This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. Our witnesses include Senator Ron Johnson (USA), Tanya Unkovich MP (New Zealand), Christine Anderson MEP (EU Parliament,Germany), Professor Angus Dagleish (UK), Dr Peter Parry, Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Raphael Lataster, Julian Gillespie (former barrister), Dr Melissa McCann (via YouTube video) and Professor Gigi Foster.
The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation.
The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments.
We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes.
This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.
https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/6/j/o/o/O/jooOv.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-17 14:53:402024-12-17 14:53:45COVID Under Trial: Uncovering the Truth
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) claims there are no side effects from COVID Vaccines. I’ve asked them multiple times to search their medical records database and report how many times the word “myocarditis” and other conditions have appeared over the years.
They tried telling me that conducting such a search wasn’t possible, however they seem to have forgotten that they advised they had done such a search, in a previous Question on Notice, proving it can be done.
The real issue is that they are unwilling to conduct a search for the subsequent years because they know the number of matches have increased over the years, which would force them to admit there is a problem.
Transcript
CHAIR: Welcome back. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASA has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are you hiding?
Ms Spence: Nothing. As we’ve explained before, the medical records don’t allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you’ve asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren’t airworthy.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t take the word of British courts and our own health authorities here?
Ms Spence: I’m simply explaining to you what’s in our system. We have no-one who’s reported having become unairworthy as a result of a COVID vaccination. Nothing has changed from when we provided evidence to you on this basis in numerous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. We’ll come back to that. This is a simple matter. You simply search your database for the word myocarditis, and you give this committee the number of matches that are returned. Why do you refuse to do that?
Ms Spence: Because, Senator, as I think—again—we’ve explained previously, if we were to do that, it wouldn’t necessarily align with any examples of myocarditis. I can’t explain it anymore than I have previously, and that Andreas Marcelja has and Kate Manderson has. We’ve got nothing more to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Then you say it is an unreasonable diversion of resources. That’s freedom-ofinformation talk, and I don’t know if you realise this, but that excuse doesn’t fly in the Senate. You’re in parliament. How many hours did it take you to answer SQ23-003267, dated 13 February 2023?
Ms Spence: I’d have to take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many resources did it take you to answer that question?
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. CASA seems to change between two different excuses on this issue—the same issue. Most recently you’ve said it’s too hard and voluminous. Before, you just said it wouldn’t be useful without context. It seems like you can do the search; you just don’t want to. My question is: can you do this search for those words in your medical records system?
Ms Spence: Senator, the—
Senator ROBERTS: Yes or no?
Ms Spence: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I can’t imagine that answer is no, because you’ve already done it. Thank you for confirming it. What specifically has changed since you answered SQ23-003267 in February 2023 that means it’s impossible for you to answer the same question in the same way in SQ24-001131?
Ms Spence: My recollection, Senator, was—the issue that we’ve got is that we could do a search and the word could come up. We’ve got no way, without significant resources, to actually determine how often that word is actually linked to someone who has experienced that condition. We’d have to review every time that the word came up to determine whether it’s actually linked to a specific example, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned. You mean that you’re telling me that CASA won’t get off its backside and examine something unless the answer’s easy?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, that’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s a bit of work involved here. You’re responsible. You’re the sole person responsible for the safety of our commercial aviation system.
Ms Spence: And we put our resources where it makes the most difference.
Senator ROBERTS: I want the question answered. What specifically has changed—then we can come back to this hearing and talk about the context. Right now, I’m asking why the Senate shouldn’t refer you for contempt, for blatantly refusing to do something you can do—seemingly out of convenience or to try to hide the answer.
Ms Spence: Senator, I’ve got nothing further to add. I’m not trying to hide anything. I’m simply saying that to get the answer that you’re after would require us to go through what could be a voluminous number of examples of the word, with no way of being able to determine which one is actually related to a specific example of that, and that’s what we’ve said consistently throughout our appearances.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you just provide the answer to the question? The number of times—
Ms Spence: I’ll take that on notice, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. AstraZeneca was found to be dangerous and not effective in the British court system. You refuse to give me, after many attempts, the name of any agency or person—expert—as to who you’ve based your assessment that vaccines were safe.
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: AstraZeneca has been withdrawn. What is CASA doing to test—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to let Ms Spence answer that, in all fairness. I’m going to—
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t get to my question yet.
CHAIR: I think you said ‘you refused’ or something like that. You were going along ‘who was the expert that said’. And I remember sitting in this building when our Prime Minister was carried out on a sultan’s chair with every Premier because of AstraZeneca and all that sort of stuff. But I think you should at least allow Ms Spence just to answer that claim—
Senator ROBERTS: Fine, but I haven’t asked my question yet.
CHAIR: No, but you made a claim—an assertion. I do want to give her the chance, Senator Roberts. Thank you.
Ms Spence: Unfortunately, Senator, you could go through Hansard and find it as well. We have relied on the health experts—
Senator ROBERTS: Go through what?
Ms Spence: Sorry, Senator; if you want to follow up on issues around AstraZeneca, they should be referred to the health department, not the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to know what you’re doing to make sure that pilots who took AstraZeneca are not at risk.
Ms Spence: We have not seen any example of a pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Again it seems to me that CASA is waiting for the evidence to jump into its face.
Ms Spence: I have nothing else to add, I’m sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked?
Ms Spence: Before we came to Senate estimates, yes, I asked whether there had been any examples of a pilot coming up in our system as having been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination, and the answer has not changed from the last time we appeared before this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, AstraZeneca?
Ms Spence: No, Senator, all COVID vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be worth checking, because we now know that AstraZeneca is dangerous?
Ms Spence: Senator, it wouldn’t matter what vaccination they had. The question is: has any pilot been incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination? That would include AstraZeneca, as well as the other types of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: I get that, but do we need to remind you that some pilots are afraid to report their injuries?
Ms Spence: Senator, if you’ve got pilots who you know are incapacitated, or if pilots are approaching you who said they are incapacitated, as a result of a COVID vaccination, I can only encourage you to get them to report that. They can do it anonymously through the ATSB response, but I cannot act on what I have no knowledge of.
Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.
I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.
This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).
The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.
It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!
I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.
Transcript
Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’
Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser.
Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing!
Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations.
This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections.
I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that.
Labor is still running a COVID cover-up. Australians deserve a Royal Commission and true accountability for the wrongs committed over COVID, not this delayed whitewash review.
Transcript
Chris Smith: Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think?
Senator ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review, Chris. I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased – they were lock-down supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers – investigative powers. They’ve got no power to compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got at. He deserves to be really hammered on this, but he’s no more guilty than, well he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who were mostly Labor. This is a protection racket for the Labor premiers and the Labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now!
