Doctors across Australia have told us that they’re being intimidated into complying with the so-called government health advice – even against their own judgement.
Isn’t that bullying, and more over, isn’t that breaking the law?
Posts
They just took the word of Big-Pharma and assumed the American FDA had done the work. We never checked the individual patient data here in Australia.
I’m not satisfied CASA is doing it’s due diligence, that it’s Medical Officers are properly dedicated to the job or that they are actually looking after pilots. I’ll share more of the details on my website when my questions on notice are answered.
With each new day we find more evidence of conflicts of interest, lies from the supposed “experts” and none of these bureaucrats want to acknowledge it. We need a Royal Commission to bring their lies out into the daylight.
Transcript (click)
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how many medicines were approved under the provisional approval pathway during the COVID period 1 July 2020 to date? My numbers are 13 vaccines and six drugs; is that correct?
Dr Skerritt: Are you talking specifically about COVID treatments and COVID vaccines?
Senator ROBERTS: No, any vaccines or drugs that have been approved using the provisional pathway.
Dr Skerritt: I will start with COVID vaccine treatments. There have been seven COVID vaccines and eight COVID treatments. I’ll just check whether I’ve got the numbers for other medicines during that period. You’re talking about the provisional approval pathway?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Dr Skerritt: From 1 July this year there have been five provisional approvals. From the period 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 there have been 23. That would include those COVID treatments. What it does show is a lot of other medicines, such as cancer medicines, such as medicines for rare conditions, have also been approved. In the financial year 2021, from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022, there were five. Over the period you’re talking about, that would add up to 33.
Senator ROBERTS: How many drugs have been approved under the normal process during that same period?
Dr Skerritt: During the same period? I will add the three financial years and I’ll check my mental arithmetic. So 36 this current financial year, and 117. These are either new approvals or new indications approved. And 95 the year before. So, it is a significant percentage, but not most of them.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the maximum provisional approval period six years because it can take that long to get drugs approved under the old approval system?
Dr Skerritt: A provisional approval is only valid for two years and then the company either has to come back and show why they cannot obtain all the data within the period and apply for an extension.
Senator ROBERTS: No, the maximum provisional approval?
Dr Skerritt: They can apply for further lots of two years.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the maximum provisional approval—
Dr Skerritt: Overall the maximum period is six years, but it’s not six years off the bat.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s two years with extensions.
Dr Skerritt: They are possible extensions; they’re not guaranteed.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money do you save pharmaceutical companies by switching from full approval to express approval? I understand it’s hundreds of millions per approval?
Dr Skerritt: It actually costs the pharmaceutical companies more in regulatory fees for provisional approval.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say regulatory fees. How much are you saving the pharmaceutical companies by giving them express or provisional approval rather than going through the six-year period for getting proper approval?
Dr Skerritt: No, you’ve misinterpreted the system. It’s not a six-year period to get full regulatory approval.
Senator ROBERTS: It varies. I accept that.
Dr Skerritt: Most of our approvals are submitted as a standard approval, especially, for example, if it wasn’t a public health emergency or it’s a drug that already has others in the same category. They’re submitted as a standard approval.
Senator ROBERTS: Dedicated trials for their drugs, I understand, can be hundreds of millions of dollars. How much time and money would they save by going express?
Dr Skerritt: We would not give a provisional approval to a medicine unless there were clinical trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How much money does it save if they do a provisional without doing a formal or normal approval process? How much money does it save the drug company?
Dr Skerritt: I don’t believe there are necessarily savings. The situation would be different for every drug. It’s really important to emphasise there were very extensive clinical trials for the vaccines and treatments that have been through provisional approval.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to get the full approval process. Without the dedicated trial, they could save hundreds of millions of dollars per drug?
Dr Skerritt: I don’t necessarily agree with you.
Senator ROBERTS: When does the provisional approval for Pfizer expire?
Dr Skerritt: The two-year period will be two years from the anniversary of the first approval. I would emphasise that in certain countries—
Senator ROBERTS: What is that date?
Dr Skerritt: The products are now fully approved.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the date of provisional approval expiry?
Dr Skerritt: For the very first approval, for 16 years and over, the two-year period finishes on 25 January 2023.
Senator ROBERTS: I have in front of me a document called the Australian Public Assessment Report for Tozinameran, from Comirnaty (Pfizer), dated December 2021. Is this the approval application for the paediatric version of the Pfizer vaccine?
Dr Skerritt: No, it is not. An Australian Public Assessment Report is a summary of the assessment that we did of the application. You mentioned Pfizer. The actual application is over 220,000 thousand pages of paper from Pfizer for that particular group of vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: I reference page 61, which states:
Limitations of the current application data. Safety follow-up is currently limited to median 2.4 months post dose 2 in cohort 1, and 2.4 weeks for the safety expansion cohort.
What is the safety expansion cohort?
Dr Skerritt: Remember, also, this was going back to the time of approval. We now have hundreds of millions, actually more than a billion, people who have been vaccinated with that vaccine and experience going on since December 2020, when the first vaccination was done. The safety expansion cohort is in a clinical trial where individuals are monitored closely and the data reported back to regulators for periods of months, leading to years, after their vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you recommend this substance based on 2.4 weeks of safety testing or did you get more in? If so, over what period? How many months?
Dr Skerritt: Remember the initial approval from TGA was based on that two months of follow-up, but we also had the experience of other countries that had more than a month before starting mass vaccination campaigns. When we approved Pfizer on 25 January2021, we were in almost daily contact with the British, who by that stage had vaccinated millions of British people by 25 January 2021. Real-world evidence played a very important role in both the approvals and in the ongoing safety monitoring of these vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: So you relied on data from other countries and you relied for periods of months, merely months. It can’t be more than six months, because there’s a gap between application and approval and to give time for collection of data and analysis. There should be years of data before we start putting this stuff into our children, yet it’s months.
Dr Skerritt: I disagree in the context of a pandemic and a public health crisis. Regulators globally felt that it was appropriate to do initial approvals—
Senator ROBERTS: You’re the Australian regulator.
Dr Skerritt: As the head of the Australian regulator, I would do precisely the same if I had my time again. The alternative would have been to leave Australians unvaccinated through the course of 2020, 2021 and 2022, and there would have been tens of thousands more Australian deaths.
Senator ROBERTS: Can I reference a letter from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, signed by Radha Khiani, Director, Governance and Coordination section, in which the department makes this claim. The letter from 4 November 2022, just last week, states:
A large team of technical and clinical experts at the TGA carefully evaluated the data submitted by the sponsor. A treatment or vaccine is only provisionally approved if this rigorous process is completed.
This document concerned the use of Pfizer stages 2 to 3 cynical trial data in support of their application for provisional approval. Did the TGA check the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer? Did you check it?
Dr Skerritt: We did check the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data from Pfizer and we also took it to independent external medical experts as well as consumer representatives.
Senator ROBERTS: Referencing Freedom of Information No. 2289, in which the applicant requested a copy of the stage 2 and stage 3 clinical trial data, the TGA responded that the ‘TGA does not hold any relevant documents relating to the request’. That was a request for stages 2 to 3 clinical trial data.
Dr Skerritt: Without seeing what’s in your hand, I believe that you asked for individual patient data rather than the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. I can give you my word that we assessed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data; otherwise, what else did we do? Look at the colour of the label on the bottle? That is the main thing our team of several thousand clinicians look at in reviewing a new vaccine, the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data. It is the centrepiece.
Senator ROBERTS: The freedom-of-information request then asked for ‘any documents confirming the process of analysing this data to a decision, including meetings, notes, dates and times’. Again the TGA replied, ‘We have no relevant documents.’ Did you review the stage 2 and stage 3 data or not, and, if you did, why did you tell this freedom-of-information applicant you did not have these documents? Which document is the lie? One of them is.
Dr Skerritt: I don’t have that document in front of me. We can review it on notice. But we reviewed the phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trial data at length.
CHAIR: This really needs to be the last one so I can share the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want you to think about this and confirm it or otherwise: and ‘the trail data contained sufficient proof the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’; is that correct?
Dr Skerritt: Correct. Yes.
Transcript (click)
Senator ROBERTS: I asked a question earlier, Professor Skerritt, about the number of drugs approved under the full approval process, the normal process. If you exclude the number of drugs that you said were new uses for existing drugs and medical devices, what is the figure for new drugs approved under the full approval process in the last three years?
Dr Skerritt : It will be about 90, but I’ll give you the exact answer on notice. We approve between 30 and 40 new drugs a year.
Senator ROBERTS: You also confirmed your view that ‘the trial data contained sufficient proof that the vaccines were safe and effective, sufficient to meet the criteria for provisional approval’. Yet after 18 months and analysing the data, some of the world’s leading virologists and pharmacologists from UCLA, Stamford and here in Australia found that the ‘Stage 2 and Stage 3 trial data showed the vaccine was associated with a 36 per cent increase in serious adverse events’ and ‘out of every 10,000 people injected, 18 will experience a life-threatening or altering complication, and the vaccine should not have been approved, as it caused more harm than it prevented’. That’s what they said. One of the papers—there are several papers—is titled ‘Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomised trials in adults’. How could ATAGI review the data and conclude that everything was fine, with the world’s leading experts on the subject, in a peer reviewed and published paper, then finding the exact opposite? Did you approve the vaccine in a deal with colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry?
Dr Skerritt : I think that’s an offensive allegation, and we certainly did not.
Senator ROBERTS: You had colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr Skerritt : We did not approve the vaccine in a deal with colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.
Senator ROBERTS: You had colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry.
Dr Skerritt : I wouldn’t say that they were colleagues; we work with people. We also work with—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I mean: you worked with them.
Dr Skerritt : people in terms of the courts, including the criminal court. So, we work with people in the pharmaceutical industry and we work with other government people, but they’re not colleagues in the sense of working for the same organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you do a deal or come to an arrangement with the—
Dr Skerritt : No.
Senator ROBERTS: It could have been just provisional approval to get it through. Did you do that with the pharmaceutical industry?
Dr Skerritt : No. No, that’s an offensive and unfounded allegation, and I’d like you to withdraw it.
Senator ROBERTS: There are thousands of people who are dead, and we’ll get on to that in the next session.
Dr Skerritt : I disagree with you. There are 14 deaths associated with vaccines in Australia, all—
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get on to that in the next Senate estimates.
Dr Skerritt : I look forward to it.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, so do I.
While Labor’s Industrial Relations Bill is a rushed dog’s breakfast, I’m hoping to give it some redemption by including a clause that would stop companies from discriminating based on vaccination status.
There’s no reason for blanket mandates in workplaces given it will not protect workers or customers from infection. The IR Bill and my amendment are due to be voted on today.
Transcript
Minister, you look like you need a break, so I will give you a break from your legal jousting and setting up definitions of terms for the future. In proposing this bill, the government says the bill aims to secure jobs. My amendment on sheet 1768 goes to the heart of ensuring job security and protecting workers’ rights. To ensure job security, my amendment on sheet 1768 ensures that unjustified vaccine discrimination is stamped out in employment. The original bill inserts breastfeeding, intersex status and gender identity as attributes that the Fair Work Act protects from discrimination. This amendment copies that approach and simply adds COVID-19 vaccination status as an attribute protected from discrimination. The protection is still subject to the limits imposed on the other discrimination grounds in the Fair Work Act. An employer will not be in breach of the antidiscrimination grounds where the employer can prove, as they should have to, that it is a genuine and reasonable requirement of the position. This amendment is reasonable in its approach. It is not radical, because it uses and simply extends the existing mechanisms in the Fair Work Act.
We’ve long known that COVID vaccines do not stop transmission. Before this came apparent, however, getting vaccinated to ‘protect others’ was the justification many businesses used to roll out vaccine mandates. As a condition of keeping their job, many employees were coerced and still are being coerced into receiving COVID injections and boosters they do not want. The vaccine mandates cannot be justified, given the fact that vaccines do not guarantee protection from transmission.
