8th November 2020
My analysis of the 6 November 2020 Concerned Lawyers Network letter
My early analysis of the Concerned Lawyers Network suggests that it is a very well researched piece.
I commend Maria Rigoli, Jeff Tran, Russell Sumner, Shemarrah Davis, Tony Nikolic, and Liesl Tziolis and others who prepared it.https://t.co/MlVMOTCR9T
— Sanjeev Sabhlok, Pope @Church of Reason & Liberty (@sabhlok) November 7, 2020
I will analyse below (blue annotations are my comments) to understand the nature of the claims. It is really hard to find time to investigate all their claims – the evidence provided is comprehensive and will take a lot of time to study. In the main they explore what would be called a conspiracy theory and corruption. The standard of proof to meet in order prove conspiracy is going to be much higher than the ordinary proofs (of harms, breaches of the laws) needed to prove crimes against humanity.
I may return to this letter in due course. At the moment, I can confirm that this is a SUPERB piece of analysis, and well worth devoting time.
Re: Notice of Liability & Potential Claims
We, the undersigned on behalf of the Concerned Lawyers Network (on behalf of pending clients, victims and those with legal standing and this lawyer network) write this open letter to request a review and wind back of measures taken by Victorian and Australian governments which were based on the premise of a Covid19 pandemic existing and/or continuing, leading to declared states of emergency, states of disaster and other related legal measures.
We respectfully give you notice of potential liabilities, should there be continued reliance on this premise and subsequent overreach of powers, whilst there is overwhelming evidence against such a premise.
- Covid19 (if it can be isolated) may simply be another coronavirus such as the flu or common cold. Patents for Covid19 medical testing kits however were manufactured and sold many years ago to many countries including Australia. [Sanjeev: this is a pretty wild claim but somewhat plausible since the virus has not yet been isolated. But I thought PCR tests were approved only this year for this specific virus, not approved in advance – need to see evidence]
- The WHO has falsely declared a pandemic in relation to Covid19. [A big claim]
- Covid19 death statistics in Australia as well as in other nations have been manipulated. [This seems quite plausible, given my current understanding]
- Covid19 tests are unreliable to test any specific disease. [TRUE. This is what the CDC itself has said]
- There are global agendas behind the declaration of Covid19 pandemic, to benefit certain foreign individuals and companies financially and to gain control of populations including in Australia. [??]
- There is no pandemic in Australia according to medical evidence-at most a seasonal flu type epidemic, nothing justifying declaring states of emergency or disaster. Covid19 has been found to be a type of flu (coronavirus) with an estimated 99.9% survival rate across all age groups with the highest risk groups of over 65 estimated at 99.6%. [True]
- Confined steps can be taken to take care of elderly or immune compromised people more likely to suffer from Covid19 as has been the case in the past with influenza, without restricting the freedoms of masses of healthy people. [Tick]
- There are serious conflicts of interest between some representatives of government, appointed health officials and taskforces, and pharmaceutical corporations and global interests that prioritise their own profits and control, instead of the health interests of Australians. [?? – need proof]
- Australians have been exploited through fear, misinformation and obstruction of freedoms as a result of the continuation of the false statement that there is a Covid19 pandemic and the insistence that they must obey disproportional laws, rules and directions that curtail them physically, mentally and financially causing them much harm including in some cases death. [Not in some cases – in the millions: lifespans of entire generations have been shortened]
- Key decision makers in Australian governments and the public service have enormous conflicts of interests relating to vaccine companies and other medical manufacturers and suppliers, influencing their decisions. They are also being influenced by global players and global policy instead of the Australian people who elected them. Covid19 has been used as a cover to bring about police states and financially benefit vaccine companies as well as those who with vested interests in vaccine companies and controlling populations. [need proofs]
- All ministers and other persons to whom this letter is addressed, are PUT ON NOTICE of Personal Civil And Criminal Liability potentially arising against them for any current or future intentional or reckless continuation of misrepresentation of information and misuse of power of office, causing direct loss and damage to Australians.