Chris Smith: You see, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching. The states, as you mentioned and their role when it came to lock-downs and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at Chris. I moved a motion to get one of the committees, in the Senate, to investigate and developa draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission, and that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it. And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie. He pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages I think it was, 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And it covered – it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid and it covers everything. And the royal, the chair – Paul Scarr, I must say and the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable. There is a draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.
Recently, I co-sponsored a Bill to establish a Senate Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 and the government’s response. A Senate Commission of Inquiry is similar to a Royal Commission.
It’s extraordinary that Australia’s most costly and far reaching government response since WWII has not been subjected to an inquiry. This is more than likely because of the serious mistakes made, including poor judgments and instances of cronyism in both the government and the health industry.
I spoke in favour of the Bill, but it was voted down by globalist Liberals and, unsurprisingly, the corporate lackies in the Labor Party. The Greens chose to abstain.
One Nation remains committed to securing a thorough Commission of Inquiry into both the disastrous government response and the origins of COVID-19 itself.
How They Voted
Transcript
One Nation strongly supports the COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024, which I’ve proudly co-sponsored. To use the words of a former prime minister, ‘It’s time.’ It’s time to accept our duty is to the Australian people, not to ourselves and our colleagues. It’s time for courage and for truth.
My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on 23 March 2022; a second was held on 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and the relatives of people that the COVID vaccine injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia’s COVID response were questioned. Several political parties participated, making it a truly non-partisan, cross-party inquiry. Because of the two full days of testimony at these hearings my decision-making has been better informed ever since. And that’s what senators must do: inform ourselves.
The increasing interest from mainstream media in reporting the harm our COVID measures have caused indicates time is running out for those engaging in a cover-up. The public remains deeply dissatisfied and gravely concerned about state and federal governments’ COVID response. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments and agencies, medical professionals, medical professions, the media and pharmaceutical companies.
I find it surprising our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. After listening to their responses in Senate estimates hearings over the last four years, it’s clear they do not want to admit to a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest they consider their performance exemplary, worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand every Thursday evening on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals. Can you believe that? The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a stage-managed standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of our TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia, which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group—heady days, indeed. Those days are over. That’s it! To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against the tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must now be clear to you that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; it’s here to stay until you restore trust. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall, and I fear where that will lead if not corrected.
Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to our people in Australia. Despite the statistical sleight of hand, excess deaths are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a novel vaccine that killed people is a crime—homicide. Banning existing products that had proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of the so-called vaccine is a crime. Finally, covering up this corrupt process is a crime.
Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants, despite knowing the reverse to be true—that is, protection dropped quickly over time, and the vaccine did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective, despite its known risks, is a violation of consumer law in these five states.
The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people criticising its safety and efficacy claims, proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others ‘to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.’ Under America’s PREP Act, Pfizer has indemnity for injuries. That indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims.
The reason this relates to Australia and to Australians is our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through Pfizer’s misconduct, and misconduct there was, as I’m sure this commission of inquiry will discover. To taxpayers wondering why the expense of this inquiry is needed, here’s a thought: if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. The guilty should pay; taxpayers should not pay.
The grand jury evidence gathered to prepare the United States court case from the five states that I mentioned earlier applies to Australia as well. It makes for horrifying reading. First, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla, a veterinarian, not a doctor, declined government funding in order to prevent the government’s ability to oversee the vaccine development, testing and manufacture. That’s not something one does with a safe and properly made product. Second, Pfizer’s independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a ‘tailor-made contract’ that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers’ interests. Third, the investigation found Pfizer wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and kept them hidden through confidentiality agreements. Fourth, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. I suspect the inquiry will find the same arrangement applied in Australia. In effect, Pfizer told our regulators what to say about their product.
Fifth, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timeline was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. I’ll say that again: they avoided revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Sixth, instead, Pfizer submitted a Hollywood version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety that their real trials did not have—and our state and federal health authorities bought it.
Seventh, we’re three years into COVID and scientists still can’t review Pfizer’s COVID-19 raw trial data. Eighth, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates hearings that the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration—his Therapeutic Goods Administration—had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer’s special data.
Ninth, Pfizer kept its COVID-19 vaccine’s true effects hidden through destroying the trial control group, invalidating the whole study. This was not gold standard research; this was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour. Tenth, Pfizer rigged the trial through excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, who were immunocompromised, pregnant or breastfeeding, or who were simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these very people when the vaccine was not tested on these people? Eleventh, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, and yet that lie was used to expand the market and make more money.
Twelfth, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse events database, which was obtained in court process, and showed in the first three months of the rollout 158,893 adverse events resulted, including 1,223 deaths. Thirteenth, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse event reports that it had to hire 600 additional, full-time staff. It hired 600 extra people to monitor the adverse event reports.
And, finally, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Test rats produced foetuses with severe soft tissue and skeletal malformations, failed to become pregnant and failed to implant embryos at more than double the control group rate. That’s amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study’s findings. And when they were asked, they lied about the outcome. I can’t help but think about women, humans, suffering as a result of this. We know that.
The United States is achieving what Australia is not—rigorous inquiry and testing of the law. What are you afraid of? In Australia, this is behaviour which, under normal circumstances, would already have resulted in a commission of inquiry. Our delay in calling that inquiry damns us. Other nations are now ahead of us. South Korea has produced a study which analysed 4.3 million individuals—4.3 million!—comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups over three months. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer’s disease, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 68 per cent rise in depression.
In Australia, following my questions to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don’t want to know the answer. They want to hide from the truth, hide from the homicide that’s been caused in this country. I ask the Senate to pass this bill so we can get the answers ourselves, which is, as senators, our sworn duty.
For years, I’ve been trying to get the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to admit responsibility for allowing vaccine mandates on pilots, and the risk of injury that comes with that. I’ve been shocked at how evasive, argumentative and secretive CASA has been over this simple issue, that there is a risk of injury from vaccines, therefore making them mandatory introduces a level of risk into the cockpit.
CASA has lied, refused to answer questions they could have answered, and hidden witnesses from inquiry. As you can see from this session, there is a protection racket in place for this failure of an agency and Australian pilots are suffering hugely as a result.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Could I have Dr Manderson to the desk, please. Dr Manderson, I asked you previously about the risk of myocarditis because you claimed to pilots that there was a higher chance of getting myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. I provided you with a systematic review that refutes that. It’s entitled, ‘COVID-19—associated cardiac pathology at the postmortem evaluation: a collaborative systematic review’. It was published in the Clinical Microbiology and Infection journal on 23 March 2022. I asked you to provide me with the evidence you had to base your previous statement about myocarditis on. That was in SQ23-004809. You undertook to provide the evidence that you had, but in the answer you simply referred to the TGA, not to evidence you had assessed to make the comment you made. I’d like to ask: did you write the answer to SQ23-004809 or did CASA officials?
Ms Spence: I think we provided a follow-up answer to that and we advised that the response was provided consistent with the requirements of the standing orders around responding to Senate estimates questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Who did you provide that to?