The New South Wales Personal Injury Commission agrees with this view, with workers compensation being awarded for psychological distress stemming from mandates in the determination of Dawking and the Secretary of the Department of Education, handed down on 3 November. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, yet we are happy that judicial bodies are taking up this self-evident position that broad vaccine mandates cannot be justified.
Despite this, mandates are still in effect across much of the private sector. It’s clear that further legislative action must be taken. Businesses are simply ignoring the evidence against unjustified vaccine mandates. A clear message needs to be sent that unreasonable directions that infringe on workers’ rights have no place in Australian workplaces.
Often mandates do not even account for Australians that have accepted medical contra-indications to vaccination. The Australian newspaper reports that Qantas sacked a pilot for failing to comply with a vaccination mandate while he was off work in a serious health condition: being treated for bowel cancer. Separately, I’ve met a Qantas employee who, after being injected with the first COVID injection, was rushed to hospital with severe disability—possibly life-threatening—due to the COVID injection. After hospital care and partial recovery, he returned to work, where Qantas insisted he get the second injection. He contested it and is on a vastly reduced pay on workers’ compensation. He fears his career with Qantas is finished. How can this be in this country?
This amendment seeks to reinforce workers’ rights to refuse a workplace direction where it is not a reasonable and justified requirement of the job. It leaves no doubt for employees and employers that vaccine mandates must not be in place unless there is a reasonable and justifiable need for them. Minister, given that businesses continue to ignore workers’ rights in this area, will the government support this amendment to reinforce the decisions of the Fair Work Commission and codify protections for workers against unreasonable workplace directions?
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures show a shocking 67% reduction in the monthly birth rates from between July and December 2021. The Government claims I’ve got my facts wrong but the data is published on the ABS website for all to see. Guess what significant event lines up with roughly nine months prior to this data…
| Time Period | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
| Month of occurence | ||||||||||
| Total | 308,518 | 305,355 | 307,753 | 303,954 | 308,987 | 299,189 | 296,447 | 294,883 | 285,047 | 273,301 |
| · January | 25,745 | 26,135 | 25,344 | 25,575 | 25,398 | 25,373 | 25,529 | 24,796 | 24,611 | 24,793 |
| · February | 24,637 | 24,111 | 24,823 | 23,692 | 25,392 | 23,480 | 23,381 | 23,293 | 22,798 | 24,695 |
| · March | 26,397 | 26,405 | 26,438 | 26,172 | 27,365 | 26,426 | 25,768 | 25,632 | 24,794 | 27,433 |
| · April | 25,060 | 25,117 | 25,605 | 24,994 | 25,928 | 24,461 | 24,137 | 24,666 | 23,729 | 25,342 |
| · May | 26,394 | 26,486 | 25,964 | 25,199 | 26,293 | 25,608 | 25,387 | 26,004 | 24,424 | 25,669 |
| · June | 25,240 | 25,007 | 25,003 | 24,942 | 26,016 | 25,070 | 24,503 | 24,041 | 23,776 | 24,928 |
| · July | 25,940 | 25,719 | 26,325 | 26,347 | 25,785 | 24,973 | 24,915 | 25,049 | 24,490 | 24,905 |
| · August | 26,406 | 25,495 | 25,535 | 25,589 | 26,003 | 25,795 | 25,195 | 24,666 | 23,926 | 24,060 |
| · September | 25,463 | 25,575 | 26,383 | 26,027 | 26,248 | 25,185 | 24,385 | 24,557 | 23,760 | 23,558 |
| · October | 26,914 | 25,931 | 26,794 | 26,009 | 25,661 | 25,156 | 25,344 | 25,616 | 23,806 | 23,073 |
| · November | 25,392 | 24,507 | 24,353 | 24,194 | 24,387 | 23,888 | 24,123 | 23,332 | 22,238 | 18,186 |
| · December | 24,930 | 24,867 | 25,186 | 25,214 | 24,511 | 23,774 | 23,780 | 23,231 | 22,695 | 6,659 |
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:28): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. It has been four weeks since the Australian Bureau of Statistics published data showing a 67 per cent reduction in Australia’s monthly birthrate between July and December 2021 as compared to the long-term average—a startling decrease. I drew attention to this data during Senate estimates, hoping for some reassurance. None was forthcoming. Let me ask again: Minister, why has Australia’s birthrate declined from 30 June 2021 to 31 December 2021, revealing a 70 per cent reduction?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:29): I thank Senator Roberts for the question and I recall the discussion that we had at estimates and the fact that we requested, from Senator Roberts, some time to go through the information that he tabled in that hearing. I haven’t got that information back, but I think the advice given by the chief medical officer—who I was sitting next to—and me was that the data you were using didn’t align with the information we had. We hadn’t seen a drop-off of that size, which would be quite noticeable. In fact, that financial year of reporting, which incorporated births, actually showed the strongest birth record achieved so far—we had seen more births during that period. I’ll have to come back to you, because you tabled some documents in that meeting and the Department of Health took them away. If there’s anything further way in which I can advise you, I will do so.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:30): Minister, that’s not as I remember it, but we’ll wait for your response. Is there any systematic information-sharing between the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Health to keep an eye on key indicators reflecting on our COVID measures, or does the Australian Bureau of Statistics just publish critical data like this in due course and hope that somebody notices at some time?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:30): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. The ABS work very closely alongside other departments with the data that they are collecting, and they keep an eye on tracking any significant changes. If the ABS saw something in their data that would concern them—and I would imagine the numbers you’re citing about declines in birth numbers in one month would raise attention—it would be dealt with across government. In their cause of death publication the ABS reported that there had been 15 deaths due to the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. That was against vaccinations of 42.5 million vaccines administered in that year.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (14:32): Minister, what specifically is the government doing to get to the bottom of this staggering decline in births?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council) (14:32): The first thing—and I remember this quite clearly from estimates—was that we undertook to look at the information you tabled in that hearing and align that with some of the data the ABS were collecting. They collect their births and deaths data as soon as it is available from the state and territory registries of births, deaths and marriages. The first thing we need to do is to get to the bottom of the numbers that you provided and make sure that the data that we got from the ABS, which I saw in that hearing, didn’t align with the numbers that you tabled.
I have no doubt that, as the truth comes to light, history will judge those in this Parliament as cowards for failing to stand up against the COVID B.S.
Read the study, COVID-19 vaccines – An Australian Review by Conny Turni and Astrid Lefringhausen here.
Watch the COVID INQUIRY 2.0 videos here.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that at the European parliament inquiry into COVID two weeks ago, Janine Small, the President of International Developed Markets for Pfizer revealed that the Pfizer vaccine injection was never tested to see if it would prevent transmission—never tested. Small went on to say this was because Pfizer had to work at the speed of science. Well, it seems the speed of science and the velocity of money are the same thing. Shameful decisions were taken deliberately to facilitate big pharma getting their injections to market in time. The mouthpiece media have the same large investment funds on their share register as big pharma. It’s no surprise the mouthpiece media amplified the COVID scare, doubling down on fear porn and demonising anyone who clung to ‘my body, my choice’, just so the media’s shareholders could line their pockets with tens of billions of dollars in windfall profits.
I remember when the political left walked behind banners reading ‘my body, my choice’. Now real conservatives hold those banners high while the Left abuse us. How fast the Left abandon their principles when an opportunity to tell people what to do comes along, to control people. It was clear after just four months of COVID the scary Chinese videos of people dropping dead in the streets should not have been taken at face value. Measures taken out of an abundance of caution in March 2020 should have been re-examined just a few months later, as we requested and suggested. They never were. At the time, the data clearly showed COVID was no more deadly than a severe flu and well under anything the public would consider to be a pandemic. Let me support that statement.
The following data is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics published in part as a result of a One Nation document discovery a few weeks ago. In 2019, the year before COVID, the seasonal flu cost 4,126 lives. The next year, in 2020, Australia recorded 882 deaths from COVID and 2,287 deaths from the flu for a total of 3,196 deaths, 1,000 less than before COVID, almost a thousand less than the flu alone killed the previous year. In 2021, 1,137 deaths were recorded from COVID and 2,073 from the flu, for a total of 3,210. This means deaths from the flu including COVID across the first two years of the so-called pandemic were right on the long-term average of 3,255. There was nothing unusual about the Australian death rate in 2020 or 2021 yet the COVID substances—I won’t call them vaccines—the COVID injections, were given emergency approval. The only thing about our death rate in 2020 that was unusual was that it was at a seven-year low. These are facts. This makes a joke of provisional approval granted for injections out of urgency. There was no urgency. It is not just the vaccines that were inappropriately approved; dangerous drugs like the antiviral Remdesivir were waved through using the same false urgency. Remdesivir’s side effects include respiratory failure and organ failure. The perfectly safe but out-of-patent antiviral ivermectin was banned to make way for remdesivir—banned, proven, banned. The UK has recently put ivermectin back into use. We must as well. The conclusion an increasing number of Australians are coming to is that our health technocrats tore up our tried and true health systems to shift products for their mates in the pharmaceutical industry, and now people are dying from those same products.
Once the injection rollout started, there was a spike in deaths. It must be noted correlation is not causation. The link between the cause—vaccines—and the effect—death, injury and suffering—must be proven. Well, it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. At my second COVID Under Question inquiry in August, many highly-qualified medical professionals from around the world established that link, providing evidence the injections were responsible for many more deaths than the health technocrats admit.
Late last month, the Clinical and Experimental Immunology journal published an article entitled ‘COVID-19 vaccines—an Australian review’. The authors are Conny Turni and Astrid Lefringhausen, from the University of Queensland. This article details the medical science behind the wide range of medical harms inflicted on Australians as a result of the hubris and the criminal negligence of health technocrats. I promised to hound you people down, and now science has done that for me. The issue of vaccine harm must be referred to a royal commission today. These criminals must be brought to justice. This report is reproduced on my website, and anyone who reads this report and still defends the fake vaccines is as guilty as the companies that made it.
It’s no surprise that COVID has spiked in correlation with the rollout of the fake vaccines. ABS data is not yet available for 2022, although Australian actuarial data is. In the first four months of 2022, death from all respiratory diseases—the flu, pneumonia and COVID taken together—is still at normal levels, yet deaths from cardiac and pulmonary events are up 11 per cent, and unexplained deaths are up 13 per cent. At this rate, an extra 10,000 Australians will die in 2022. Anyone reading the journal article I referred to will know exactly why this is happening. I refuse to believe our health technocrats do not know. A royal commission must ask what they knew and when.
In May 2020 I criticised fear-driven response to COVID in the Senate, within months of this mismanagement of COVID. At that time Senator Hanson and I were the lone voices of dissent in the Senate, and Craig Kelly and George Christensen were the lone voices in the other place, and Senators Rennick and Antic joined us—six representatives out of 227 people. Everyone else in both houses displayed an ignorance of proper scientific process, an inability to read empirical data and a misplaced trust of health bureaucrats. Health technocrats have spent their entire professional lives working closely with the pharmaceutical industry. And we expected them to be impartial. Come on! We delegated authority to the last people who should have been trusted with that authority.
The Senate is the house of review. Every aspect of our COVID response should have been scrutinised to the last detail. The Senate failed in that mission. COVID measures were beyond question, and it seems they still are. Rather than review, the Senate covered up. Senators Rennick and Antic, in company with myself and Senator Hanson, tried to draw out the truth and were demonised for doing so. Not one senator amongst the political Left entertained a moment’s thought that fear-driven response could be harming more people than it helped. ‘Resistance is futile’ was the message repeated at every press conference on every television in every house of parliament. New Zealand, Canada, the UK and America all joined in the circus of despair, designed to scare people into taking a substance they knew would cause serious harm and death.