- All other office holders to which this letter is copied to, are also put on notice of the evidence and potential civil and criminal liability arising out of future claims that may also possibly affect them arising out of their decision making or carrying out of decisions of their superiors should such actions violate citizens’ human rights.
- On behalf of our clients, victims and other interested Victorians and Australians, and the lawyers network, we request an immediate wind back of lockdowns and other disproportionate measures made, and a full open up of the economy and society to the way it was prior those measures being put in place and enforced (pre January 2020).
- In addition to potential claims based on future personal liability, we reserve our clients’ rights to take legal action against you with respect to past damage and losses incurred up to this point in time.
- We also request your response to specific questions in this letter addressed to you.
As experienced lawyers, we are evidence based.
From expert and other evidence that is publicly available in Australia and worldwide, there appears to be strong evidence that there can no longer be a reliance on the premise that the Covid19 pandemic exists. Further it appears evident that the state and federal governments have:
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of sufficient relevant and independent evidence of a pandemic to justify the declarations of state of emergency and state of disaster; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians, (or take into account in their decision making relevant and independent evidence), of Covid19 being confirmed as an isolated virus or how effective the testing for it actually is; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the evidence of effective treatment for Covid19 such as Invermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and any good reasons why such medications were banned all of a sudden. This is especially contradictory, since Hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades safely all around the world both as an oral vaccine and treatment to many diseases including Lupus and Malaria and doctors and evidence worldwide reveals reports of up to 100% cure rate for Covid19 when treated early; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making relevant and independent evidence of the serious side effects of vaccines in general including death, and the need for years of successful research before releasing medications in general; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, financial or vested interests(of ministers, health officials and public services and subordinate bodies appointed by them), in vaccine production, and the legal protection granted to the vaccine companies in the event of injury or death from citizens taking vaccines; and [need to see proofs]
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians through health policy, on how we are best to increase our health and immune systems to resist infections; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians that Covid19 deaths reported are inaccurate in numbers and specific not random, and include comorbidity deaths. Focus has been instead shifted to fear of the deadliness of the disease, and away from the facts that most mortality affected the elderly or immune compromised who are already susceptible due to preexisting conditions or comorbidity; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the available relevant and independent medicine and science about viruses, exomes and the body’s natural defence systems and instead relied on a select few researchers many of which themselves have vested financial or other interests in foreign, global and transnational companies which are of or related to foreign pharmaceutical and vaccine corporations; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the true nature of the covid19 tests being used, that they are not reliable, focusing instead on numbers of “positive cases” including false positives and undiagnosed positives when the tests are deemed by the governments own TGA standards not reliable and there has to date not been any credible isolation of Covid19 in any case; and
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their decision making, the fact that the covid19 tests being used were manufactured and distributed to countries around the world (with Australian purchasing great quantities) since at least 2017 over 3 years before the surprise outbreak of Covid19 in late 2019, and that patents specifically for the Covid19 test kits were already applied for in 2015 some 5 years ago which gives rise to suspicions of a planned pandemic; and [????]
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians about, or take into account in their decision making, the ramifications of providing financial incentive to clinicians and hospitals whenever they register a death under Covid19; and [need proof]
- failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians about, or take into account in their decision making, the ramifications of financial incentives and loans the Federal Government receives from the IMF and WHO and other foreign bodies or corporations, in exchange for following the directions on declaring a pandemic and how to manage it and what restrictions to place on business and freedom of movement from these global bodies.
Further, most of the mainstream media on television and print, appears to have been influenced by state and federal governments in so far as such media has avoided challenging the government narrative about Covid19, and has therefore also failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians who are entitled to see all relevant unbiased evidence without censorship. In addition, much of the main stream media has been disparaging of any person questioning the government narrative and science and legalities relied on, even when they are questioned by experienced doctors and lawyers. Many of us wonder if the government has itself withheld relevant information and facts from the media, or whether the media are in fact complicit with the government in recklessly or intentionally failing to report relevant facts to the public, in an unbiased true journalistic basis.