Ms Spence: That was the answer to 00268 from committee question No. 254.
Senator ROBERTS: Who wrote the first response?
Ms Spence: The question was directed to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided that response. That’s consistent with the guidelines for officials.
Senator ROBERTS: So who wrote the response?
Ms Spence: I approved the response.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the guideline to responses that the government has just put out?
Ms Spence: No. These date back to February 2015. I can table that response if that would be helpful for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. In the interests of time, we won’t go through it now. One of the studies provided by the TGA in what you reference was from Anders Husby et al. It’s entitled ‘Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study’. Do you still stand behind that evidence to say that the incidence of myocarditis is lower?
Dr Manderson: Yes, I do.
Senator ROBERTS: When you actually read that study, it says nine of the 109 patients were readmitted to hospital with myocarditis after COVID, while 62 of 530 were readmitted with myocarditis after receiving the vaccination. That’s eight per cent for COVID myocarditis and 12 per cent for the COVID vaccine myocarditis. Fifty per cent more people were readmitted to the hospital with myocarditis after getting the jab than after getting COVID. The evidence you cited doesn’t appear to support your statement that there’s a higher chance of myocarditis from COVID than from the vaccine. Can you explain your contradiction?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to make an important point before Dr Manderson answers that question. We have tried to explain to the committee on a number of occasions that CASA’s role, when it comes to vaccinations, is purely related to aviation safety. I can tell you again today that there is no link to aviation safety from the matters that you’re talking about. So, while Dr Manderson can express her medical view about the questions you’ve asked, they actually have no bearing on CASA’s role and CASA’s remit when it comes to vaccinating the population.
Senator ROBERTS: They have enormous bearing on Dr Manderson’s integrity.
Ms Spence: I find that commentary quite disappointing coming from a Senator, but we’ll allow—
Senator Carol Brown: The questions do appear to be out of order. Senator ROBERTS’s questions do not seem to be for CASA. They’re not part of CASA’s core duties. So they really need to be asked in another committee. He’s asking about— Senator McKENZIE interjecting—
ACTING CHAIR: Let the minister finish.
Senator Carol Brown: I’m asking the chair to rule whether Senator ROBERTS’s questions are in order for CASA.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I would point out that we have received hundreds of calls from pilots. We’ve received emails and letters. We’ve had person-to-person conversations. Pilots from both Qantas and Virgin are absolutely terrified by what the injections are doing to some of their pilots. This is a fundamental thing, and it goes back to Mr Marcelja some time ago and also to Dr Manderson.
ACTING CHAIR: Do you want to make a quick comment, Senator McKENZIE?
Senator McKENZIE: Yes, I do. Nothing the minister has mentioned goes to the standing orders and whether anything that Senator ROBERTS has asked is in breach of the standing orders. Therefore he has the right in this committee to ask public officials, who earn a lot of money—more than most of the people around this table—to answer the questions on behalf of the constituency that he represents in this place. I would expect that the officials are very experienced and are very patient and will be able to respond to Senator ROBERTS’s questions.
ACTING CHAIR: We will keep going with the line of questioning. I was also going to say that, if there are any particular areas that you, as experienced officials, feel are better answered by another agency or another department, please flag that with us here. I don’t think it’s our role to tell senators what they can and can’t ask, but we’re going to leave it to your judgement too. I think the minister’s concern is that maybe some of these questions may be more appropriate in another committee throughout this fortnight of estimates. Anyway, let’s continue. Senator ROBERTS, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Regardless of what’s in that study, is it your academic opinion, Dr Manderson, that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study?
Dr Manderson: A single population based cohort study is one piece of evidence within many thousands of pieces of evidence that have been published around COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis related to that. It would be scientifically and academically incorrect to rely on a single study or even a single piece of information within a single study to be selectively reported and base an entire policy decision or clinical opinion on that cherry-picked small piece of information. It’s a really fundamental part of research and critical analysis that you understand the breadth and the depth of clinical information that’s reported in the literature, how the reporting is done and even the fundamentals of analysis of individual articles relating to things like sources of bias and sources of statistical significance and relevance in that sort of thing. So a single study should never be relied on and a single piece of data within a single study should never be relied on. It is the breadth of information from a range of clinical literature as well as its interpretation and application—it’s called the concept of generalisability and applicability—to a population, as it applies to a group, when you’re forming an opinion, using that information, as to how it applies to your cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I understand all the terms you use, believe it or not. You didn’t answer my question. You went around it with a lot of terms. Is it your academic opinion that a collaborative systematic review can be completely nullified by a single population based cohort study? Which would you put more credence in?
Dr Manderson: A collaborative systematic review—sometimes we call those meta-analyses—is given more weight in terms of evidentiary power, I suppose, than a single study. The more data points you get from the more studies that are published and analysed, the more reliable the evidence will be.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t think a systematic review, which I provided, trumps a cohort study in the hierarchy of research?
Dr Manderson: A systematic review is as good as the review process and the way in which it’s done. So there are important academic guidelines on the way systematic reviews should be done. That goes to the inclusion criteria for the articles that they refer to, the way they analyse the data within the articles that they’ve referenced and that they’ve selected to include, and the way that they have controlled for selection bias in choosing those articles. So there are systematic reviews that are—
Senator ROBERTS: Single article-to-article comparison: which is more valid and carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: Unfortunately it’s not as simple as that. A poorly conducted systematic review is not as good as a well conducted cohort study.
Senator ROBERTS: Given equal quality, which one carries more weight?
Dr Manderson: If they’re both conducted with great quality and equivalent quality, then a meta-analysis and systematic review of multiple data points is better than a single analysis—if they are done with the same level of quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ll move to my next question. None of the studies you referenced from the TGA were actually published at the time you made your statement to pilots about the risk of myocarditis. Did you actually have any evidence at the time you made the statement to pilots in February 2022? That’s what I asked. What evidence did you have? Nothing in your question on notice was available at that time—nothing. So what did you rely on?
Dr Manderson: By 2022, there had been tens of thousands of research articles published into COVID vaccines and the relationship between those and any adverse cardiac events. In particular, there were very large studies coming out of the countries that adopted COVID vaccination quite early. In particular, Hong Kong and Israel published a lot of data. That research was published in globally—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Manderson—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, sorry, but we should allow the witness to conclude her answer.
Senator ROBERTS: She’s not answering the question.
ACTING CHAIR: It doesn’t matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Keep going.
ACTING CHAIR: Just hear her out, and then you’ll have an opportunity to ask her another question.
Dr Manderson: That evidence was published in globally highly regarded journals: the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal cardiology edition, the Lancet and the publications from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—the CDC. Those source articles formed the basis of the advice that was provided to medical practitioners in Australia by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the advice from the chief health officer of Australia and the public health authorities of each state. In 2022, all of that information was available, and all of that information leading up to when I did that webinar was what I based that on.
