Sanjeev Sabhlok's blog

Publishing this email received which contains information that could be helpful to some people. I’ve not had time to thoroughly understand the ethical issues raised here, but I believe that we need a genuine approach to informed consent in all cases.

Dear xxx MP,

As my local member of parliament, I write to you to raise grave concerns over my inability as a member of the disability workforce to effectively work towards the NDIS Code of Conduct (Workers), and the NDIS Code of Conduct document.

I would like to advise that I entered the disability sector with a desire to have a positive impact on, be an advocate and a voice for people living with a disability (PLWD).

I am ethically torn to effectively fulfill the obligations outlined in the Code of Conduct of which I will detail below. Firstly I would like to express why I am conflicted as a person working in the disability sector to fulfill those obligations.

As a person working in the disability sector I have been asked to follow State Government and NQSC directives through my employer to encourage PLWD to take up the administration of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

The directive has been, to only advise PLWD that the vaccines are safe and effective and that they are encouraged to take up the vaccine, and in effect echoing the message from Government, Health Ministers, media organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and vaccine interested parties.

The point of my conflict as an individual who is able make an informed decision and choice about my own health and wellbeing, including medical decisions, is that I have been able to research information from thousands of concerned professionals from their respective fields of expertise from around the globe. Which the vast majority of PLWD are unable to do for themselves.

During this research I have chosen to take a cautious approach in regards to the overall management by our Government concerning SARS-CoV-2 and the roll out of the experimental vaccines, which are still in trial phase until 2023 and have no long term efficacy and safety data to guarantee acceptable long term ‘non emergency‘ approval. As a result of my research, I have found credible information from experts in their field to cast doubt over the following:

• Defining SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic
• Flawed or misuse of the PCR test to diagnose active SARS-CoV-2 cases
• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 case numbers
• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 death numbers
• That the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are, as safe and effective as Government,
  Health Ministers, media organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and
  vaccine interested parties state them to be.

Not to mention, the long-term existence of multiple other medications, which have shown promising results in combating the severity of SARS-CoV-2

We have also recently had this announcement from the Dr. Tess Lawrie PhD in the UK – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pH0Y3jvHtgaEwcDR9QGTB2f90IaPbcRW/view

To be clear, I am acknowledging that SARS-CoV-2 exists.

However, I am of the opinion that the response to SARS-CoV-2 and its associated Vaccine has been severely mismanaged by Governments in regards to not only ongoing beyond flattening the curve Emergency measures, forced lockdowns, mandated mask wearing, mandated contract tracing, travel restriction, discussions of vaccine passports, but also, the advertising and public relations campaign to encourage the uptake of the experimental SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

What distresses me more about my opinion above, is that I have the ability to discern and make an informed decision and choice about my compliance in regards to the above Government directed measures under emergency powers, where as PLWD who require supported decision making, cannot.

And seeing that as a worker in the disability sector, I could face disciplinary repercussions from my employer, who is taking directives from Government and in effect the NQSC for discussing anything contrary to Government guidance regarding the encouraged uptake of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, it challenges my ethical obligation to do what’s best for PLWD, and as such in conflict with the Code of conduct.

My training since joining the disability sector 7 years ago has continually focused on; person centred active support, choice and control, and supported decision making and rightly so. How can I effectively work towards all these principles for PLWD and be a voice for them, when mine and millions of other voices are being censored, suppressed and even ridiculed when bringing to light concerns over the points raised above in regards to casting doubt over SARS-CoV-2 and its vaccines.

We are are told that we can not discuss our concerns regarding SARS-CoV-2 and its respective vaccines with PLWD, their families or guardians as this would be in breach of Government directives and guidance. We are told that PLWD who require supported decision making and who only have the OPA as guardians need to be referred to their GP for discussions to determine their suitability to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Where are the safeguards that the GP will
consider all the available data available for research in regards to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines before determining it is safe to give. I have the ability to go to my GP and request that they conduct a comprehensive research into the safety and efficacy of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and even ask them put in writing that they believe it is safe for me to take, and I could then make a discerned decision based on this, (even though I wouldn’t based on my research) But I absolutely would expect no less due process for a PLWD.

But of course this is not going to happen, because there is no liability to anyone for any adverse reaction of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to PLWD, and no Doctor will put their name to a letter indicating such. This is because
they can simply say that they have determined it was safe to encourage, recommend and administer the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine under Government Health Guidance and advice, who, low and behold are also not liable.

It is for this reason I wish to raise grave concerns on the grounds that the Government and NQSC are preventing me from adhering to the code of conduct as explained further down. I also seek leave to have all of the
points above which have doubts cast over them, investigated thoroughly by an impartial and non associated entity, with the result to be tabled to the Royal Commission.

I also seek leave to have the voice of PLWD, their carers and all employees of the disability sector who would like to raise concerns over SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and table evidence of such to the Royal Commission.