Even today, vaccine mandates are still in place around Australia. The reality of a falling birth rate, unexplained increases in deaths and more than 130,000 cases of vaccine harm here in Australia is being ignored. Still, we are told the injection is safe and effective. Safe and effective is not one lie; it is two lies. The vaccine is neither safe nor effective. Medical practitioners who stood up for the rights of their patients were deregistered after action from big pharma’s enforcement arm, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency—under the direction, it seems, of CEO Martin Fletcher and Yvette D’Ath, as chair of the Health Ministers Meeting. They’re the ones who were in control. These technocrats decided they knew what was best for patients—better than the patient’s own doctor. AHPRA must be referred to the royal commission—and the TGA, ATAGI, the Chief Medical Officer, the secretary of the federal health department and Greg Hunt, the federal health minister at the time.
The vaccine emergency use authorisation expires early next year. An inquiry into how the vaccines went would normally be conducted, but they need to stop now. The emergency authorisation needs to stop. I do not have confidence the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, ATAGI, will be honest and impartial in this inquiry. They have not been so far. Only a royal commission can decide all of the issues I have raised tonight. One royal commissioner will not be enough for the litany of legal and regulatory abuse, medical practice, financial malfeasance, conflict of interest, child abuse, human rights abuse and the shredding of international agreements Australia has endured for 2½ years.
The harm from our COVID response was foreseeable and preventable. If only the Senate, the ultimate house of review, had had the courage to stand up and call bullshit. The Senate did not.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Chandler ): Order! Senator Roberts, that language isn’t parliamentary. I ask that you withdraw or find another word.
Senator ROBERTS: I retract that—the brown stuff.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: The Senate did not. As a result, the public has lost confidence in the medical profession, health administration and politicians. To his credit, member of parliament Dan Tehan publicly admitted his silence last year was wrong. This week a survey in the Daily Telegraph found that, based on the 50,000 respondents, 37 per cent of Australians who took the vaccine regret it. Only 43 per cent said they would do it again. The damage to the reputation of our once-trusted medical institutions can only be repaired with a royal commission to unravel the lies and get to the truth, and, in so doing, ensure this tyranny, this suffering and this loss of life never happens again.
I have no doubt that, when the truth comes to light, history will judge those in this place as being cowards all. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and Australians want justice.
Dear Prime Minister
One of my constituents, Dr Phillip Altman, has approached me with concerning information about the gene-based COVID vaccination rollout.
On 10 September 2022 he delivered a presentation in Melbourne to the Australian Medical Professionals Society, a nationwide body of doctors and allied health professionals.
Fully supported with strong and compelling data, he highlighted the shortcomings of the Australian and State governments’ approaches to COVID-19 management.
Dr Altman has a background of 40 years’ experience working with the pharmaceutical industry and the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
His evidence makes it clear that the previous federal government and agencies, including AHPRA and the TGA and State Governments, made decisions that were detrimental to Australians and the Australian economy.
Many of those decisions led to avoidable deaths and injuries to Australians who had been assured that these new generation gene-based injections, labelled as “vaccines”, were safe and effective.
This was a lie.
The COVID “vaccines” have never been fully approved and, by definition, have not been shown to be safe or effective, as Dr Altman has clearly stated.
The drug companies were aware of the dangers of the injections yet marketed them aggressively in the knowledge that the injections presented serious health risks, including death.
The TGA relied on limited quality, safety and efficacy data to provisionally approve these gene-based “vaccines”, which have never before been used on such a massive scale and in healthy people, including children and adolescents, without due consideration of risk and benefit.
The TGA approvals still remain provisional or conditional and do not have full approval status in Australia, or anywhere else, due to the lack of data, especially the total lack of long-term safety data for these serious gene-based injections that have never before been deployed.
The TGA effectively placed a prohibition on doctors prescribing Ivermectin off-label, citing concerns of toxicity, supply issues and possible interference with “vaccine” uptake. The claims of Ivermectin toxicity were reckless and unsupportable, the supply issues did not eventuate, and the Australian population is largely fully “vaccinated”.
A recently announced TGA review of the poison scheduling of Ivermectin represents the first sign of a long-awaited possible reappraisal of the disastrous COVID health policies that have severely damaged the nation.
Of particular concern to me has been AHPRA’s attitude when dealing with doctors or allied health professionals who have challenged some of the publicly made policy statements that the “vaccines” are safe and effective, or that oppressive mandates are necessary to protect the Australian population.
AHPRA has threatened to revoke, or has actually revoked the registration of some of those challengers, on the alleged grounds that even asking questions represents an imminent risk to public health or safety and should be considered serious misconduct.
I note with deep concern the proposed amendment to the new National Law, that if passed by the Queensland Parliament, would empower AHPRA to deregister or suspend health professionals with a new paramount principal inserted into the scheme.
It would replace the current guiding paramount principle, which is that “health and safety of the public are paramount” with “public confidence in the safety and services provided”. Public confidence will now replace care and safety. This is a disgraceful scam.
This conflicts with the doctors’ Code of Conduct in which the “care of your patient is your primary concern”.
This proposed change will reduce the quality of medical care because it now places a wedge into the doctor/patient relationship, preventing a doctor from expressing honest and informed professional advice based on a patient’s individual circumstances when this advice is at any variance to population-wide, one-size-fits-all, general health policy.
It will prevent provision of a complete view about benefits and material risks of a proposed treatment to the patient, thereby failing to gain fully informed consent from the patient, a fundamental principle embodied in the well-established health practitioner Code of Conduct.
A doctor will run the risk of deregistration if they comply with the code of conduct and common law obligations to disclose all material risks prior to seeking the patient’s consent.
They will run the risk of deregistration if the medical view is in contrast with government policy that non-medical bureaucrats or politicians made, even if the doctor’s view is logical and scientifically sound.
This proposed legislation must not proceed and must not become part of the National Law.
I attach a transcript of Dr Altman’s presentation and briefing paper on the proposed changes to the National Law and look forward to your considered response at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm Roberts
Senator for Queensland
Phillip Altman joins me on TNT radio for a special 2 hours on the Time of COVID.
This man is described as having the best court affidavits in the country. They’re objective, they’re factual. They’re not based on opinions. They’re based on data. There’s no exaggeration. There’s no emotion. This is a wonderfully emotional, sensitive man, but he doesn’t use emotions in making arguments.
He uses logic and data. He has a calm voice. He has a deliberate well-chosen words. This man is accurate. Now, we brought him into the COVID fray to help with getting ivermectin approved some months… well probably 18 months ago.
When I say we, one of my staff recommended him, and we assigned him to a doctor. And he was very helpful there. Then he started to realise what was going on. Now, this man is one of the leading players in this country, fighting for freedom, raising people’s awareness, fighting for the vaccine injured, fighting for the relatives of those who’ve died as a result of the COVID injections. I shouldn’t call them vaccines or injections, unproven gene therapy-based treatments.
Transcript
Part 1
Speaker 1:
This is the Malcolm Roberts Show on Today’s News Talk Radio TNT.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, good day and welcome. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts broadcasting from Brisbane in Queensland Australia. Thank you for having me, wherever you are, whether it’s your lounge room, your bedroom, your bathroom maybe, your garage, your men’s shed, your back deck, front porch, wherever you are, whichever country you are on this beautiful little planet of ours. As usual, we will be talking about two themes, freedom and responsibility, the key to human progress and personal happiness in security. We’re going to have two hours today. Both hours are going to be with a very special man who has had decades of experience working with big pharma and with Australian medical bureaucrats.
He will provide the most extensive coverage of COVID to date. Before getting onto that though, we need to acknowledge the news that’s going on in the last week, two weeks since I was last with you. The queen has passed. I want to acknowledge my appreciation, my gratitude for her service. This woman has served remarkably for decades, the longest serving head of state of our country, of Britain, of the longest serving Monarch in Britain’s history. I want to also acknowledge that we are a constitutional monarchy. In that, we are effectively a Republic because the Republic is run by rule of law. It’s a system of governance that requires laws that are supreme.
It’s very important to understand that our constitution is the our governing document of our nation. The queen, unless she’s passed and now the king does not rule us. We are not ruled by these people. They provide a role in there that’s a medium, but we resort to them for clarification on certain decisions. They do not rule us. Unlike in Britain, where they effectively can rule, but in essence, don’t. We are a constitutional monarchy. The constitution recognises the queen or the king, but the constitution is the governing document. Now we’ve got talk, stupid talk about a Republic that people want to dissolve our constitution, and put in place a politician’s constitution.
This country is wonderfully unique I understand, if not unique entirely on its own than with a handful of countries in which the people voted for the constitution, the people voted for the document that governs them. Now, that’s why I remember back when I was in my 20s, there was a movement led by Malcolm Turnbull to replace the constitution with a politician’s constitution. I was in favour of that initially, because I was ignorant of our constitutional monarchy and our constitution. And I supported it, until I heard three justices from the high court, including the chief justice speaker to conference in Brisbane. And I switched because I realised instead of having a people’s constitution, Malcolm Turnbull and his Republic movement wanted a politician’s constitution.
I don’t know about you, but I’m far better off I believe under a people’s constitution. And some people say, “What about Prince Andrew and all the others that have been making headlines for the wrong reasons?” Well, point to me a family that does not have its issues. What we’ve got remember above all is that we have got a constitutional monarchy. The monarchs from Britain do not rule us, the constitution rules us. We’ve also had another topic that’s really serious, probably the most far reaching legislation, very innocent in its call, but taking us to supposedly net zero. The minister pushing it in the Senate just last week could not provide me with any evidence that we need this.
And in fact, she gave me 20 papers supposedly as evidence, but they were papers like the topic, titled something this. The effect of climate change on a tropical mountain. I kid you not, These people do not even understand because and effect. The papers she gave me almost universally assume climate change is real and being caused by us, and then talk about the consequences. That’s not what I want. What I want is proof that we are causing climate change, and we need to do something about it. We also in the Senate, I asked questions about COVID death and birth data. We got an order for production of documents, and we saw some of the ABS data that has been withheld slowly coming out as a result of my effort in the Senate, my staff effort in the Senate.
We got a long way to go, but it’s initially very, very revealing, deaths are up and they’re not aligned with COVID. They’re aligned with something else. We all know what they are, and that’s the huge number of adverse events and adverse effects, and deaths due to the COVID injections. The Mouthpiece Media shuts it up. They’re silent. The Mouthpiece Media misrepresent climate. The Mouthpiece Media misrepresent what’s happening in the Ukraine. Now, we’ve got the US imposing sanctions on China supposedly because of Taiwan. We have got this same people driving all of this agenda, but another thing I’m very proud to have been a part of. My staff and I have been working on the Iron Boomerang project which is billions of dollars’ worth of investment.
And people already lining up major steel companies wanting to set up steel mills in the east coast of Queensland, the west coast of Western Australia, taking the iron ore from Western Australia on a transcontinental railway, especially built for the purpose bringing iron ore to the east, and then taking coal to the west. And we would become a very large significant player in the steel industry. These are wonderful things, and we managed to get that now the subject of a Senate inquiry, but let’s move to my guest, and what a wonderful man he is. Last Saturday, he addressed a group of doctors and communities in Melbourne. When he finished his 22-minute speech, he got a standing ovation.
This man is described as having the best court affidavits in the country. They’re objective, they’re factual. They’re not based on opinions. They’re based on data. There’s no exaggeration. There’s no emotion. This is a wonderfully emotional, sensitive man, but he doesn’t use emotions in making arguments. He uses logic and data. He has a calm voice. He has a deliberate well-chosen words. This man is accurate. Now, we brought him into the COVID fray to help with getting ivermectin approved some months… well probably 18 months ago. When I say we, one of my staff recommended him, and we assigned him to a doctor. And he was very helpful there. Then he started to realise what was going on.