Senator ROBERTS: Your diversion is classically known as an appeal to authority. You put so many appeals to authority, and that’s very, very clever, but I asked you a question—’at the time you made the statement to pilots’. That’s what I asked. You gave me a reference that was not available at the time you made that statement. I asked you just now: what evidence did you have, specifically, when you made that statement to pilots? Secondly, nothing in your question on notice was available at that time. Why?
ACTING CHAIR: I think Ms Spence wanted to add something before too. Ms Spence?
Ms Spence: Again, it goes to the direction that we’re going in with the conversation. I totally respect the importance of you being able to ask the questions, but I would like to put it on the record that every other country, every other national aviation authority, took the same approach that Australia did. We did not work in isolation in this space. I hear you’re talking about the information and discussion that Dr Manderson had with the pilots, but I’m struggling to understand what specific issue there is around the actions that CASA took during COVID, which, to me, would seem to be a far more important issue to get to the heart of. If you thought we’d done something wrong, something different or something unacceptable, I’d like to have that conversation, rather than a very detailed academic conversation around which of the thousand articles that were available at the time Dr Manderson relied on.
Senator CANAVAN: Chair, I would like to stress Senator McKENZIE’s point here. The witness is fine to raise a point of order, but any claim not to have to answer a question has to be grounded in the standing orders, precedents and practices of this Senate. Nothing you spoke about then, Ms Spence, did that. Otherwise, we’re just giving opportunities for people to cover themselves to avoid answering questions. I think Senator ROBERTS questions are perfectly fine. They’re about public statements made by witnesses, and that is definitely able to be asked about at Senate estimates inquiries.
ACTING CHAIR: Not to summarise, but I’m mindful of time, and I don’t want to spend too much time on this. I think the point Ms Spence was trying to make was that they’re happy to keep answering questions from Senator ROBERTS. I don’t think that’s in dispute. I think she was just trying to see if there was more available time, with the time we have, to help Senator ROBERTS answer his other questions. Can we just keep continuing? I don’t know where we left to. Senator ROBERTS, do you have another question for the witnesses before us?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. I have lots of questions. Ms Spence, you, Mr Marcelja and, I think, Dr Manderson have all said that the ultimate responsibility for aircraft safety in this country is with you three. With the COVID injections—that’s where this all started—it’s with you too. Specifically, Mr Marcelja, you told me in one of the Senate estimates responses that Dr Manderson is the chief medical expert. That’s where I’m going. Is that clear?
Ms Spence: Is there a question there, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: I’m responding to your comment. Was I clear?
Ms Spence: I’m sorry. I still really don’t understand the direction that you’re going in. I’m happy to keep answering questions.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t understand safety? Alright. Well, let’s continue. Ms Spence, I asked CASA in November 2023 to do a search of the medical record system in question SQ23-004943 for key conditions, and you told me that was not possible. That’s not true. CASA can do a free tech search of your medical records system for key terms, and report the amount of times a word appears. In fact you did exactly that in a February 2023 question on notice SQ23-003267, where you told me: During 2022 … there were 27 instances where pericarditis or myocarditis was mentioned in the clinical notes for a medical certificate assessment. Have you misled the committee on whether CASA can do a search for the terms I’ve asked for in the November question, given that you actually did that in February?
Mr Marcelja: If I recall, I answered that question. And what I told you, and I stand by today, is that our medical record system is not designed to capture those specific conditions and diseases in a way that reporting would be meaningful. While we could search the free text comments of our medical record system for those terms, those terms can appear in free text because a patient mentions them in a consultation because they believe they might have it, because of an actual diagnosis. We stand by the evidence we gave, which is that our medical record system doesn’t capture information on those specific diseases in a way that can be reported meaningfully. If you’d like to give me the reference of your question, I can reiterate the answer that we gave.
Senator ROBERTS: It is possible to do a search in your database for the words I’ve asked for in SQ23- 004943, like you did in SQ23-003267? I understand your comments. And you can provide an answer for how many times they are mentioned in the clinical notes from medical certificate assessments in 2022 and 2023. I’d like you to take it on notice and to provide it.
Ms Spence: If we do that it won’t be meaningful. Again, we’ll take it on notice, but what Mr Marcelja was saying was that any reference would be picked up, but it doesn’t mean that it’s actually related to that particular condition.
Mr Marcelja: I’ve got 4943 in front of me, and at the end of that question we say: Providing the information requested would require a … collation of free-text information from tens of thousands of records and would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Senator ROBERTS: Has CASA been provided with the guidebook circulated by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet giving advice on how to answer questions on notice?
Ms Spence: Not that I’m aware of. It’s certainly not been drawn to my attention. I did hear the questioning yesterday, but I haven’t seen the circular that was referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: If we go back to my first question of Mr Marcelja, I asked on what authority did Qantas and Virgin inject their pilots with an untested gene therapy based treatment that had not been approved by the TGA and that had not had testing done by the TGA or by the FDA in America. You said you relied upon experts. I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ I said, ‘Which experts?’ You said, ‘Experts.’ And when I said, ‘Which experts?’ for the fourth time, I think it was, you said, ‘International experts.’ Dr Manderson, which experts’ advice did CASA rely upon for turning an eye away from the mandated injections of healthy pilots with the COVID injections?
Mr Marcelja: I’d like to correct the statement you’ve made, because what I recall—and if you tell me the date I’ve the Hansard in front of me—telling you we had no role in intervening in the Australian government’s public health response to COVID. We did not intervene to prevent the vaccination of pilots, just like we do not intervene in the prevention of any other administration of any medicine or any vaccination. So if a pilot was to have an adverse reaction to a vaccination, the aviation safety response to that is that that pilot excludes themselves from flying. So that’s what our procedures are based on. We have no role in intervening in public health responses, mandating or not mandating the administration of vaccinations or any medicine, for that matter.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, said every night for about a fortnight, ‘There are no vaccine mandates in this country.’ That was a lie. But what I’m asking you is not whether or not you’re going to interfere in a vaccine mandate. What I’m asking you is: what were your reassurances that these vaccines—these injections—would not be unsafe to pilots? Did you do any high-altitude testing? What are the results of that?
Ms Spence: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking Mr Marcelja.
Ms Spence: Being responsible for the organisation, we treated the COVID vaccinations the same way that we treat all vaccinations. We do not do our own independent testing. What we do ensure is that the system works such that if there was an adverse reaction the pilot would not fly. I’ll be very clear here: as we’ve said at, I think, the last five hearings, there has not been, internationally, any evidence of any pilot being incapacitated as a result of a COVID vaccination while on duty.
Senator ROBERTS: There are 1,000. I was told by a lawyer working with Southwest Airlines in America that 1,000 pilots have not been able to pass their medical since getting their COVID shots.
Ms Spence: That’s not what I said.
