Sanjeev Sabhlok's blog

Thoughts on economics and liberty

A superb email re: the disastrous attack on science and ethics by governments during this pandemic


The appalling attacks upon anyone who asks reasonable questions about government policy have been a consistent (and most concerning), feature of the response to COVID-19. Be it questions about lockdowns, masks, Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, or vaccines, the reaction from the media and government has been the same – you must be a ‘tin-foil hat’, ‘anti-5G’, ‘right-wing extremist’ or ‘anti-vaxxer’. (Feel free to throw in any other appropriate slander, there are too many to count!)

One only needs to look at the attacks on Craig Kelly to see how this is working. It is not unique to Australia either. Free speech and scientific debate are dying (if they are not already dead). Yet, it is vitally important for our democracy that all voices are heard and respected. This includes people who are concerned about vaccination. Perhaps if our society stopped judging people and listened to their concerns, we may learn something.

For the record, the rallies that took place on Saturday 20 February, widely reported as ‘anti-vax,’ were in fact anti-mandatory vaccination rallies. People are rightly concerned about the unknown safety of the new and experimental vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. However, these rallies were also concerned with issues of coercion and compulsion to vaccinate, as well as bodily autonomy and informed consent. They were attended by many people who have broader concerns about the government response to COVID-19.

When considering the Federal Government’s position that the vaccine is safe, and that it is the only way out of this current state of emergency, there is a fundamental point that must be acknowledged.

State and federal governments have consistently proved that they cannot be trusted throughout the response to SARS-CoV-2. For example, the situation regarding HCQ and Ivermectin demonstrates that government claims about following scientific evidence are not true. One of Australia’s top immunologists, Professor Robert Clancy, backed up Mr Kelly’s claims.[i] I find this most concerning.

Nor did state or federal governments follow our existing pandemic plans when SARS-CoV-2 arrived.[ii] Much of the response has gone against pre-existing knowledge on how to deal with a highly transmissible respiratory virus – including the WHO guidelines, published in 2019.[iii] For example, mandatory lockdowns were not featured in any pandemic plans or guidelines; widespread mask wearing by healthy people in the community was generally not recommended (and certainly not mandated), because there was little evidence to support it; and according to the WHO and others, contact tracing, testing, and quarantining the healthy, is a damaging waste of resources once a virus is widespread (as well as ethically questionable).[iv]

The evidence for these interventions does not exist, and yet they have been MANDATED by supposedly democratic governments.

For a further example, there is a summary of evidence regarding border closures on the Department of Health website.[v] It is an interesting read. This document makes it obvious why international border closures were not recommended in the guidelines, including WHO guidelines. The Federal Government disregarded this evidence along with everything else. (As an aside, I would like to know how the Australian response can be consistent with International Health Regulations?)[vi]

Australian state and federal governments are not alone of course, this is a pattern we have observed around the world, and the WHO also failed to adhere to its own pandemic guidelines.

Why did the Australian Government, the WHO, and most Western democracies, ignore scientific evidence and follow such a peculiar path in response to a respiratory virus such as SARS-CoV-2?Who is benefitting from it? (When you consider the socioeconomic fallout that is occurring, it certainly is not global citizens who have anything to gain. For example, the 142 million children predicted to fall into poverty in the developing world in 2020 alone.)[vii]

These questions are also vitally important to the vaccine debate. Given the Australian Government’s track record outlined above, how can Australian citizens be expected to trust government advice regarding the safety of the vaccines, especially when we know they have only been trialled for a matter of months?[viii] [ix]

Also, how can the Australian public make an informed choice, when we know the Australian people are not being properly informed by the government or the media?

As you have repeatedly pointed out, the risk from COVID-19 is being overstated, and the response is clearly not proportional.

An analysis by John Ioannidis, published on the WHO website, suggests a median infection fatality rate of 0.23% for COVID-19. Ioannidis also concludes that ‘most locations probably have an infection fatality rate less than 0.2%’. For people under 70, the median IFR was estimated to be 0.05%.[x] This is not dissimilar to influenza and yet we have never seen such an extreme response to influenza.