Now, this man is one of the leading players in this country, fighting for freedom, raising people’s awareness, fighting for the vaccine injured, fighting for the relatives of those who’ve died as a result of the COVID injections. I shouldn’t call them vaccines or injections, unproven gene therapy-based treatments. I want to welcome Dr. Phillip Altman. Hi there Phillip.
Phillip Altman:
Hi Malcolm. Thanks for having me.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, thank you so much for being here. We’re going to have the whole two hours with you, and then we’re going to really, really go into your speech in depth. Before we start, something you appreciate, anything at all.
Phillip Altman:
Well, perhaps I should just let your listeners know a little bit about my history, and where I’ve come from.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, before then Phillip, something you appreciate, anything at all.
Phillip Altman:
Something that I appreciate?
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes. Right now, what do you appreciate?
Phillip Altman:
Well, I think I appreciate the people around me who are fighting like you wouldn’t believe for truth in relation to COVID. There are so many heroes here, I just cannot name them all. These are people that work night and day to try and overcome the mask censorship, which prevails here and overseas. Most people have no idea what the truth of COVID really is, and there are people fighting against all odds to try and bring the truth to people. And I just admire them so much.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I must say I’ve got a copy of your slides from last week, and you said truth and trust, casualties of the pandemic. And I wrote down the words deceit, betrayal, and potentially genocide. They’re pretty startling comments, but let’s take you up on your offer. Tell me your background please, so the listeners understand who this man is.
Phillip Altman:
All right. Well, I’ve been on TNT before and some of your listeners might have heard this story. But basically, my history is one of big pharma. I started off with a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy at Sydney University, went on to complete a master’s at the same department of pharmacy, and then a PhD in drug development. I was researching a new class of car cardio to drugs, and that really set me up for joining the industry. I joined the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. I worked there for many, many years. I think my first job in the industry was probably about 1973. Worked for several big pharma companies as a staff member. And after a number of years, I decided I knew enough, I could become a consultant. And I was a one man band for a while, and very successful.
And it grew and grew and grew, and I eventually ended up with a company which was called a contract research organisation, a CRO. Now, there are CROs all over the world now, but I started Australia’s first CRO. And I employed scientists, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, health economists, statisticians, and so forth. Drug companies could come to me, could come to my company and I could assist them to lodge and evaluate new drug applications, to design clinical trials, to run clinical trials, to write clinical trial reports. We did absolutely everything. We were basically a mini drug company, not with products of our own, but we did all the signs that was needed behind the approval for new drugs.
I was used to evaluating the quality of data. I used to evaluate data packages for big pharma. Before I would submit them, draught applications, draught reports for big pharma. I worked very closely with the TGA over four decades. I know exactly how they operate. I know exactly what their standards are. I knew the people very, very well. They knew me. I have to admit it, I have been a big pharma guy.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I think things have changed in big pharma recently, but we all recognise sometimes, we haven’t been with the good guys. And that’s to your credit, you’ve recognised that. And you’ve now become the strongest expose of what they’ve been doing. So, around four decades Phillip?
Phillip Altman:
Yeah, yeah, sure.
Malcolm Roberts:
Okay.
Phillip Altman:
And when this pandemic first came about, I was as fearful as anyone else, right? And I was a very interested in what was going on with operation warp speed, with these so-called vaccines. This was blue sky tech technology that I had never seen before, and my first interest was picked by the way ivermectin was being attacked in the media. And it just didn’t make any sense to me, because ivermectin is a very valuable drug worldwide. It’s an incredible drug. It’s on the WHO list of essential drugs used for parasitic infections. In general, it’s considered to be a relatively safe drug, much safer than paracetamol, right? And has done amazing things in the world. The discoverers of ivermectin won the Nobel Prize in medicine. It’s that important.
And when it was being demonised, I started to talk to some doctors. And I just couldn’t understand what the hell was going on, and then my interest was peaked in these so-called vaccines. And it began to worry me, because it just didn’t seem to make a lot of sense. The spike protein which these gene-based therapies produce is the toxic component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And to use that is a mechanism, to produce the antibodies just to my mind did make a lot of sense. I started to get interested. And since then, I’ve been talking to lots of people. And basically because I’m the only person in Australia that has extensive clinical trial and drug regulatory affairs experience, is prepared to talk about these issues and come forward.
I’m at an intersection between scientists, clinicians, lawyers and so forth. And I’ve spent much of my time in the last year writing affidavits. I write affidavits. They’re not opinion pieces. They’re just factual pieces of evidence to assist the court in terms of vaccine mandates, in cases where you have two parents who split up and one parent wants to inject the child and another doesn’t. They go to family court, there’s that, but there’s big cases too, like the judicial review cases in Australia for the five to 11 year olds. There’s the similar case in New Zealand in the high court there. I wrote leading affidavits for both those cases, and commented on the decisions of the department of health in New Zealand and the Department of Health here, who I know well.
So, that’s been my main activity. But I must say in recent times, having looked at all the data and I follow it… I get up in the morning, and I make myself some coffee. And I sit down and plough through paper after paper that’s been published and sent to me that day. A lot of people send me papers, and I just try and educate myself every day as to what the latest information is. And I’ve really come to a point where this whole situation with COVID is now reached a level, where we know the facts. I’ve gone a little bit past [inaudible 00:18:09] of the data.
Malcolm Roberts:
Excuse me, excuse me Dr. Altman.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts:
Excuse me Dr. Altman. Phillip, we need to take an ad break now and then listeners will be back. And we’ll explore exactly what this man said last Saturday, and we’ll get his own comments on it. Stay right here, we’ll be back in just a minute and we’ll be continuing and unlocking what is in Dr. Phillip Altman’s mind and experience in his heart.
Male:
You should hear what Jeremy Nell is talking about.
Jeremy Nell:
Yesterday was 911. I’m going to do a full deep dive with Joe Olson, who is an absolute engineering guru. And he has spent years on this.
Joe Olson:
They had copies of the stamped New York city approved structural plans for world trade centres one and two. The buildings are almost identical, and then they also had the stamp plans for world trade centre seven. I sat there and reviewed the plans. And it was like, “My God, there’s no way an aeroplane can knock down this building, and then they had split screen with side by side comparisons of a admitted controlled demolition on one side, and the world trading centre buildings coming down on the other side.” Both of them that free fall because you knock out all of the supports inside the building. I’m watching that and it’s like, “Jesus Christ, this is 100% controlled demolition.”
Male:
Jeremy Nell on Today’s News Talk TNT radio.
Male:
Let’s take advantage of the freedom that we have while we have them to advance the kingdom’s objective, to be Salton light.
Male:
Freedom is hard. Elections security involves you, involves the voters.
Male:
This election for people of faith, it’s vital that we see a change because the war against Christians is a all-time high. Transparency is the key not only to having honest elections, but to maintaining public trust in those elections.
Female:
Our ability to vote is not being withheld from us. No one’s trying to stop you from voting.
Male:
The one place the American people can have a say is at the ballot box. That’s why the Democrats and in the far left are working so hard to get rid of all election integrity.
Male:
We cannot let our elections be anything, but transparent. It is at the very heart of freedom and a free society.
Female:
And if we lose America, I mean it’s all over because the world has looked to America for hope.
Male:
Free and Fair at salemnow.com.
Speaker 1:
For the news and talk, you can’t hear anywhere else. It’s TNT Radio.
Malcolm Roberts:
Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts in Brisbane, Queensland Australia. I’ve got Dr. Phillip Altman with me. He’s had 40 years working with big pharma, 40 years working with the bureaucrats. He’s got an American accent. We might talk about that later, but he’s been in Australia for decades. He understands the process of approval and every aspect of drug approval, drug testing. He understands the science. He understands how to evaluate data. He’s worked with the TGA for four decades. He’s been very familiar with the wonderful drug, the Nobel Prize winning drug ivermectin, and was stunned. And that’s what woke him coming into this discussion on COVID, because they withdrew ivermectin.
He understands clinical trials and drug regulations. He understands the Department of Health federally. He updates himself every day, and that’s what I look at, someone who can say, “Hang on a minute, there’s something wrong here. And maybe I’ve been a part of it, but I need to do my bit.” And he listens, and he gathers data daily basis, even though he’s retired because he has such care for people. Now, I’m going to go through his speech with him that he delivered last Saturday and got a standing ovation for. It was at a conference entitled Reclaiming Medicine Conference. Reclaiming medicine, that’s right because the title is because they have stolen the medical profession from doctors.
When we go to doctors these days, unless we have a fine doctor who’s courageous and has integrity, we are not getting his opinion or her opinion. We’re getting the medical bureaucrat’s orders. I understand it was organised by the Australian medical professional society, which is now starting to represent and is growing rapidly, starting to represent doctors who are honest and strong, very concerned about where medicine is not going in this country. And I understand that doctors and lawyers spoke. Dr. Phillip Altman was opened his speech with these words. “I’m not going to sugarcoat this presentation, and I’m also not going to waste your time going over the mountain of scientific evidence and statistics that show the Australian people have been deceived. We have been lied to.”
Then he went on and said, “We must face reality the COVID gene-based vaccines have undoubtedly failed to live up to expectations.” Now, this is a man Who’s an expert in this field, not only on the drugs, but in approval process and science and analysis. Then he goes on these so-called vaccines do not prevent infection. They do not prevent transmission of infection, and they are not keeping people out of hospital. These so-called vaccines are not safe. I’ll say that again, are not safe. They have caused more deaths and serious adverse effects than any drug in the history of medicine way, way more by the way. Anyone who disagrees with these simple facts just has not bothered to look.”
Going to be discussing with Phillip, his speech very, very strong, clear, unequivocal statements. Okay, the first statement that I’d like to inquire with is you said countless thousands of health professionals and scientists across the world, including myself that’s you are totally convinced these vaccines are doing more harm than good. Could you please explain?
Phillip Altman:
Yeah. These gene-based vaccines are a completely new class of therapeutic good of drug, and they were rushed to development in 10 months. It usually takes about seven to 10 years to research and develop, and demonstrate that vaccines are safe and effective. These were rushed to the market in 10 months, and they were rushed to the market without the normal safety testing. Now, what that means is that we are all reliant on the postmarketing, adverse drug reaction reporting, which is a voluntary reporting system after drugs are released, but these drugs were not just released to a small group of seriously ill people. They were released worldwide to everyone, to healthy people, to people that were not at risk, to adolescents that were not at risk, to children, to pregnant women.
And now, infants is as young as six months of age, all healthy…
Malcolm Roberts:
And Phillip, despite what the previous prime minister said in his lies, they were coerced. They were forced on people. Hideous.
Phillip Altman:
They were, and it’s just unconscionable because our chief health officers were running around the country and appearing on TV and elsewhere, saying that these things were, “Safe and efficacious” without any qualification. That is reprehensible. It’s actually against the law, because they’re not entitled to say that. They have not been fully evaluated. The safety data has not been provided, has not been evaluated. They couldn’t say that and of course, companies interpreted that statement at its face value, and gave them licence to enforce vaccine mandates. Really if you know the truth that these things were rushed to development without the normal safety testing done, no long term safety at all there.
I mean I can tell you there’s huge questions about the long term safety. They rush to market very quickly, not fully approved and an employer turns around and says, “You have to receive this gene-based therapy.” It’s not even a vaccine. This gene-based therapy this new class of drug that’s only been researched for 10 months. And if you don’t accept receiving this drug, you can’t hold a job. It’s never been done before. It leaves me speechless that this is actually still going on, and the TGA know the data. They know what’s happening in the world with what’s called excess deaths, and excess deaths all around the world now, not only Australia. It’s up about 17%, but in almost every country, excess deaths, non-COVID deaths.