NDIS Code of Conduct (Workers) https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/workers/ndis-code-conduct states:

It requires workers and providers delivering NDIS supports to:

· act with respect for individual rights to freedom of expression, self-determination, and decision-making in accordance with relevant laws and conventions

· act with integrity, honesty, and transparency

· promptly take steps to raise and act on concerns about matters that might have an impact on the quality and safety of supports provided to people with disability

· take all reasonable steps to prevent and respond to all forms of violence, exploitation, neglect, and abuse ( In my opinion – “Encouraging” and “Advocating” people living with a disability to follow Government and NQSC guidelines and directives to take a vaccine which is unproven for long term health affects, still in trial phase, has medical health experts speaking out in opposition to it around the world and showing around the world that it has the most side effects in a mass role out vaccine than any other before it, could be classed as “Exploitation”)

The NDIS Code of Conduct (Document) https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2021-03/code-conduct-workers-march-2021-11.pdf.
States:

• • Part 1 (10) – The Code is an
    important part of the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. It promotes the health, safety and
    wellbeing of persons with disability, by setting out acceptable, appropriate and ethical conduct
    for NDIS providers and workers delivering supports or services in the NDIS
    market.( In my opinion – “Encouraging” and “Advocating” people living with a disability to follow
    Government and NQSC guidelines and directives to take a vaccine which is
    unproven for long term health affects, still in trial phase, has medical health experts speaking out in opposition to it
    around the world and showing around the world that it has the most side
    effects in a mass role out vaccine than any other before it, is in
    conflict with this)

• • Part 2 – 1 (13) – People with disability have the right to
    make their own decisions, to be free to
    live the life they choose, and to have the
    same rights and freedoms as any other member of the community. (this includes having access to the same research
    information I have access too, and if unable to do so for themselves have
    dedicated disability support staff inform them of such information to help
    them make an informed decision)
    

• • Part 2 – 1 (15) –These rights are set out in the United Nations
    Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. They include
    the right to freedom of expression and the right to
    make decisions about and exercise control over their own lives. Choice and
    control is a core principle of the NDIS. People
    with disability have the right to choice and
    control about who supports them and how their NDIS Quality and Safeguards
    Commission 6 supports and services are delivered. Please pay
    particular attention to these (links below): Article 21 – Freedom of
    expression and opinion, and access to information (Point a), Article 25 –
    Health (point d))
    Part 2 -1
    (22) – When the person with disability has a legal
    guardian, workers need to be clear on the decisions in which they need to
    involve the legal guardian. However, workers
    still have an obligation to ensure they have the capacity to listen to and
    support the person to make decisions. Workers
    can use supported decision-making to do this. Supported decision-making is a model for
    supporting people with disability to make decisions. The person with disability weighs
    options and makes a decision, with the support of an individual or a
    network of people who they choose to involve because they trust them to
    provide reliable, unbiased support for decision-making. (See points about doubt above)
    

• • Part 4 (47)
    – Integrity, honesty and transparency are crucial to developing the
    trust-based relationships between people with disability and workers that
    are required for high-quality service delivery. (by not providing PLWD access to all available credible
    information a support person is unable to adhere to this)
    

• • Part 6 (80) ‘Violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation’ is broadly
    understood to include, but is not limited to: domestic, family and
    interpersonal violence; physical and sexual violence and abuse;
    psychological or emotional harm and abuse; constraints; forced
    treatments and interventions; humiliation
    and harassment; financial abuse; violations of privacy; systemic abuse;
    physical and emotional neglect; passive neglect; and wilful deprivation. (In my
    opinion “Encouraging” and “Advocating” people
    living with a disability to follow Government and NQSC guidelines and
    directives to take a vaccine which is unproven for long term health affects, still in trial phase, has medical health
    experts speaking out in opposition to it around the world and showing
    around the world that it has the most side effects in a mass role out
    vaccine than any other before it, is in conflict with this)
    

• Part 6 (81,
  82, 83, 84, 85) (I am also in conflict with these, until such time
  the Royal Commission has had the points above, which have doubts cast over
  them, investigated thoroughly by an impartial and non
  associated entity, proving that all these points have been
  authenticated, validated, peer reviewed and globally accepted via
  consensus.)

Links

Article 21 – https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-21-freedom-of-expression-and-opinion-and-access-to-information.html

Article 25 – https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-25-health.html

I would also like to raise concerns and request an investigation into the NDS policy decision to advocate and petition government
to mandate the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to the disability workforce. – https://www.nds.org.au/news/national-disability-services-vaccine-must-be-mandatory

I am deeply troubled to the point of stress that a peak
industry body representing around 1100 organisations as paid members, who
employ thousands of disability staff around the country (including myself),
would vote on a policy such as this, especially in light of the points of
concern and doubt in my previous submission, but listed below for relevance.

