simple. Voters worked out the link between immigration and social infrastructure and voters are not happy. Voters are angry with Minister Watt and the Albanese government for creating a housing crisis that’s rapidly escalated to now be a human catastrophe. The public are noticing the disparity between those benefiting from the property market and those falling behind. It now takes everyday Australians on a median salary up to 14 years to save for a deposit for their own home. The housing crisis the Morrison government started and the Albanese government multiplied is disenfranchising the young. The irony is that the Labor government—supposedly, once the party of the workers—is making inequality of wealth far worse. Before the thread of social cohesion unravels in this country, this government must turn off the immigration tap and start building social infrastructure. 

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

A Chat with Emeritus Professor Reuben Rose | Sons of Issachar

As a Scientist and former vet school Dean, Professor Rose became concerned that critical information about SARs-CoV2 virus and COVID-19 vaccines was not being reported by mainstream media.

We discussed how the world and particularly Australia changed with the arrival of COVID and how the population seems to have forgotten the drastic restrictions that were put on our freedoms. We also discussed what, if any, lessons were learned.

Reuben received a notice from YouTube that he had “breached community guidelines” and the link to his channel can no longer be accessed.

You can search for more of Reuben’s work here: https://reubenrose.substack.com/ | Sons of Issachar Newsletter | www.inancientpaths.com

/2 Comments/by

COVID Royal Commission Now!

,

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. 

/5 Comments/by

Senate Committee Calls for a Royal Commission into COVID

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.

RECOMMENDATIONS

ReportDownload
/5 Comments/by