I’m talking about non-COVID related deaths. These are cancer deaths. These are cardiovascular deaths, heart attacks, stroke and so forth are up all over the world significantly. And these excess deaths correspond very closely with the rollout of COVID 19 so-called vaccines and yet our TGA, USFDA, the European regulatory agency stand by and say nothing. And vaccine mandates are still being in post. I was in court last week in regard to one of my affidavits. I was an expert witness, and I appeared. And guess, what not a single question was asked of me regarding the data that I presented. The other side just wanted to attack me personally, and we never even got to a single question about the safety and efficacy of these gene based vaccines.
And I have written extensively on this topic and made submissions to the government to, which of course they haven’t responded. And it’s just-
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, thank you so much…
Phillip Altman:
… very dismaying.
Malcolm Roberts:
It is indeed, but what it shows me with that last little statement you made is that they are afraid of you. If they could counter your facts, they would. When they can’t, they smear instead and they go for the man. They play the man, rather than the ball. So, that’s very encouraging for me. Sorry to have to say that, even though they’re denigrating you, but that’s wonderful news that they cannot have a case. Let’s move on. Before we get deeply involved in these injections, let’s go on to your next statement that you made in your speech last Saturday, and here’s a quote.
“We have been misled and repeatedly lied to by our celebrity health bureaucrats over the need for lockdowns, the effectiveness of paper and cloth mask, and the completely brainless vaccine mandates, which have no basis in science. The level of confidence has been breathtaking.” Again, please explain Dr. Phillip Altman.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah, the level of incompetence has been breathtaking When you think back about. When our celebrity so-called health experts appear in the media, what do they tell you? They were telling us the number of so-called COVID deaths, which weren’t really all COVID deaths. There were only a minor of the number of deaths that were reported were actually COVID deaths, because they were determining a COVID death as anyone who had a positive PCR test and died, right? You can have a positive PCR test and have absolutely no symptoms of COVID. Also, they know the data on cloth and paper mask. There is no scientific evidence that paper and cloth mask do anything. It’s like trying to keep mosquitoes out of your backyard with a cyclone fence.
They know this. They know it, and yet they’re silent. They let people drive around in total fear in their cars, wearing a mask with their windows up. It’s really unbelievable. That’s why what I was trying to say before in my previous, presentations on radio, or to the media. I constantly referred to data to try and convince people about what was going on, but I’m past that now. The data is clear, the data is consistent from country to country. It is so overwhelming. It is undeniable, and the most astounding fact is that out well-paint so-called vaccine experts are silent. They don’t refer to this data. They’ve never referred to excess deaths. Excess deaths is astronomical.
It’s killing hundreds of thousands of people, and yet they say nothing about it. They have statisticians that record the excess deaths. The Australian Bureau of Statistics know exactly the number of excess deaths. Has the TGA come out and mentioned excess death? Has a chief medical officer come out and said, “Hmm, look, this is concerning. We’d like to look into this”? No, there’s nothing, not a glimmer of curiosity at all.
Malcolm Roberts:
It’s worse Phillip. It’s far worse because the ABS has kept back withheld data for about 18 months. One state, Victoria publishes its death data within two weeks of the end of the month, each month. Some other states do not, but they all have the ability to do so. The ABS has withheld death data for 18 months because of exactly what you just said. They have also withheld the birth data, which shows plummeting birth rates. These are really serious things. I also want to move on by saying that the Queensland health minister a few months ago reported that the number of category one that’s serious heart conditions hospital ambulance transports in Queensland has increased 40%. Then she had the goal to say, ‘I wonder what’s causing that.” So, let’s come back to your speech.
We’ll go onto your next paragraph. Here you go again, “Not only did we receive really incompetent advice, such as you can catch COVID from pizza boxes, and ivermectin is really a horse deworming medicine unsuitable for human use, but these same celebrity health experts still have their jobs. These so-called experts have given us a long list of misinformation and disinformation from the very beginning, which continues to this very day, which is resulting in serious health and social consequences. There is no reflection, no introspection, no contemplation, no apologies, and certainly no changing course, despite the clear facts. And orchestrated mask media censorship allows the disinformation to go unchallenged.
The media is complicit. It is shameful, deplorable, and disgraceful.” And Dr. Altman who the hell pays the wages of these people, these bureaucrats? And why are they doing this?
Phillip Altman:
Well, look, in the beginning, very few people knew what the hell was going on, right? I didn’t know much about it. It’s been a learning exercise for me. It has taken a lot of work. And in the beginning, I cut these people slack, because I’ve dealt with the TGA for decades. They’re not nasty people. They’re not dishonest, and they’re very intelligent. They’re very capable, and Australia had a TGA that you could be proud of. And I was proud to work with them. But as the information has now unfolded, there is no doubt that serious mistakes have been made and yet, I see no reflection on the part of these people.
And that is why in the beginning, I thought, “Oh okay, maybe it’s a noble lie thing. Maybe it is a bit of incompetence that the people at the top. I don’t know, but now that we know the data and the data is clear, and they do not come out and say look, let’s reflect on this like the Americans have done.” Both at the CDC, Director Walensky has come out and admitted it. Dr. Burkes who headed up the US response to the pandemic has admitted. They made fundamental errors and miscalculations. And it wasn’t driven by science at all. They’ve admitted that more than a month ago our TGA has been silent, and I believe they’ve been silent because Australia has been singled out with New Zealand as a pilot test case to see how far this COVID pandemic can be pushed in terms of control.
We have in Australia-
Malcolm Roberts:
I agree with you.
Phillip Altman:
… people who are power brokers from overseas, who are giving instructions to our government leaders. And they are taking those instructions, and that’s the only way I can explain it.
Malcolm Roberts:
I agree with you Phillip, but let’s go to another group of people quoting from your next paragraph last Saturday, but it is not only the vaccine experts and the media who have let us down. The heavily conflicted modelling experts, some right here in Melbourne say, “Just think how bad it could have been if we didn’t push these vaccines to be used by everyone. Millions would’ve died.” What do you say to that?
Phillip Altman:
Well, John Kenneth Galbraith, the economist had a famous saying. He said there are two types of modellers; those that don’t know and those that don’t know they don’t know, right? Yeah. The modellers, if you recall in the beginning predicted 150,000 deaths in Australia. That’s clear, that’s been documented. They were way off. The old saying garbage in, garbage out. Now, who are these modellers? When you drill down, you find out who are these modellers, where are they, what institutions are they associated with, and what is the funding of those institutions, your alarm bills start to ring because these institutions that did this modelling, whether it be from the UK, from Imperial College, or from the Doherty Institute in Melbourne are inextricably linked to the vaccine industry in one way or the other.
They don’t come out and say that, but they are. And these spokespeople that speak on behalf or refer to this modelling are also conflicted. Now, that’s why you just can’t trust them, and this modelling was a critical part of the fear campaign.
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes.
Phillip Altman:
And people were just so frightened, they wanted the government to keep them safe. And the government was saying, “Trust us. We will keep you safe. We know what we’re doing.” And most people out there have no idea about how vaccines are evaluated in terms of safety and efficacy, or the adverse drug reporting system, or what’s going on overseas because the media doesn’t tell us anything.” They believe the modelling. The modelling didn’t happen. I believe that these vaccines are killing more people than they save, and I’m not the only one. They’re people much, much, much more important than myself who say the same thing, and it’s a growing number. And they’re in their thousands and thousands overseas, but their voices are being suppressed.
Malcolm Roberts:
And we also have had some pretty significant authorities lie to us. I remember the Doherty Institute did modelling for the government in New Zealand, and that was shown publicly around about March 25th, somewhere around there. 2020 that was by the way, very early on. And that showed peak after peak of virus peaks. In Australia, the Doherty Institute provided the modelling for the prime minister, Mr. Scott Morrison at the time. There was only one peak, that is absolutely farcical, absolutely farcical. We know that viruses take off, then they’re lockdown, take off, lockdown. And that’s what the new Zealanders honestly admitted, but in Australia, not the case. And that was used to justify severe lockdowns, complete rubbish. So, let’s move on Phillip.
You went on to say incompetent health advice led Melbourne to become known as the lockdown capital of the world. These senseless lockdowns destroyed lives. Health bureaucrats played a crucial role in stoking the well-orchestrated fear campaign, which continues today. Fear, fear, fear. The fear campaign was purposely driven by the inappropriate use of PCR testing, which you’ve already mentioned, but which we all know is not diagnostic for disease, and was never intended for that purpose. Fear stampeded the trusting public into accepting new gene-based so-called vaccines, because our chief health bureaucrats and vaccine experts said they were safe and effective. The unsuspecting and trusting public said, “But why would they lie to us?” Some of us know.” Why did they lie to us Phillip?
Phillip Altman:
Well, I think we have to face the facts here that there is such a thing as a pandemic industry now. It is big business. There are powerful forces at play here to push vaccines on the population no matter what, and they’re using fear and censorship to do it. You have to have both. You have to have both the fear and the censorship for this to work, but what is happening is that the body count is mounting up, and the pressure is mounting up. Most people, if you ask people and they’re honest, people ask amongst their friends about the adverse effects of these so-called vaccines. They all know a number of people that have been severely affected, or people who for no apparent reason, had just suddenly dropped dead.
Now that can go on for just so long, but we have to get to the bottom of this problem, because they’re building a factory. In Melbourne right now as we speak, they’re planning and building a factory to produce these mRNA vaccines, to push on the public in future. And we may be forced to receive these vaccines every three or six months. Otherwise, we lose our social credits We might not be able to travel on trains, or airlines, or go to restaurants, or have a job, or go to the hospital. This is where they’re going, and they’re doing it under the Biosecurity Act, which very few people know about it. It’s a turning point in our history, and people have to wake up. This is more than just about vaccines.
The evidence about the lack of safety with these vaccines, it’s clear, it’s not arguable. I’ll stand up and debate against any chief health minister in the country. They can even bring their entire staff. I’m just a single person, but I know their facts, and yet they won’t do it. They don’t debate these things, and it sends shivers down my spine what is happening.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, you’ve just added a new dimension, and we’ll go there later, social credit system. And it’s already in place that basically threatening to… and they have been withdrawing basic freedoms, basic human rights. And as you said, this is more than just about safety and vaccines. This is about control. It goes way beyond vaccines, and so-called protecting us to control us. So, let’s continue with your speech last Saturday. Here we go again. “To those health bureaucrats who beat their chest about how well they have served us, I’d like to remind them that Niger, a poor African nation of similar population to Australia with only 12% of its people fully vaccinated has had far fewer cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in Australia.
Is there anybody among our expert vaccine class brave enough to ask why? Is there even a glimmer of curiosity?” Then you went on, “I’ve made two detailed submissions to the national COVID clinical evidence task force, where I provided details of successful national campaigns of early treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin for hundreds of millions of people in India, Peru, Mexico and other countries. And these so-called Australian experts do not even bother to respond. The arrogance is breathtaking.” What I would put to you Phillip is their fear is breathtaking, because they don’t dare respond to you, because you’ve got the data on them. You’ve got the goods on these people. Is that correct?
Phillip Altman:
Yeah. The data is clear, and it’s everywhere. It’s fully consistent. When you’re a scientist, you don’t look at one little bit of data, right? You look at a bit of information, you say, “Oh, who did that research and who else has done it? And was it well designed? And I’d like to see it reproduced, and show me the stats behind it.” Every good scientist first and foremost must be a sceptic. You must ask questions. Nothing is proven until you provide the data, and it has to be good data. It has to be consistent.
Malcolm Roberts:
That’s music to my ears. That is music to my ears.