Senator ROBERTS: There are lots of them.
Ms Spence: What I said was that there has not been a single example of a pilot being incapacitated on duty as a result of a COVID vaccination.
ACTING CHAIR: Senator, do you have more questions? I need to move the call around.
Senator ROBERTS: I do have some more questions, but if you move it round and come back to me that’s fine.
The public hearing on Excess Mortality was profoundly poignant and unsettling in equal measure.
It has sparked further concerns and raised questions that require answering about excess deaths since the rollout of the COVID vaccination and why there is such a concerted effort to deflect closer scrutiny.
COVERSE and the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS)
It was good to speak with a group of professionals that are prepared to dig into COVID ‘vaccine’ mortality. My questions were about suppressed or disguised data. It’s been well established that the modelling during COVID was not done well – potentially to support the government program regardless what the data was actually showing.
There are numerous methods through which excess mortality can be hidden. We simply cannot trust the government data when it stands in such stark contrast to the widespread experiences of everyday Australians.
A study of excess mortality in Queensland in 2021 offered warning signals. There was a huge spike in deaths immediately after the COVID injection rollout began, even before the virus itself arrived in Queensland. Similar patterns was seen in Western Australia and other parts of Australia. This spike then came back to near normal levels once the “vaccine” rollout slowed down.
It is not acceptable that instead of seeking to understand the reasons behind these findings, our health authorities are attempting to discredit this data.
Australian Health Department
I asked the Department of Health to explain peaks of excess mortality in 2022.
Significant peaks observed were higher than expected, with the explanation being that it can be contributed to COVID itself, although there was still a peak outside the average.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) revealed it’s possible to match COVID jabs with mortality, however Australia’s Health Department appear to be quite reluctant to do this. They commissioned a report from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance to conduct an analysis comparing ‘similar populations with each other’ to give a “better sense of mortality”. Predictably, the outcome of this “critical research” is that COVID vaccines provided significant protection against mortality from COVID and extended this to all-cause mortality.
National Rural Health Alliance
The points raised by Susanne Tegen, Chief Executive of the National Rural Health Alliance, went to the heart of the struggles faced by rural and remote communities during the federal and state governments’ COVID response.
National Rural Health Alliance commented on limitations in mortality data. It strongly advocates for the creation of datasets demonstrating excess mortality in relation to remoteness.
The Alliance wrote in their submission that the absence of geographical data makes it impossible to fully understand the impacts of excess mortality on rural and remote consumers, and that “Tailored datasets and rural specific models of care are imperative to addressing ongoing healthcare inequities.”
Research should be prioritised to examine how pandemics and other disasters impact health systems in rural Australia.
Transcripts
COVERSE and the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society
Senator ROBERTS: Mrs Potter, I feel very ashamed of our country. As a result of lies, you’ve had your life altered completely and what we’ve given you instead of care is gaslighting. Thank you so much for your courage in being here. I also want to put on the record my appreciation to Senator Rennick for his previous two questions that Dr Neil answered and answered so capably. They were fine questions and excellent responses. Mr Faletic, you came before us at the terms of reference inquiry. I want to thank everyone for being here in person. Thank you for your commitment. You said in your opening statement, Mr Faletic, ‘newly disabled and chronically injured’, and there are thousands of them. You also mentioned in the terms of reference inquiry that doctors were coerced, so I don’t need to put questions to you. I would love to, but I’ve got some other questions. Dr Kunadhasan, you mentioned ‘peer reviewed paper unaffiliated by trial sponsors Pfizer’. Could we get that paper on notice, please?
Dr Kunadhasan: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: You also told us that more than 50 per cent of Australians took Pfizer. I’d like to learn more separately on notice. I’ll think of some questions for you with regard to your correspondence with Dr Lawler, because I read it in your submission and I’m stunned. I want to also acknowledge the courage of your stance. Dr Neil, on pharmacovigilance, if I could have a one-word answer at the moment because I want to get on to Dr Madry. Pharmacovigilance is not independent, is it, in this country?
Dr Neil: A one-word answer? I don’t believe it is sufficiently independent and the access is very difficult for the average doctor.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you send us the peer reviewed paper that you’ve published on notice, please?
Dr Neil: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Dr Madry, can you comment on the use of models used for predicting excess mortality, please?
Dr Madry: I want to thank Mrs Potter. You moved me. That’s part of the reason we do some of this work. There’s been an epidemic of bad modelling during this pandemic. Stanford Professor John Ioannidis published a paper about how bad the modelling was. When we do modelling we need to apply a range of models to look at best case and worst case scenarios. Models rely on assumptions. Those assumptions can be wrong. I know time is short, but a quick comment on the models that the government is relying on at the moment for predicting the numbers of excess. That model changed last year and predicted lower numbers. There are a number of fundamental issues with that model. It uses a time series modelling that one wouldn’t use in a modern analysis, fitting a sine wave, which doesn’t actually fit the sort of seasonal trends. A strange thing happened. The standard years were 2015 to 2019, and then there was a decision to reach back to 2013 and it turned out 2013 is a low year for mortality; 2019 is a high year. So, if you wanted to tip up the baseline and make the excess less, that’s what one would do. In our submission, we’ve provided a range for what it should be. The estimates at the moment are very much at the low end of the estimates. We need to look at the low end, the high end, and the real result should be somewhere in between. There’s another issue about subtracting all COVID deaths from and with. We know the convention shouldn’t be to count the deaths that are with someone who dies from cancer, for example, who tests positive with a PCR test. They shouldn’t be subtracted. We know influenza was down during those years. So, should we be subtracting all of those deaths? Because clearly some of the COVID deaths were deaths of frail elderly people who, sadly, would have died anyway. So, if we’re trying to come to what’s the clear non-COVID excess there are more professional ways to look at that. Modelling has been done poorly. That’s well established. I think independent groups like ours that can talk to what’s really happening have a better understanding and can try to fit ranges to those models. Especially when it’s a high-risk situation where people are dying and getting injured, we need to understand the best case and worst case scenarios.
Senator ROBERTS: What other data is needed to clarify what could be causing the non-COVID excess mortality?
Dr Madry: If you wanted to rule out COVID vaccinations as a possible cause of this excess, with these datasets that Senator Pratt was talking about where there’s a linkage between immunisation registers and mortality registers we understand that a linking of tables has been done by the Institute of Health and Welfare and the ABS. Basically the data that’s needed is the date of last vaccination and date of death on an individual record basis. We can go through that and find out if there trends that shouldn’t be there. They should be independent, but there could be trends. If we can get access to that, we can provide some insight.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you intend to apply for access to that data?
Dr Madry: Yes. Since we’ve heard more about this we do intend to apply for it.
Senator ROBERTS: You said you did an analysis of mortality in Queensland. What did you find?