Another significant detail that the government seems keen to obscure, is the steep age-gradient in mortality. (As highlighted by Mr Morrison’s recent statement, ‘everyone’s at risk of quite severe disease on this, potentially’).[xi] The risk of death from SARS-CoV-2 infection is small for most people, especially children and young people. However, elderly people with comorbidities are at much higher risk of death or serious illness. Most deaths worldwide have occurred in this group.[xii] [xiii]

In his Sydney Morning Herald article, on 4 February 2021, Professor Clancy stated the following:

‘There are useful lessons from influenza, for which vaccines give partial immunity, of short duration, and with a poor response in the elderly. Early evidence suggests similar outcomes are probable with COVID-19 vaccines.

Herd immunity is unlikely. If it occurs it will likely be of short duration, requiring annual vaccination for continued immunity. Vaccines will be at the core of community management, but they are not enough on their own.’

This statement suggests the vaccine may not protect the most at-risk group and also disregards herd immunity. Professor Clancy says ongoing community vaccination will be needed (but does not address the issue of potential cross-immunity).

The government’s approach is precisely this, to to vaccinate everyone, including those not at risk (presumably to protect those at risk), annually, forever.[xiv] [xv]

Brendan Murphy has also said it is not yet known whether the vaccine will prevent onward transmission.[xvi] If, as Professor Clancy asserts above, the elderly do not put up a good immune response to vaccination, and the vaccination may not prevent transmission, then it is pertinent to ask what is the point of the vaccination? Surely, it may not protect the elderly anyway?

Therefore, why is the government spending millions of dollars on experimental vaccines, for a virus that presents no risk to most people, that may not even protect those most at risk?

The government claims that it has prioritised safety, [xvii] and Brendan Murphy is telling the Australian public that the vaccines are properly regulated.[xviii] However, the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have only been given provisional approval by the TGA.[xix]

If the government is assuring the Australian public that these vaccines are ‘safe’, they are lying, because long-term safety data does not exist. Moreover, there have been concerning reactions in previous animal studies of other mRNA vaccines that have been raised in the literature.[xx]

Any doctor who gives this vaccine to a patient without warning them of these facts, or explaining potential risks, is not following informed consent requirements. The Helsinki Declaration[xxi] would also seem to be relevant here, given that these vaccines have not been subjected to full and proper evaluation.

Can a doctor really uphold their Hippocratic Oath if they are administering a vaccine to an individual who is not at risk from SARS-CoV-2, when clinical trials have been accelerated, and no long-term safety data exists?

Australia also has a history of coercion to vaccinate such as ‘no jab, no pay’ legislation.[xxii] Whatever you think about vaccines, denying income to parents to coerce them to vaccinate their children is surely abhorrent and against public health ethics. Yet, this legislation was championed by politicians and the media at the time.[xxiii]

This raises the question as to whether Australia will insist on vaccinating children for SARS-CoV-2, even though the virus poses almost no risk to them whatsoever? (There are already trials underway overseas, and Brendan Murphy has already suggested children will need to be vaccinated.)[xxiv]

For the Australian people to be fully informed, the above questions need to be answered.

In addition, urgent answers are also needed to the following questions:

  • How does a vaccine pass ethics approval if there is no proven benefit to the most at-risk group, particularly as the disease poseslittle risk to most people? (Never mind the fact that there are already potential treatments available that are being denied to the Australian public.)
  • Is it ethical to vaccinate children for a disease that presents negligible risk to them, even more so with a vaccine that has not been subjected to proper evaluation?
  • Will a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine be added to the mandatory vaccination schedule for children?
  • Will Australian citizens be unable to work, go to the pub or travel without a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine – either through coercion or force?
  • Will the immunity from vaccination be as protective as natural infection, particularly given the novel technology in some vaccines?
  • Left alone, won’t SARS-CoV-2 become just another endemic respiratory virus that lives alongside human populations? (The WHO said this was the most likely outcome.)[xxv]
  • What about claims regarding cross-reactive t-cell immunity from exposure to other coronaviruses? Have any studies been undertaken in Australia to assess this?(There is plenty of evidence emerging to suggest this may be a factor elsewhere.) [xxvi] [xxvii]

I believe Australian citizens must be able to give proper informed consent to any medical intervention, and I do not want the children of Australia to suffer the potential long-term consequences of a rushed vaccine. I also do not want to be coerced to take a vaccine I do not need, that has limited safety data.