Phillip Altman:
There is no doubt what is happening here, there is no doubt. Look, I’d like to declare it I have no interest in ivermectin from a commercial point of view. I have absolutely no commercial interest in any of this whatsoever. Before this pandemic, I was retired guy, right? I enjoyed my tennis and my boating, and going out for dinners and spending time with my grandkids and my family, but I just cannot sit by and watch this destruction going on to Australia and other countries. It’s unbelievable. Countries like India-
Malcolm Roberts:
In human…
Phillip Altman:
… Peru, Mexico, other countries used ivermectin and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Here, it’s been banned. I was working since 5:00 AM this morning on an application to the TGA to reschedule ivermectin, so that doctors could prescribe it off label if they wish to. It is one of the world’s most useful safest drugs. It’s far safer than paracetamol, right? And yet, it’s banned in Australia. In fact in Queensland, you could be put in jail for prescribing it. This lunacy has to stop.
Malcolm Roberts:
Isn’t that manslaughter? But let’s continue, you’ve made some very bold and I believe entirely accurate statements. I was talking a lot about ivermectin in the early days. From Monday, March 23rd, 2020, the first single day session of parliament on this corona, it’s not a pandemic. There’s no pandemic of deaths from this coronavirus in Australia. I pointed out ivermectin. I was talking about it publicly, and I got a letter from the TGA. And the letter was very threatening. It quoted one of the acts that they look after. And they said that I had to stop advertising ivermectin. Three and a half or two and a half page letter, they wrote to me. I wrote back a simple half page, three quarters of page letter. And ended, I made two clear statements.
The first, “How dare you interfere with the communication of a duly elected representative of the people of Australia with the constituents, with his constituents.” And I finished with this paragraph, something like this, “The government implicitly by withdrawing ivermectin has blood on its hands.” Phillip, I got to reply back and all it said was, “Thank you for your letter.”
So, let me continue with your speech. Our so-called experts admitted to say that these gene-based therapies were part of a completely new class of drug under early research for rare diseases, including the genetic defects and cancers intended to be used on relatively small numbers of seriously ill patients, where the benefit was hoped to outweigh the considerable risk of serious adverse effects associated with gene-based therapy. These risky blue sky drugs were never intended for healthy people, children or pregnant women, and never intended to be used indiscriminately worldwide. I’m starting to get a little bit teary. The public was tricked, tricked into believing these gene-based vaccines were approved. They are not approved, and that’s coming from Dr. Phillip Altman.
It backs up where everything we know about these gene-based treatments and their introduction, they are not approved. We’ve been saying that from the start. They are provisionally approved by the TGA, and there is a huge difference. The difference is that they have not been proven to be safe and effective as claimed. The manufacturers have been given up to six years to provide the outstanding safety and efficacy data. And now after 18 months of use worldwide, we are seeing the highest rates of death and serious adverse events ever associated with any drug released in history. It’s not just slightly, is it Phillip? It’s monumental.
Phillip Altman:
No, it’s a mammoth. It’s mammoth. There’s no comparison. There have been drugs withdrawn for just a few hundred deaths, right? We’re talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of deaths associated with these gene-based therapies. And what is alarming is that when you assess…
Malcolm Roberts:
We’re one minute Phillip-
Phillip Altman:
Okay, I’ll be…
Malcolm Roberts:
… until the news comes on.
Phillip Altman:
I’ll be quick. When you assess whether an adverse effect is linked to a drug, one of the most important things is how close to the administration of the drug was the adverse event. I’ll come back to that after the break, because it’s really interesting.
Malcolm Roberts:
It is. I’ve seen you on this topic before. That’s what we’ll come back with. Stay right with us, stay right here, listen to the news and come back, and listen to Dr. Phillip Altman telling the truth as no other person in this country can.
Part 2
Speaker 1:
You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk Radio, TNT.
Malcolm Roberts:
Welcome back. And I’m not going to hesitate at all. Over to you Phillip, where we talk to Dr. Phillip Altman.
Phillip Altman:
So, where were we? I forgot.
Malcolm Roberts:
You were talking about the response from these so-called experts is not there.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah. So, basically, they are denying the excess deaths. They’re refusing to admit in the adverse drug reaction reporting that these deaths are caused by the vaccines. They use the word “linked” to avoid any legal liability here. And they’ve only actually admitted to 13 deaths linked to these so-called gene-based vaccines. That’s obviously wrong, but you have to look at who’s assessing these adverse drug reactions and assessing their cause and effect relationship. There are guidelines to do this. There are generally accepted rules and principles that one uses.
I know where we were. I was going to say that one of the primary reasons or justifications that you can use to say that a drug is linked to an adverse effect is the time course of events. So, if you administer-
Malcolm Roberts:
That’s right, the 48 hours.
Phillip Altman:
… a drug close to the adverse event, that is reasonably good evidence. It’s not evidence on its own, but it is very, very strong evidence.
Now, in the case of these vaccines, if you look online, a lady called Dr. Jessica Rose is just absolutely amazing at ploughing through all the data. Has presented at conferences around the world, the data showing that most of the deaths that have occurred for some unknown cause, in otherwise healthy people, have occurred within about 48 hours of administration of the vaccines. That is really strong evidence that there’s a cause and effect relationship, right?
If you have a healthy person that get injected with a vaccine, for some reason they have a heart attack within 48 hours, you have to ask yourself, “Wow, is that a one-off chance? It could be. It could be. Or is it linked to the vaccine?” If you look at enough people, millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people, and you see a pattern that’s beginning to emerge, that tells you is there a relationship.
Now, the TGA here have just simply turned a blind eye to it. And that’s why I was saying at that meeting on Saturday that I believe our adverse drug reaction reporting system is broken because it’s not picking up these red flags. They’re obvious. They’re everywhere. They’re all around the world in huge numbers. And yet, this is the principal basis why our chief health officers can go around the country and say that these things are safe and efficacious based on, especially the safety claim, based on the lack of claimed linkage between these gene-based vaccines and the deaths.
And if that system is broken because the people involved are conflicted, who are directly or indirectly beholden to the vaccine industry, whether it be in terms of career advancement or research grant money or travel grants or promotion or whatever it is, it’s not dollar bills in brown paper bags. It doesn’t work like that. But you’re either part of the team, you’re either on the team or you’re not on the team. And if you’re not on the team, it’s a really tough road.
So, this adverse drug reaction reporting system is a closed shop that occurs secretly behind closed doors. You don’t know who’s doing it. You don’t know what their instructions are. And this is the principal, fundamental operation upon which our TGA claims that these gene-based vaccines are safe because the usual data that’s required in drug development is lacking to prove that these things are safe. And I’m saying I believe our adverse drug reaction reporting system is broken. And if it’s broken, it either has to be fixed or you have to get rid of the provisional approval system, which is allowing these gene-based vaccines to escape through the regulatory system without the normal safety data.
Malcolm Roberts:
So, let’s be clear about that. What you’re saying, as I interpret it, you’re saying two things, basically. If you want to provisionally approve a treatment, then the reporting system must be damn near perfect. Secondly, you don’t believe there’s direct money changing hands and it’s causing this corruption because it is corruption in my view. You can have a computer chip that’s corrupt. It doesn’t work properly. It’s not necessarily fraud, although I believe there is some fraud going on in this country. There certainly is in America, but it could be just group think or gutlessness. People either too vain to recognise or lacking courage and integrity to admit errors.
But before we go on with your speech, I just want to share with our listeners this figure. You presented it last Saturday in Melbourne. 30,479 deaths reported in the first COVID vaccine adverse events reports in America to date. What is really scary is that some experts are saying that represents gross under-reporting, which it could be representing just as little as 1% of total deaths. Others estimate it could be 10%. If the 30,479 is just 10%, that means we’ve had 300,000 Americans die from COVID injections. If it’s 1%, that means we’ve had three million Americans dead. And the serious effects are catastrophic in terms of Bell’s palsy, in terms of heart conditions, hospitalizations, urgent care, anaphylaxis, Bell’s palsy.
Let’s continue with your speech.
Phillip Altman:
Right, so-
Malcolm Roberts:
Thanks to a complicit media… Sorry.
Phillip Altman:
So, I just wanted to clarify that not every adverse drug reaction report simply because it’s made, means that there’s a cause and effect relationship. Each one has to be evaluated by skilled people and you have to have a lot of detailed data and follow-up on each case, especially in regard to the deaths. So, only a proportion of those would be ascribed to the deaths.
However, as you said, Malcolm, there’s an under-reporting factor. The TGA itself, every drug regulatory agency around the world recognises that there’s an under-reporting factor. Our TGA says it’s between maybe 10 and 20 times. There had been lots of papers, which actually come to the conclusion, and I believe, the under-reporting is more like 100 times. So, as you say, for every death reported, you can actually multiply that by 100. And then you have to apply the criteria for whether or not the death is actually caused or considered to be caused by the drug. So, I just wanted to make that clear.
Malcolm Roberts:
Thank you. I know you value accuracy. And in Australia, it’s significant. Now, my understanding is that when someone dies, regardless of cause of death, the death is reported by a doctor. We’ve had, in this country, 900 plus deaths reported as being due to the vaccines, the injections. The TGA has removed them and said It’s only 11, as you said, with no explanation, no detail on the guidelines. Now, if what you’re saying and what many experts are saying around the world is correct, then it’s many, many more than 900. It could be 9,000. It could be significantly higher than that. And yet, the TGA completely behind closed doors is saying, “No, no, nothing to see here. Just 11.” So, they’re mixing the doctors who are reporting these deaths.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah, the number is up to 13 now. That’s the latest figure as of this week, I believe. But there’s an important point here. People, they’re playing games here because the average age of so-called COVID deaths is in the mid-80s. Right? And it was-
Malcolm Roberts:
Right, and the life expectancy.
Phillip Altman:
Exactly. And just because someone dies and they’ve tested positive for COVID with a PCR test, which should never be used to diagnose COVID-19, we all know that, it’s put down as a COVID death. You can only ascribe a COVID death, do an autopsy, right? For these kids that have died, for example, they say no kids, no children in Australia have died due to this vaccine. I doubt that is correct. I don’t know that it’s incorrect, but everything I read, everything I read tells me that is not correct and there is a certain mortality associated with these vaccines. And the TGA would like to say, “I’m saving more lives than it cost.” I’m unconvinced of that.
And what’s more, autopsies are not being done. If you don’t do an autopsy on someone, you really don’t know what they’ve died of, right? And autopsies are being frowned upon. We have spent billions of dollars on PCR tests. Wasted money on PCR tests. We should really be doing autopsies to determine what the mortality is associated with these vaccines, because if you don’t know what the mortality is, how can you determine, how can you assess risks versus benefit?
Whenever you give a drug, whenever any doctor prescribes a drug, whether consciously or unconsciously, they’re going through their mind, their head and thinking the risk versus the benefit. Every single drug has risks and benefits, every single drug. There’s no drug that doesn’t have risks. And yet, if we don’t know the damage that’s being done by the vaccines, if it’s being covered up with an inadequate, inefficient, biassed adverse drug reporting system, how do we know that these so-called vaccines are not doing more harm than good?
Malcolm Roberts:
Phillip, I want to thank you so much for what you’ve just said, because my overarching impression of federal parliament and clearly, the state parliaments, is that policies, legislation are not based on solid data. They quite often contradict the data. You need, first of all, to have the data that demonstrates cause and effect before you can say anything. We need to apply vaccines. We need to cut human production of carbon dioxide. Any policy, that’s fundamental. Only once you have that cause and effect, can you then look at the alternatives for dealing with treating that. And only once you have that cause and effect in a quantitative, specified, numerical relationship, can you assess progress or improvement in your policy or your legislation.
The federal parliament is running this country blind. That is the overarching message that I’ve picked up in my years in parliament. What I’d like to do is pop a question on you now. Your speech is triggering wonderful revelations. Would you be willing to come back again and we’d do another two hours because we’re not going to cover your speech in the next 40 minutes. Would you be willing to do that?
Phillip Altman:
Sure. Of course.