Dr Madry: Queensland kept out COVID until right up to the end of 2021. So, with Queensland we had a 10- month window where we could look at mortality without the effects of COVID. Any deaths from COVID in Queensland were from cruise ships or out of the state. We purchased data from the ABS with narrow age ranges. What became clear was that in the older ranges, which is where we saw in the database of adverse event notifications a lot of the deaths occurring—ages above 60—we saw the trend of mortality start going up in the second quarter of 2021. That went up right until the end of the year. That was clearly a warning signal.
Senator CANAVAN: Have you looked at Western Australia, which had a similar experience? When I look at the ABS data, again, the deaths seem to start ticking up in late 2021, even before the WA border was open.
Dr Madry: Western Australia has a few more months, because they opened up in March, I understand. We’d have a full one-year window with Western Australia. The reason I picked Queensland was partly financial, because you have the largest state with the longest time. South Australia and Western Australia would be other ones that would be worth looking at.
Senator ROBERTS: Dr Neil, there are many ways excess mortality can be hidden. Classification of causes of death—can you answer yes or no to each one as to whether or not it’s possible to hide a death?
Dr Neil: Excess mortality typically just considers all-cause mortality. Then there’s a secondary sort of inquiry as to what the subcauses might be.
Senator ROBERTS: So with doctors placed under coercion, we could hide a death due to a COVID injection by classifying it as ‘not due to an injection’?
Dr Neil: There are two avenues to highlight a death as a doctor where as a doctor you might have the opinion that it’s a vaccine death. One would be by registering the death on the pharmacovigilance database, and 75 per cent of the deaths were registered by doctors. The other would be to write a death certificate—I believe that’s rarely done—in a way which would note a vaccine injury as a cause of death, but it is possible.
Senator ROBERTS: They can be statistically hidden or misclassified, correct.
Dr Madry: Correct. Misclassification is one of the biggest problems we have as analysts.
Senator ROBERTS: A barrister I talked to said you can hide evidence, and the best place to hide it is in plain sight.
Dr Madry: That’s a very wise statement.
Senator ROBERTS: Are these things being done?
Dr Madry: Is it being hidden? There are certainly strange things happening where the ICD cases with categorisation going into vague categorisations; it might have been very specific cardiac, respiratory. There are strange things going on. We can detect those things happening. As you said, from a forensic point of view, being able to see those sorts of things is insightful in itself. Even though it may make it harder to find the actual result we’re looking for, that’s important.
Senator ROBERTS: So, keeping on theme of hiding data, we can also have alternative narratives, such as long COVID instead of vaccine injuries? We can also have the use of labels to denigrate people, shut them up, condition an audience that it could be something else, propaganda to dissuade people’s perceptions? Do any of these things tie in with you?
Dr Neil: As a society, we’ve been concerned about the culture in medicine that tends towards censoring doctors from speaking about some of the key issues of pandemic management, including the vaccine. We believe that’s real, we believe we can document it, and it could well have had an effect on the information that’s able to come to light.
Australian Health Department
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On that last question that Senator Rennick asked, Dr Gould, are you familiar with the Australian Bureau of Statistics submission?
Dr Gould: Yes. If you just give me a moment, I will fumble on my iPad to have that. What page, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: It is on page 7 of their 14-page submission—top of the page, graph 1. Have you done any work on trying to understand and explain the first peak in March 2021 and the next peak in August 2022? Can you tell me the causes of those peaks? Take it on notice if you want.
Dr Gould: I’m not actually seeing a peak in March 2021.
Senator ROBERTS: You are not seeing the actual deaths?
Dr Gould: Yes, I’m looking at the same graph as you, I believe, with expected, actual and—
Senator ROBERTS: There is a peak well outside the upper range.
Dr Gould: Oh, yes, there is a small period—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s quite marked.
Dr Gould: The graph that you see, the expected mortality, is a modelled number. We have talked about this before. And, as with any modelled number, it has strengths and weaknesses, so that is acknowledged. There are a number of different ways—
Senator ROBERTS: This is a startling peak.
Dr Gould: Yes, so—
Senator ROBERTS: Is that all due to the model?
Dr Gould: The peak you are referring to is a peak because it goes above the confidence intervals of the model, so it is a function of the model and it is also a function of mortality.
Senator ROBERTS: It is way, way, way above.
Dr Gould: I’m concerned that we are looking at different graphs. I’m not seeing a large peak in 2021—
Senator ROBERTS: Graph No. 1. End of February, early March 20—sorry, 2022.
Dr Gould: Oh, 2022.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m sorry, you’re right. What is the explanation for the big peak there?
Dr Gould: You see a very significant peak with the actual number, so that is the dark red number, and that represents total mortality over that period. And it is higher than expected. Importantly, this graph also shows what it looks like without COVID, so that is the—dare I say, salmon coloured or pink coloured line—which is a much less dramatic peak, so that indicates how much COVID itself contributed to that large peak. That said, I would acknowledge that, without COVID, the light pink line is still outside of normal expectations. So that would be considered a period of excess mortality.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on explaining why that is the case? It is above the mean of the range and it’s above the upper limit.
Dr Gould: Again, the ABS reports look at different causes of death, and complementary analysis of the Actuaries Institute also looks at potential causes there. That includes ischaemic heart disease.
Senator ROBERTS: So we go to the ABS?
Dr Gould: The ABS is—
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. I want to follow up on a question from Senator Rennick that I did not hear that you answered, and that turned on something I asked earlier in the second session. The Australian Bureau of Statistics revealed in estimates last week that it is possible to match ABS deaths data against COVID status to see what the respective death rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians are. Have you done that analysis? I did not hear you respond to Senator Rennick.
Dr Gould: Again, it is the same concept where I was talking about the time series analysis. We need to be really careful about producing—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you done it?
Dr Gould: I will get to that. Producing raw mortality counts by vaccination status is of very limited value. Obviously, the counts we would expect to be higher for vaccinated Australians because the vast majority of Australians were vaccinated. So we needed an appropriate denominator. So that work needs to be done. We also need to—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Dr Gould, you can still have comparison of people who have had one vaccine, two vaccines, three shots, four shots et cetera.
Dr Gould: Yes, and what I wanted to get to: you could do that with raw mortality rates, but, as we have discussed, age is a really important factor for mortality, so age standardisation is really important there. But there are other forms of work there that we need to do to ensure that we are comparing like populations with each other—so, effectively we are comparing statistical apples with each other. And that was the whole purpose of the research that we commissioned by the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance—that they could do that challenging but really critical work so that they could give a better sense of the mortality outcomes for people—
Senator ROBERTS: What is the answer?
Dr Gould: The answer is that it is very clear that COVID vaccines provided significant protection against mortality from COVID. They also extended that research to all-cause mortality. As we have said, COVID was the last—
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get a copy of the report please?
Dr Gould: Absolutely. It is publicly available, and we would be happy to send you a link for that.
Senator ROBERTS: Where abouts?