History offers a cautionary tale, such as the many children who contracted polio from vaccination.[xxviii] (I personally know someone who was paralysed for life). Or the children and teenagers who developed narcolepsy because of the swine flu vaccine.[xxix]

COVID-19 poses little risk to our children and we should not use them as guinea pigs. I would argue that this equally applies to most of the Australian population, who are also not at risk.

Mr Jones, I cannot help but wonder what this all means for the future of our democracy?

More importantly, does it make me a conspiracy theorist, or ‘anti-vaxxer’ for asking these questions?

The Federal Government has proved itself to be untrustworthy throughout the response to SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, how on earth can it be trusted with vaccination?

I ask the question again, who is benefitting from all of this? Because it certainly does not appear to be the Australian public.






























Continue Reading

Further ban by Twitter – a record


My appeal: “I have cited a government document so what exactly is misleading about my comment? Particularly about rolling out vaccines to children who are at no risk.”

Acknowledgement of my appeal:

some time later

On second thought I just removed the tweet – none of my appeals with any of these Big Tech companies are successful and they are determined to block honest views. It will merely delay my getting back access.

Continue Reading

October 2020 notes on HCQ sent to me by someone

Haven’t had time to read all my emails. Got to this now, and believe it is important to have this on my blog for future reference:


Could the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) issue be added to the claim to the ICC? Australia is one of the only countries in the world that has banned the drug to the point that in QLD, GPs can go to prison for up to 6 months. Close to 5bn people in the world have access to the drug and many people in developing countries are wondering why the West is doing this to itself. I am sure you already know the scientific literature is abundant. Australian’s bureaucracy bases its ban on just 1 study, the infamous RECOVERY study which has been debunked for months now.

Prof. Raoult in France is one of the leaders in this field and has always said this study is like “The Marx Brothers do Science”

(By the way in the video, he says experts from India are telling Oxford how to use the drug)

Meta-analysis show that when used early, HCQ reduces mortality by 40%.

Other sources:


This is something I wrote a few months ago to friends who didn’t know anything about HCQ and Prof. Raoult:

I’ve been learning about Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) since February. The debate has been raging in France since then. It started much later in the US and Australia thanks to D. Trump and a controversial video. The way the US and AUS publics have been exposed to this complex issue couldn’t have been worse. I am no expert, but I don’t think it’s black & white. It rarely is. And I certainly hope nobody dies at the moment because of politics and financial interests.

Imagine being Professor Didier Raoult right now. He is considered the number 1 expert in the world in the vast field of communicable diseases.

With his team of Professors, Doctors and Researchers, he has published over 2300 research papers over the last 35 years and developed many medical protocols, some of them now being part of medical textbooks.

He runs the Institut Hospitalier Universitaire (IHU) Méditerranée in Marseilles France, which employs over 800 men and women. This institution possesses the most terrifying collection of “killer” bacteria and viruses in existence and is one of the world’s leading centres of expertise in infectiology and microbiology. Since the turn of the millennium, he and his team have studied the various spectacular viral epidemics and have established close scientific collaborations with the best of their counterparts in other countries. Their achievements include the discovery of treatments (using chloroquine, in particular…) which are cited today in all handbooks on infectious diseases throughout the world. HCQ is the most prescribed drug in the history of Medicine (with Aspirin).