Malcolm Roberts:
Okay, wonderful. Now, we can take it on a more leisurely place. Now, I also want to reaffirm with a story, a mother who told me personally, and she did it in public, that her daughter died from these COVID injections. The daughter was fit, healthy, vibrant, energetic, a lovely person. She had never had asthma in her life. Yet, the cause of death was put down to asthma. Complete bullshit. That is a lie.
So, let’s continue with your speech. Thanks to a complicit media-
Phillip Altman:
I have a story too. I have a story too.
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes.
Phillip Altman:
Can I tell you a quick story?
Malcolm Roberts:
Yeah. Sure, go. Go for it.
Phillip Altman:
Because it’s important. I’m involved in this case. There is a lady right now in Melbourne needing a heart transplant. She doesn’t want to be vaccinated for very good reasons and I understand that completely. And the hospital involved is saying, “You cannot have a heart transplant. You cannot be admitted to our hospital in Melbourne,” I won’t name the hospital, “without being vaccinated.” Knowing full well that these gene-based vaccines by their mode of action will produce spike protein, which is the toxic component of SARS‐CoV‐2, and will damage any heart, whether it’s a subclinical minor damage or major damage leading to death. They can’t predict it.
And this lady is sitting right now waiting for a heart transplant. And her doctors, her hospital is saying, “We want to inject you with something that’s going to produce spike protein, which we know is the toxic component of SARS‐CoV‐2. Yet, this is our condition for admission to the hospital because we think that’s the way things should be done to keep you safe.” Really? Honestly? I mean, I can’t believe what’s going on. It’s hard. Sorry to tell you that story, but whenever I think about it, it’s just devastating.
Malcolm Roberts:
Thank you for sharing that. It’s just inhuman, Phillip. That is the word that I’ve used more than any other, I think. The word is inhuman, that describes best the treatment of the Australian people as a result of this COVID and the fear that’s been fabricated.
So, let’s continue with your speech. Thanks to a complicit media, not only is the public not aware that these so-called vaccines are associated with thousands of unexpected deaths in otherwise healthy people within 48 hours of administration, but the public are not generally aware that non-COVID related excess death numbers, including cancers, heart attack, stroke, diabetes, and neurological disease all around the world have risen significantly. These increased numbers of deaths coincide with the COVID vaccine rollouts. Otherwise, healthy people are dropping dead for no apparent reason.
Now, we have to go to a break. But before going so, look around, you continued your speech. Look around, relatively young people, including fit athletes, are dying from non-COVID deaths in alarming numbers. Faced with the inconvenient truth of the excess death statistics, which are difficult to fudge, they are quite clear. We extracted them from the Australian Bureau of Statistics after their 18-month delay, just last week. Some national statistical organisations have responded by dropping any comparison of excess deaths for the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated or by reclassification of deaths as unknown cause.
In fact, unknown cause of death has been reported as the leading cause of death in parts of Canada. These deaths are unknown because autopsies are not being done on purpose. Not being done on purpose. The unsuspecting and trusting public were told by our most senior public health officials that these so-called vaccines were safe and effective without qualification. This was not only misinformation; this was reckless. It is illegal to make false and misleading therapeutic claims, but our chief health officers seem to be above the law.
These reckless words of assurance gave agency to employers to introduce vaccine mandates while our prime minister at the time, cabinet and premiers, stood by and allowed it to happen. I put it to you, Phillip, that they didn’t just stand by, they enabled it to happen. They drove it to happen. And what I would like to know when we come back, they’re very powerful statements that I just quoted from you. I believe they’re entirely correct with what I’ve learned in this virus mismanagement. And I would like to know, is this evidence of culpability? Or is it just evidence of gutlessness and ignorance?
We’ll be right back. We’ll be back with Dr. Phillip Altman straight after this break from our sponsors.
Malcolm Roberts:
Welcome back. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts and I have a special guest, Dr. Phillip Altman, who’s sharing his views after decades of experience with our health bureaucrats and with the TGA and with big pharma. This is the most important speech. What you have delivered last Saturday is the most important speech delivered in this country in years, perhaps decades. So, I asked you, is it culpability? Is it ignorance? Is it gutlessness? What is going on? Because the evidence is clear.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah. Look, I’ve asked myself that question over and over when I first started to look at this and I thought, “Wow, things are going wrong.” My initial reaction was to cut people slack, because I didn’t know. But as the evidence began to mount and it became more and more clear, and now, it’s absolutely crystal clear, there is no debating the evidence now. It is so consistent everywhere that, now, I have to come to the conclusion that the people who are making these decisions and fail to reflect on their course of action with our health policies, regarding these vaccines and things like ivermectin, have got themselves into such deep water, they don’t know how to get.
Malcolm Roberts:
It’s disgusting.
Phillip Altman:
And maybe, in the beginning, it was a noble lie and they thought they were doing the right thing. But as time goes on, more and more of them must realise that this is wrong. That people’s lives are at stake here. And the problem is that our top health officials have become middle managers. They’re taking instructions. They’re not the people in charge, and I think that explains a lot. And people are trapped at the moment. They’re not making the decisions. They’re not the decision-makers. We all know about the WHO and how they’re seeking to control our health policy, which once you control health policy in a country with the Biosecurity Act, you can control the country. That gets into another issue. But that’s part of-
Malcolm Roberts:
We will go there probably next time. We’ll go there for a look next time.
Phillip Altman:
Look, I tried for over a year to explain the problems on the basis of science and you just can’t. The science is clear. If it was just on the science, I would win all the time. The game would be over. But it’s not about the science, it’s about politics and power and money. And that’s why arguing just the science doesn’t do it. Right? That’s why last Saturday, I went off the reservation because I was sick and tired of repeating the same science, the same consistent science that’s popping up everywhere. It’s doing me no good just to repeat the science. You have to think about it on broader terms and people look at you…
Look, I’ve lost friends. People think… Some people that I’ve known for many years that know what I do, they don’t even want to discuss it. They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. They’ve swallowed the blue pill. And I look at them and I try and say to them, “Look, this is the most important thing that may ever have happened to you in your lifetime. Don’t you want to know about it? Aren’t you curious? Don’t you want to know what I think because I’ve been involved in this all my life?” And yet, most of them say no.
But I can tell you, I’ve made heaps of new friends. It’s been incredible. At that conference in Melbourne last Saturday, I had 200 people stand up and sing me happy birthday.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I can give you some reassuring news. First, some bad news, Phillip, that parliament is similar to the friends of yours who have no curiosity. Parliament is comprised mainly of sheep, but the sheep are waking up. Do you want the good news?
Phillip Altman:
Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts:
Alex Antic is another senator. He’s in the liberal party from South Australia. And I asked a very strong question about adverse effects and deaths in the Senate in question time, Monday, a week ago. And Alex came up to me afterwards and said, “Bloody good question, mate.” And then he said, “You could see the body language in the government, opposite and you could see the body language in his own party.” People, at first when I spoke, they were interjecting when I continued without giving voice to their interjections, and then when they heard the answers to my questions from the minister, their body language showed these people know there’s something wrong. They were ashamed. That means they’re waking up. They are waking up. But it’ll take a long while before these lazy-
Phillip Altman:
It’s a slow process.
Malcolm Roberts:
… incompetent, dishonest bastards wake up.
Phillip Altman:
Look, it’s a slow process. And really, I learnt that I can’t really hit people too hard upfront with everything all at once. It just doesn’t work. They just shut down. So, if you’re a responsible parent and you’ve taken the decision to inject your child or you’ve been involved in getting your grandkids receiving these so-called vaccines and now, you’re waking up and you realise, “Oh, oh, my god, what have I done?” that’s really hard. That’s heavy-duty stuff.
So, I’ve learned to be a little bit careful with people. Some people are more open than others and I usually have to wait and see if people ask the right questions. I can usually tell within 10 or 15 seconds that this topic is raised where people stand and what their tolerance is. They reveal themselves. But I tell you what, this pandemic has been an incredible stress test of society. You heard in the 2008 financial crisis, the stress test on banks. This is a stress test on our society, because some people respond in favourable ways and some people do not. Right? For example, this peddling on your neighbour, putting your neighbours in if they haven’t been vaccinated, excluding people from clubs or meetings, friendships falling down, this sort of thing. This is a real stress test.
But you know what the problem is? The real problem is the media. The media must bear full responsibility for what’s going on. There is what’s called the Trusted News Initiative, and your listeners can look that up. It’s not a fanciful thing. It’s started by the BBC. It’s all out in the open. The Murdoch News Corporation is in it up to their ears. It is this Trusted News Initiative, which doesn’t allow the truth to be told, to allow the science to be questioned is at the heart of the problem. And they must bear real responsibility for what is going on, because if people really knew, they sat down to their news at night and people were just told, not opinions, just report facts, just report the excess deaths, things like that, things would change. But they can’t change because the media is complicit.
Malcolm Roberts:
And on top of that, Phillip, we have the government complicit and the opposition, most of the opposition, complicit because they allow the Australian Bureau of Statistics to keep covering things up. Basic things like all-cause mortality, basic things like analysis of cause of death, these things are hidden.
So, let’s continue with your speech. And I want to congratulate you because you said the media bears full responsibility. It certainly does. So, your speech, despite what we now know, people are still being coerced and still being coerced into COVID-19 vaccine injections which carry the risk of serious injury and death, even if they are not at significant risk of COVID-19 due to their health status, age, or natural immunity or lose their jobs. Those responsible for this stain on humanity, wonderful words, stain on humanity, cannot wash their hands of this injustice and claim they did not know better. They must be held to account.
At no other time in history were we told not to treat a serious infection as early as possible. Early treatment with ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was banned in Australia, not because these established drugs did not work. Clearly, they do work and they can save lives, but they were banned because the use of these important, cheap and widely-used drugs might reduce vaccination uptake. You go on. Our TGA has admitted this specifically in relation to ivermectin and has refused to disclose the names of those responsible following a freedom of information request. Shameful. That is the truth.
Thank you so much for saying that. I’ve been saying it for a while now. The only reason they banned ivermectin, so that people were forced to take these injections. That is inhuman. There’s that word again. Let’s hear from you for a couple of minutes, Phillip. And then we’ll go to another ad break and then we’ll go all the way home.
Phillip Altman:
I was looking at the minutes of the scheduling committee that was considering the scheduling of ivermectin. And I’m doing that because I’m involved in writing an application to remove the wording, which will prevent the use of ivermectin being used off-label. For example, about 25% of drugs are used not for the official use but for other uses. Right?
And I was looking at the freedom of information request that was lodged and the response from that in relation to that committee that decided to effectively ban the off-label prescribing of ivermectin. Three-quarters of the response from the TGA was blacked out. You couldn’t see the names of the people that attended the committee. They even declared that there were people with a conflict of interest that were observers to the meeting who were participating in the meeting. I wonder who those people were. I mean, it was completely redacted. Huge swathes of black ink all over the response from the freedom of information.
Why is that secret? Why can we not know who made that decision? Aren’t they proud of that decision? Don’t they want to stand by that decision? If that decision was based on science and facts, wouldn’t they want to tell us the full facts. It’s just beyond belief.
Malcolm Roberts:
It is. Again, it’s inhuman. So, we go on with your… Well, no, we’ll have a break now. Then we’ll come back for the last 15 minutes or so of our programme and do a summary and then get ready for the next two hours we’ll have with you. We’ll be back straight after this message from our sponsors with Dr. Phillip Altman.
Malcolm Roberts:
And this is back with Senator Malcolm Roberts. And I’ve got my guest, Dr. Phillip Altman. Before we continue with Phillip, at TNT Radio, we never go home. We’re committed to bringing you our take on the biggest topics of our time. We broadcast live 24/7 online globally, no matter what. We’ve got you covered on TNT Radio. And Phillip Altman is now revealing so many things for the first time and emphasising and backing it up with data for the first time on this show.