Dr Gould: I can’t quote the exact web address, but it is—
Senator ROBERTS: When did you ask them to do that report?
Dr Gould: I believe the date is current to 2022. We could take on notice when we started conversations about the report.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could please. What is the death rate comparison amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated Australians? I know you said there are many qualifications but, filtering through the qualifications, what is the death rate?
Dr Gould: It is lower for vaccinated Australians as per that research.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we have those numbers please?
Dr Gould: The way that they describe it is actually in terms of the protection against death from the—
Senator ROBERTS: Not the death rates?
CHAIR: Just one moment please, Dr Gould. Senator Roberts, just the last five minutes you have been interrupting quite regularly while they are answering—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Could you maybe wait until they finish and then ask your next question.
Dr Gould: I think that research should answer a lot of your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Has anyone ordered you not to analyse deaths, or excess mortality, or to do so in a certain way to hide anything?
Dr Gould: Absolutely not.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you, Chair.
National Rural Health Alliance
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here, Ms Tegen. Your submission’s third paragraph includes this statement: The absence of geographical data makes it impossible to fully understand the impacts of excess mortality on rural and remote consumers. NRHA strongly advocates for the creation of datasets demonstrating excess mortality in relation to remoteness. We need to ensure that the committee notes this, Ms Tegen. Is this something that must be in this inquiry’s report?
Ms Tegen: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: What about preparedness? You should have been aware that there was a preparedness plan for rural areas for a flu epidemic. Were people in rural areas aware of such a plan, and was it followed?
Ms Tegen: I am not sure whether they were all included in such a plan. If there is a federal plan, it needs to be taken to those rural communities. A classic example, again, is through the PRIM-HS model where, at a local level, they start looking at, ‘How do we manage a risk like this if it comes to our region?’ It’s no different from a fire plan or a flood plan that rural communities have. It’s really interesting. Why is it that the Defence Force and police forces are all funded to do this, to support their workforce to do this well? We need to do it in health. It needs to be done under a national health strategy, and there needs to be a compact between federal, state and local government, with the community.
Senator ROBERTS: I must commend the witness, Chair, for providing clear, concise and very strong advocacy. It’s refreshing. What discussions, meetings and planning occurred in the early stages of responding to COVID to guide your response in rural areas to COVID, once we were told there was supposedly a major virus on the loose?
Ms Tegen: The National Rural Health Alliance started a series of teleconferences and updates with not only its members but also its Friends of the Alliance, which are the grassroots people. In addition to that, we held meetings with the government to provide real-time feedback to those communities, and the clinicians. Again, clinicians on the ground were really stretched in rural areas because they already had workforce shortages. It needs to be revisited, taking into account the learnings of the populations and the response on the ground.
Senator ROBERTS: Your submission raises the topic of a shortage of health professionals in rural areas. You have said it repeatedly today. How did the shortage of health professionals in the bush make the impact of COVID worse, and what can be done about it?
Ms Tegen: It burned out a lot of the workforce. It made people feel that they weren’t supported, because as soon as we felt that COVID was finished and it was ‘business as usual’, they are still trying to recover from what happened over the last four or five years. They still feel that they are not supported. We are now focusing on the future workforce, yet we are not able to support or provide more bolstering for the current workforce. The communities are back to normal in terms of living their life. They’re working in an environment where there is a higher inflation rate.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s tough.
Ms Tegen: It’s tough. These communities are the most underfunded. If you’re looking at agriculture and primary industries, they are the only communities around the world that are not subsidised. Here we are, expecting them to deal with health issues, with global markets and with weather patterns. We don’t expect that from the city. Why do we expect it from the country? It is because it’s out of sight, out of mind.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the things I’m picking up, between the lines, is that you don’t see the imposing of systems and processes from the city on rural as being effective. You are calling for a national rural health strategy. You’ve also made the point that people need to be accountable for their own individual health.
Ms Tegen: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that something that could be said about the whole country’s health?
Ms Tegen: Absolutely. By increasing the amount of data that is available, by increasing an understanding of health care, not only the healthcare system but also your own health, you are more likely to be able to deal with your own health issues because you have an increased health literacy level. I will make a comment about the death recently of a person that was raising the awareness in the population. That was Michael Mosley. Australians loved watching him. He increased their understanding of health care. Norman Swan is increasing the understanding of health care. His Coronacast was listened to by millions of people around Australia. Rural Australia still has a very high readership of and listening to the ABC, and those initiatives were really important to rural people. We need to make sure that they are not forgotten, and that we have a social contract to do something about this, rather than having reforms and inquiries, and nothing happening with them.
I called on the Senate to support the inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme and restated my demand for the people of Australia to have their Royal Commission in COVID.
Australians are dying at a far higher rate than normal. Surely even the pharma industry lobby in the Senate can see that there’s a high probability that the cause, the one thing that has changed in the last 4 years coinciding with the increased mortality, is the jabs that everyday Australians were coerced and bullied into taking.
Why is the Labor Government so afraid of uncovering the truth? If they’re confident it’s not the cause, then shouldn’t they be prepared to have an inquiry into it?
This is an issue of life or death for the Australian people and it needs to be above suspicion. We need honest debate and proper scrutiny to understand why over 30,000 people more than normal have died so far.
In this speech, I go further into messenger RNA “vaccines”, the technology used to protect them and the actual mechanism by which these jabs could be causing the harm we are seeing.
I also talk about the “bait and switch” that was used during clinical trials, which saw trials conducted using the long-established method of using albumin to grow the vaccine. After testing, this was switched out for a new and untested method using a derivative of E. coli bacteria, which multiples much faster but contaminates the vaccine in the process.
During an interview on the ABC, Greg Hunt, the Health Minister at the time, admitted that “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data”.
Where is that data now and what does it really say about our COVID response? The answer will only come from an inquiry. Clearly the Albanese Government and the Opposition do not want you to know.
Transcript
There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That’s more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected.
Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it’s possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can’t possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I’ll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I’ll do that in a minute.
The COVID products are not vaccines because they don’t stop people getting COVID. They don’t stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, ‘Why are so many people suddenly dying?’ are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny.
One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as ‘plasmidgate’. This is technical, so I’ll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab.
The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they’re using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs.
The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That’s the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn’t. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That’s where the testing was done, if you’ve had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body.
It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It’s a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people’s bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here’s the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they’re created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don’t know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person.
Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body’s natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating when those questions are being asked. It’s time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick be agreed to.
Thank you Hoody for your courage in speaking the truth at the second public hearing to set the Terms of Reference for a future Royal Commission into COVID.