(autogenerated subtitles available)

On February 26th, he published a resounding video saying: “Coronavirus, game over! »

The reason for his enthusiasm? The publication of a Chinese clinical trial on the prescription of chloroquine, showing suppression of viral carriage in a few days on patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. Studies had already shown the efficacy of this molecule against the virus in the laboratory (in vitro). The Chinese study confirmed this efficacy on a group of affected patients (in vivo). Following this study, the prescription of chloroquine was immediately incorporated into the treatment recommendations in China, South Korea and many other countries. It was only then a matter of refining the protocol with Zinc and an antibiotic to be determined. The Institute also operates a hospital which is quite handful to finetune protocols especially in the middle of a crisis.

During the peak of the pandemic in March/April, the Institute treated 3737 Covid19 patients with only 35 fatalities (0.9%). This put to shame all other hospitals in France which had rates of up to 20%.

Since then, 65 studies have been undertaken, a vast majority of them confirming the findings (when the protocol is strictly followed at the early stages of the disease or as prevention). Significant benefits include reduction of hospitalisations by up to 84%. Early treatment based on the protocol is intended to avoid hospitalisation. The alleged or actual negative results with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in some studies were based on delayed use (intensive care patients), excessive doses (up to 2400mg per day), manipulated data sets (the Surgisphere / LancetGate scandal), or ignored contraindications (e.g., favism or heart disease).

Since February, the debate has been raging in France, highlighting political and financial interests (too long to go into the details).

It seems that the same debate – in English this time – is only starting in the US and Australia.

The fact that HCQ is effective against infections with SARS coronaviruses was already established in 2005 during the SARS-1 epidemic. That zinc blocks the RNA replication of coronaviruses was discovered in 2010 by Ralph Baric, one of the world’s leading SARS virologists. That HCQ supports the cellular uptake of zinc was discovered in 2014 in the context of cancer research.

As usual, mainstream media (MSM) only shows part of the story. It’s much easier and lucrative to make a story about an orange celebrity than to properly investigate the multiple dimensions of the subject.

Not a word in MSM about the many countries that use the protocol: Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy, Portugal, Greece, India, China, South Korean and several other Asian and African countries…

Imagine being Professor Didier Raoult and his team right now. An orange reality TV star mentions the drug you’ve been working on for decades and suddenly, your expertise is compared to “injecting bleach” on social media.

Again, I am no expert, I am not saying Pr. Raoult and his team are 100% right. My point here is that people need to be exposed to the whole story before making up their mind. Lazy journalism and American partisanship don’t help. I certainly hope nobody dies at the moment because of politics and financial interests.

Meanwhile, the IHU in France keeps using their HCQ+Zn+AZT cocktail and they haven’t lost a single patient since May.

Continue Reading

Conclusive proofs that this is an experimental vaccine

I have no problem with scientists working on an experimental vaccine. See this.

But let NO ONE ever tell you that these are not experimental vaccines:

The Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines are not approved at all. They have only been admitted to the commercial market under provisional authorization to gather more evidence on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines, with healthcare professionals being asked to report suspected adverse reactions. One of the conditions from the EMA is that Pfizer must submit their final report to the EMA in December 2023, Moderna in December 2022 and AstraZeneca in March 2024. Only then will it be signed by the EMA whether the vaccines are effective and safe enough to be unconditionally authorized as a safe medicine. [received via email]


Adverse reactions after vaccination with Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca can be followed at
And that is only European registered data.
The US registered side effects after vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna and immediately AstraZeneca can also be followed.
I do not know how and if the registrations can be viewed with you in Australia. But the media leaves only a handful of reports of the actual numbers of people who die following a vaccination with the COVID-19 vaccine from Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca.
But they already start testing on children here. Correct testing, not to vaccinate them against corona, but to see whether they can achieve group immunity.
These are EMA briefing about Pfizer, Moderna ans Astrazeneca:
Briefing EMA Pfizer
Briefing EMA Moderna
Briefing EMA AstraZeneca
Please see these briefings. In here it’s mentioned that the vaccines have been given a temporarely approval for the trading market, also the timetable for the Pharma’s to deliver their final reports, etc. etc.
Continue Reading