Let’s continue with his speech from last Saturday. Our so-called health experts went out of their way to cherry-pick and distort published data in a desperate attempt to discredit effective early treatment of COVID-19. Disgraceful. We’ve covered that. And what is worse, the wonder drugs proposed to take the place of drugs, like ivermectin, were the old, previously-failed, big pharma drugs from Merck drug molnupiravir and Pfizer’s Paxlovid. Both have disappointing clinical efficacy. Molnupiravir is mutagenic and poses a serious cancer risk. And Paxlovid has undoubted serious kidney and liver toxicity.
The unsuspecting public has been indoctrinated to believe that vaccines are safe. They don’t know that many conventional vaccines have been withdrawn from the market because they were shown not to be safe. These COVID-19 so-called vaccines are not conventional vaccines. They were based on a gene technology never before deployed for vaccine use, and their safety and efficacy testing was compromised. Corners were cut. What could possibly go wrong?
So, what we’ve got, Phillip, is we’ve got big pharma pushing drugs that supposedly are antivirals. They’re pushing a vaccine that’s not a vaccine, has not been tested anything like properly. And they’re making money out of this, while at the same time their agents, who you described as our top health officers, have become middle managers, how appropriate? Their agents are suppressing drugs, like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, that not only have been proven in the past are proven with this virus. What a disgrace. This is serious stuff that we are dealing with.
Phillip Altman:
Yeah, it is. I mean, when you look at it, big pharma is a well-oiled machine. I didn’t really realise it until this pandemic, but I was sitting in the presentation by Dr. Pierre Kory in Melbourne on Saturday.
Malcolm Roberts:
Wonderful man.
Phillip Altman:
And he really described it. If anyone hasn’t seen it, you really have to go to amps.redunion.com.au and have a look at that presentation. And he describes how the medical literature is completely controlled by big pharma. So, any generic that’s useful, that’s cheap and widely used is completely crushed, because they can’t make money from these drugs. For example, with Ivermectin, there’s like 60 or 80 clinical trials. They vary in quality, but there’s probably more than 30 that are really good quality and they all point in the same direction. And they all say the same thing.
But yet, they compared that data to something like one clinical trial with molnupiravir, one trial, which didn’t have convincing efficacy at all and it’s a mutagenic drug, yet they favour… Our government paid 40 million to pre-purchase, 40 million of taxpayer money, pre-purchased, to buy peer molnupiravir. I mean, Merck must be beside themselves. The champagne corks are popping everywhere and that’s why I no longer cut our TGA slack and our chief health officers. They must know what’s going on.
And if we don’t correct this, it’s going to happen again. We’re living, and people have to realise it, in what’s basically a post-truth world where the media is strictly controlled and people don’t have their time. They’re looking after their kids, they want to keep their job, they’re travelling and so forth. They’re busy people. They sit down and watch the news at night and they believe what they’re being told. And the example of this pandemic and climate change are really good examples of how we’re living in a post-truth world.
Malcolm Roberts:
Well, I want to re-emphasise the point you just made. The medical literature is controlled. It is exactly the same with the climate literature. It is exactly the same with the nutrition and food and dietary information and literature. I also want to emphasise your comment about $40 million has been paid by our federal government using tax-payers money.
Phillip Altman:
400 million.
Malcolm Roberts:
How much?
Phillip Altman:
400 million.
Malcolm Roberts:
Sorry, 400 million. Pre-purchasing a drug that has basically not been proven and so, you’re willing to-
Phillip Altman:
Not only that-
Malcolm Roberts:
Sorry?
Phillip Altman:
It’s a 20-year-old failed drug.
Malcolm Roberts:
I love the way you correct me. Thank you so much. That’s even more important. That’s even more important. And let’s face it, we know that we had tried to get, as senators, we’ve tried to get a copy of the contracts with Pfizer and the other providers of the COVID injections. The government has refused to give them to the representative of the people. They’re spending the people’s money and yet, they will not give us copies of what they’re spending it on. We don’t know the liability exclusions. We don’t know anything about these contracts. That is-
Phillip Altman:
I’ve seen the contracts because I was involved in the high court cases.
Malcolm Roberts:
Have you?
Phillip Altman:
Yes, but I can’t tell you what’s in it.
Malcolm Roberts:
Okay. We will get them eventually. We’re trying every means we can. We’ll get them, but let’s consider another point. We’ve only got 10 minutes left today. The risky world… We’re going to your speech again from last Saturday. And I must say, your speech is just so strong, so clear, so unequivocal. It is absolutely stunning. As I said, I don’t gush with praise usually, but this is the most important speech I’ve seen anyone deliver in a long, long time. It’s vital for our country’s future. And we’ll get onto that next time we meet because we need to go to the wider aspects of what this COVID mismanagement is ushering in.
So, let’s continue with your speech. The risky worldwide rollout of a largely experimental gene-based technology with little safety data to the entire population, including healthy individuals at little risk, children, infants, and even pregnant women, all paid for by the government has been a masterclass in marketing. Let’s correct that. You made that mistake and paid for by the government on behalf of the taxpayers using taxpayers money. It has been a masterclass in marketing, you said.
Now, let’s look at some hope here. The UK, Sweden, and Denmark, all have moved to pull back their vaccine recommendations due to safety concerns but not Australia, because we have been selected as a test case by overseas power brokers. Let’s talk next time about who these power brokers are and their agenda. Now, you go on in your speech, without the collaboration of the US FDA, Food and Drug Administration, and our once proud TGA, Pfizer could not have achieved annual learnings of 100 billion with full indemnity should something go wrong. Stunning. The world has taken the biggest medical gamble of old times. We put our faith and trust into so-called vaccine experts and health bureaucrats to advise and protect us. I believe they have let us down.
Phillip, Was it the world’s biggest medical gamble or the biggest crime?
Phillip Altman:
I can’t go into people’s minds.
Malcolm Roberts:
True.
Phillip Altman:
I don’t know what they’re thinking. And people can fool themselves very easily. You can be on a tennis court and you can clearly see that that ball was out and someone else says, “No, no, I saw it in.” And they’re absolutely adamant that that ball was in. You cannot change their mind. People, the mind plays tricks on people. So, I can’t say that they know that they’re committing a crime. What I can say is they’re refusing to dialogue. No one has called me. No one wants to discuss it. No one’s called me to Canberra. No one wants to put me on a witness stand. No one wants to discuss it.
So, in that way, they have to be culpable because what I’m saying is not opinion. I’m just quoting the data. I’m just quoting the facts. Yet, they avoid the facts. It is willful blindness. And I think willful blindness is a crime. They have a responsibility to review the latest data on safety and efficacy, and they have an obligation to constantly review that data on a daily basis. It was only two days ago, Denmark came out and said, “Oh no, no, no. People under 50 shouldn’t get vaccinated.” They’ve weighed up the risk and benefits. They have a very good drug regulatory system in Denmark. Why can’t our regulatory system be as good as Denmark? They should be.
Malcolm Roberts:
Hear, hear. And let’s re-emphasise that the Danes have said no one under 18 should get it. Full stop. That’s it. End of story. The only people who should get it are people over 55, if they want it and there’s no mandates allowed. That’s as I understand it.
Phillip Altman:
Look, the key-
Malcolm Roberts:
The same in Britain. Britain had-
Phillip Altman:
Yeah. The key to all this is informed consent, right?
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes.
Phillip Altman:
No one that’s getting these vaccines is getting informed consent. If they were offered true informed consent of what the facts are, many people would refuse. I have no objection to that. If people want to consider the facts of these vaccines and decide, “No, I want to have a vaccine.” I’m not anti-vaccine. I’ve been vaccinated all my life. My kids were vaccinated. They’ve been fully vaccinated, but this is different. This situation is different.
If someone is fully informed to the circumstances and the facts and they still want to have the vaccine, I have not an issue with that. But the doctors are not allowed to provide full informed consent. They are instructed that if you deviate from the narrative of the government, even if it’s factually based, you may be brought before a board, a health board, which can discipline you and possibly take away your right to practise medicine. That is appalling.
Malcolm Roberts:
Isn’t that a crime?
Phillip Altman:
Look, I-
Malcolm Roberts:
And I would say-
Phillip Altman:
I think it is.
Malcolm Roberts:
Sorry? I think it is too.
Phillip Altman:
I think it is.
Malcolm Roberts:
And what is also very apparent, Phillip, is that some of these heinous acts were pre-planned. This injection response, this virus response, was not done over six months. This was done with literally decades of preparation. They have been planning this. Not the details, but they’ve been putting in place a system whereby federal parliament has been white-ended, bypassed, so that we can’t hold APRA accountable because it’s made up of a combination of state legislation, not federal.
APRA is running amok, suppressing doctors, suppressing our health system, suppressing good medical advice, suppressing basic things like doctor-patient confidentiality, suppressing basic things like informed consent, which the Greeks gave us 3,000 years ago. And this has been done starting back in 2009 with the formation of APRA and prior to that, some other exercises and then Event 201 in 2019. This has been planned. Who the hell is planning this?
Phillip Altman:
Well, look, there is a vaccine industry. We know that. We know the players involved, very powerful billionaires involved in this. A lot of people have made a lot of money. They see this as a model to make money. When you can get government to buy your product, which have been rushed through an approval process within months or no approval. The most recent boosters that had been approved, one of them, the Pfizer one, has been approved on the basis of immunology in eight mice. No clinical trial whatsoever and it’s been approved. I can’t believe what’s happening.
So, they have a model where government forces you to take a product that hasn’t been proven to be safe. They have no liability and they can charge what they like. It’s a great business.
Malcolm Roberts:
Yes and-
Phillip Altman:
Great business.
Malcolm Roberts:
I’ll add something there. It’s a dishonest business. It’s an inhuman business. And I’ll add something more, and that is to say that this is the only time in history where a product failure has been blamed on those who do not use it. The product failing is the COVID injections, every one of them. The people who are being blamed are those who refuse to take it.
Phillip Altman:
What is really, really reprehensible in my mind is even suggesting that children who are not at risk at all to any statistical extent, I mean, their risk of COVID-19, of dying of COVID 19 if they’re healthy is virtually nil. Right? To force them-
Malcolm Roberts:
Correct.
Phillip Altman:
… to take a vaccine to protect their grandparents is despicable. It’s nauseating.
Malcolm Roberts:
It’s a lie. We’re going to have to finish now, but thank you so much for accepting my invitation to come back in two weeks’ time. We’ll have another two hours dedicated to your work. I want to say it again. Yours is the most important speech that we have had in this country. Thank you so much, Dr. Phillip Altman. Thank you so much for your courage, your integrity, and your clear objective data. Thank you, thank you, thank you. The people of the world owe you a debt of gratitude.
Phillip Altman:
Thanks, Malcolm.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is giving the Australian people a say about a Royal Commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by Australian governments.
While the Prime Minister may be prepared to wait and kick this can down the road, One Nation is not.
I’ve been working with Pauline Hanson on developing draft terms of reference for the Royal Commission. We want to make sure these terms of reference capture all of the information which Australians need to see – the deliberations of National Cabinet, the advice from health bureaucrats which state and territory governments used to justify lockdowns and vaccine mandates, and the real data on COVID-19 deaths.
We’ve posted these draft terms of reference on the One Nation website and we’re now asking for input from the Australian people. It’s absolutely essential this Royal Commission enables individual Australians to tell their stories of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thousands of Australians lost their jobs due to lockdowns and mandates. Our children’s education was severely interrupted. Businesses across Australia suffered significant losses or closed altogether. Australian governments spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in pandemic relief. Experimental vaccines were rushed through approvals and imposed on millions of Australians. This has been one of the most disruptive events in our history.
Australians who’d like to provide feedback are invited to visit the One Nation website: https://www.onenation.org.au/covid-19-royal-commission-draft-tor
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am