I have found credible information from experts in their
field to cast doubt over the following:

• Defining SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic
• Flawed or misuse of the PCR test to diagnose active SARS-CoV-2 cases
• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 case numbers
• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 death numbers
• That the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are, as safe and effective
  as Government, Health Ministers, media organisations, pharmaceutical
  companies, and vaccine interested parties state them to be.

Not to mention, the long-term existence of
multiple other medications, which have shown promising results in combating the
severity of SARS-CoV-2

We have also recently had this announcement from the Dr.
Tess Lawrie PhD in the UK – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pH0Y3jvHtgaEwcDR9QGTB2f90IaPbcRW/view

As such, I am demanding a FULL and immediate
investigation, retraction and apology for this outrageous policy position from
the National Disability Services and all of its members on whose behalf that
they purport to speak, as this is very distressing for myself or any other
disability workforce employee, as well as PLWD who will be denied choice and
control.

I kindly request you table my concerns in your capacity
as my local member of parliament.

Thank you

Kind Regards

xxx

Disability
Sector Employee

ALSO

I wish to raise my own concerns from the perspective of a member of the Disability Workforce.

https://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=540409

It is well worth watching all of it, however Senator Lambie is passionate in her questioning from 18:55:30, but at 19:56:35 Senator Lambie fiercely raises a particularly good question regarding compensation for Australians adversely affected either seriously or fatally from the experimental still in trial phase, SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Especially in light of this recent announcement from Dr. Tess Lawrie PhD in the UK – https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pH0Y3jvHtgaEwcDR9QGTB2f90IaPbcRW/view

Seeing that vaccine manufactures have automatic indemnity with much information related to this, cloaked in mystery due commercial confidentiality agreements between Government and vaccine manufactures.

Where does the average Australian or their loved ones stand regarding seeking compensation for being adversely affected either seriously or fatally, seeing most hardworking low to middle class Aussies could not afford or endure an expensive legal battle to seek compensation.

My bigger concern is regarding people living with a disability who have a family member as a guardian who does not have the finances, ability or will to seek compensation on behalf of the person living with a disability.

Worse yet, if a person living with a disability does not have family in their life and have the OPA as their legal guardian, will they, the OPA, fight for them legally to seek compensation for additional disability or justice for a fatality due to a severe adverse reaction to the vaccines.

Who is liable then?

Vaccine manufacturers? Clearly not, as they have full indemnity as result of confidential commercial agreements with our governments, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

The Government (State/Federal)? Clearly not as Mr Murphy states, Government does not have a scheme in place for this, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

The NQSC? Clearly not, as they are part of Government and are advocating all Australians living with a disability take up the Vaccine, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

The OPA? Clearly not, as they are part of Government and are advocating all Australians living with a disability to seek guidance from their GP’s about taking up the Vaccine, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

The Doctor? Clearly not as they are covered by indemnity, and they can say they are going off the advice of

Government, Health Ministers, and advisors and are told to encourage the uptake of the Vaccine, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

The Service Provider (any)? Clearly not, as they are going off the advice of Government, Health Ministers, and advisors and are told to encourage the uptake of the Vaccine, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective.

Support workers? Clearly not, as they are told by their employer that all conversations around the vaccine to clients and families should revolve around the take up of the vaccine, and the vaccines are said to be safe and effective. Support workers are also under the threat of a mandated Vaccine seeing the NDS, which is the peak body for the disability sector, with around 1100 subscribed Disability Service Provider members, has voted to lobby Government to mandate vaccine for its workforce. It will be interesting to see how many of the 1100 members agree with this policy decision.

Families? Clearly not as they are provided information from all levels of Government, mainstream media, social media, GP’s, Service Providers, and vaccine advocates that the vaccines are safe and effective, and uptake should be encouraged.

So, the only avenue for any serious or fatal adverse effect for a person living with a disability is through the courts, which Senator Lambie alludes to, is an expensive and long-drawn-out process for any person living with a disability, family member or advocate. And what about if a person living with a disability is under guardianship of the OPA, does anyone seriously believe the OPA will fight for justice seeing that the vaccines are deemed safe and effective? However, a question well worth seeking an answer for.

All this amid credible information from experts in their field who cast doubt over the following:

• That SARS-CoV-2 occurred naturally.

• Defining SARS-CoV-2 as a pandemic.

• Flawed or misuse of the PCR test to diagnose active SARS-CoV-2 cases.

• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 case numbers.

• The validity of actual SARS-CoV-2 death numbers.

• That the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are, as safe and effective as Government, Health Ministers, media organisations, pharmaceutical companies, and vaccine interested parties state them to be.

Not to mention, the long-term existence of multiple other medications, which have shown promising results in combating the severity of SARS-CoV-2