“I urge this Senate and I urge this government with these words: Government you must listen. This country is in dire straits. The spirit of this country has been systematically destroyed and I’ve witnessed it firsthand. I’ve done what many of you don’t have the time to do. I’ve been face to face with people who’ve lost loved ones that they know were from vaccine injury. And I don’t know whether these excess deaths are being caused by vaccines or ‘long COVID,’ or whatever else it might be. It could be an additive in food. I don’t know, but nobody else seems to know either and that’s why we must stop. We must investigate. We must do a proper debriefing. We must apply proper human factors. And we must bring the people that I mentioned that have been locked away with censorship, back out of the dark with their data so that we can start healing the people of this country. And if we don’t do that we have neglected an opportunity that will go down in history as one of the greatest human factor failures in the world.”
I tabled a graph based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which shows a significant spike in excess deaths. This significant increase in 2021 and a further spike in 2022 are unexplained. The graph excludes respiratory diseases and COVID, which takes out the ‘COVID confusion’ and allows us to look at other factors, such as heart disease, strokes and organ failure. The Chief Medical Officer has a primary responsibility to keep Australians healthy (and alive). He must be called on to explain why 10,000 Australians more than average have died from causes that were not COVID related.
The spike in deaths correlates to the rollout of the COVID jabs. CMO Kelly testified the jabs were not the cause, but offered no explanation of what the alternative cause could be.
They don’t have any answers for us and that is simply not acceptable. I promised to hound down those responsible for our COVID catastrophe and I will keep that promise.
The principle of Occam’s Razor, whereby the most obvious explanation is the most likely, is being deliberately ignored by agencies and advisors to the government who are reliant on the flow of funding from the companies that made these jabs. Is it any wonder there is a flat out refusal to confront the truth of what is becoming a scandal of the century?
It’s time Dr Baffled was referred to a Royal Commission.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to get through all my TGA questions.
CHAIR: I will endeavour to move to five-minute blocks to assist the committee progress. We will go as quickly as we can.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. My questions are to the TGA. I would like to table these graphs.
CHAIR: We’ll consider them, Senator Roberts. We’ll distribute them. I am happy for this to be circulated to officials, but the decision on tabling will have to wait, Senator Roberts, until we have a source for the document. I don’t want to—
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Bureau of Statistics.
CHAIR: I just need a link so we can verify the information. We’ve had issues today already with the content tabled. It can be circulated for officials to consider as part of your conversation, but it won’t go on the website until we’ve had time to consider it.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure. This is a graph of all causes of mortality in Australia over the last 10 years, with respiratory and COVID removed to focus on all other causes of death graphed as a percentage of the population. The source is the recently released ABS, or Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of death report, which added 2022 data. You’ll also note that the COVID measures themselves in 2020 did not have a noticeable impact on deaths, meaning there was something else in play here. You can see that the deaths bounced around the FRP, which is typical, of natural variation around 0.59 per cent deaths each year. In 2022, it shot up. That is clearly significant. What is more, the provisional deaths are still not included in the 2022 deaths. According to the Bureau of Statistics in Senate estimates last time, I think, they said that those deaths are 15 per cent below where they will end up once the coroner’s investigations are completed. That peak that you see there is clearly significant. It is going to be higher. That’s 10,000 deaths per annum unexplained and another 5,000 to 10,000 once the provisional deaths are changed with the autopsy included. This is about half to two-thirds of all casualties in World War II. If this is not cause—
Senator URQUHART: We traversed this morning. I think Senator Rennick asked similar questions this morning when you weren’t in here. I’m not sure whether they are the same and we’re going over the same ground.
Senator ROBERTS: No. I also have papers here that are available online by statistician Wilson Sy. There is a statistical evaluation of COVID-19 injections for safety and effectiveness in the New South Wales epidemic. There is also an evaluation entitled ‘Australian COVID-19 pandemic: A Bradford Hill analysis of iatrogenic excess mortality’. He provides many graphs that clearly show correlation up and down with the injections. If this excess death in 2022 is not caused by the COVID injections, what the hell is the cause?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please try to keep your language parliamentary.
Senator ROBERTS: At the moment, it is 10,000. It will be 15,000 to 20,000 once the coroner’s report has come in. I will not leave this estimates session without an answer as to why so many people are dying all of a sudden.
Prof. Kelly: I might start, Senator. Thank you for your question. I would point out that we have provided multiple answers to these similar questions over the last few months in questions on notice. It was actually, in fact, very closely related to questions that came from Senator Rennick this morning. Your question really goes to excess deaths and the reason we are having excess deaths in Australia in the past couple of years. I will pass to my colleague Dr Phillip Gould for an explanation briefly.
Dr Gould: Senator Roberts, the statistic that you refer to around a 15 per cent underreporting of deaths in the ABS statistics is incorrect. The ABS has advised that since 2022 they’ve actually updated the way they report on deaths. That 15 per cent that was quoted to you—I understand it was quoted to you—was based on deaths which the coroner would not have included in the ABS statistics. In the data you are referring to, that has been amended.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. I didn’t know about that. I was going on what the ABS told me. That’s still a huge spike. It’s clearly significant.
Dr Gould: On that point of fact, that 15 per cent is not correct.
Senator ROBERTS: That is a huge spike. No-one has told us what is causing it.
Prof. Kelly: We did talk about it this morning. The perception you’re trying to put forward is that because there was vaccination at that time and there is excess death, that is not—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not putting forward a perception. All I’m saying is that is statistically significant. It is a huge increase in deaths. I’d like to know the cause.
Prof. Kelly: And we don’t dispute that, Senator. I take the point that you are trying to make that there is some relationship between that graph you’ve got there and the temporal association with vaccines. We do not accept that as a premise. What we did talk about earlier today is a peer reviewed paper that has now been published that I mentioned at the last estimates. It clearly demonstrates there’s no link between the vaccines and all-cause mortality and that there is an extremely strong link between protection from COVID related mortality from vaccination. That is going back to the issue earlier of it being effective. It clearly is effective. It is not associated with this increase in mortality. There has been an increase in mortality; we don’t dispute that. You’ve removed respiratory mortality from this. It is an even more spectacular rise when you include that. In 2022 in particular, there was an increase in excess mortality respiratory related.
Senator ROBERTS: Respiratory diseases have been removed because of COVID. We know that all of the respiratory diseases have been removed. This is something other than COVID.
Prof. Kelly: Well, it may actually still be related to COVID, but it is not a respiratory disease. If we take into account that it goes to 2022. In this year, the testing for COVID has decreased, so there will be undiagnosed COVID out there in the community, which may be associated with longer term issues, in which case—
Senator ROBERTS: Which tells me that you don’t see it as a threat. Otherwise you would still be testing.
Prof. Kelly: It’s still a serious disease. We know that there are some long-term effects. Many other countries in the world have seen cardiovascular death, for example, related to COVID. We haven’t seen that as much here in Australia. There are many of those other causes that Dr Gould went into earlier that have been potentially associated with long-term effects of COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: I will move on. Wilson Sy’s paper, by the way, shows clear up and down close correlation. I’m happy to give you the references to them later, if you want.