Regardless of whether one believes the Covid19 virus exists, does not exist, exists organically or exists man made/manufactured or otherwise, the questions to answer in light of available relevant and independent evidence are:
- What is a “pandemic” as opposed to an “epidemic”? Was there or is there still a “pandemic” in the true sense of the word?;
- Were the measures that were and some still are taken in response to the alleged pandemic by the Australian and state governments restricting its citizens – justified and proportionate and compatible with international law, human rights laws and the Australian Constitution?
- If there is no pandemic or the alleged pandemic has abated, or there was instead a seasonal epidemic or something less, can any of the measures taken by governments still be justified and if so up to what point in time?
- If there is no such justification and in light of available independent and relevant evidence, what are the legal liabilities and exposures of Australian decision makers in the chain of command? (taking into account, inter alia, the directly related losses and damages including inter alia suicides, increase in crime and domestic violence, mass mental health deterioration, curtailed freedoms to travel, unlawful arrests, unlawful detainment, unlawful testing, unlawful mass financial losses to businesses, employees, not for profit and other organisations and individuals, closed and bankrupted businesses, interference with landlord and tenant rights, interference with doctor and patient relationships, infringement on property use, mortgage foreclosures, failure to account for basis of decision making, misleading the people and a crashed economy).
These are not just scientific and medical questions, but questions of law.
FACTS & EVIDENCE
DEFINITION OF “PANDEMIC”
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO):
“A pandemic is defined as “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people”. The classical definition includes nothing about population immunity, virology or disease severity.
By this definition, pandemics can be said to occur annually in each of the temperate southern and northern hemispheres, given that seasonal epidemics cross international boundaries and affect a large number of people. However, seasonal epidemics are not considered pandemics.”
The definition was changed by the WHO in 2020 and now appears to describe what is a regular seasonal epidemic of colds and flu. We do not believe this definition can legally or morally or ethically stand to influence health policy and modelling for nations around the world including Australia.
FALSE PANDEMICS OF THE PAST
A case study of the 2009 Swine Flu Pandemic reveals a European Parliamentary Inquiry determined that WHO manipulated information to fraudulently declare a pandemic, activating lucrative ‘sleeping contracts’ with pharmaceutical companies. It is also revealed that the Australian Department of Health misrepresented statistical data to alarm the public about swine flu, although this was alarm was unjustified. The government ordered vaccines prepared before there was any evidence that swine flu was more serious than other strains of flu (in the end, it wasn’t.) see page 120 and 154-159 HARRISON REPORT
In the past the WHO has been found to have falsely declared a “pandemic” for example the Swine Flu. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-11/34926 see EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORTS PANDEMIC
Modelling has been based on the WHO’s shifting goal posts of what a “pandemic” really means.
The modelling used for international policy response is based on unpublished, unverified 13 year old code. (Some) Australian modellers have appear to have deep financial ties to pharmaceutical companies and conflicted global power structures such as the Gates Foundation and Gavi (Vaccine Alliance). EXHIBIT- “HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT” page 5
There have been predictive rehearsals of pandemics over the years including as late as 2019 during the 201 Event. Investigative journalist Whitney Webb has exposed that a number of the entities involved in Covid-19 ‘pandemic simulations’ were also involved in the 2001 biowarfare simulation ‘Dark Winter’. Dark Winter eerily predicted many aspects of the anthrax attacks. People involved in the biowarfare simulation ‘scenario’ later demonstrated they had clear foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks. There have been other rehearsals for such emergencies as well. ref page 42 EXHIBIT- HARRISON REPORT
[Not persuaded with this piece of evidence]
IS COVID19 MAN MADE? IF SO WHY ISNT THIS CRIME INVESTIGATED?
The Covid-19 timeline starts at least as far back as the year 2000 if evidence alleging the virus was manufactured and weaponised is credible. Canadian current proceedings are relevant to Australia as they are based on similar potential claims of clients/victims and the claim sets out historical evidence. EXHIBIT- “CANADIAN COURT PROCEEDINGS” paragraphs 64 to 142 of the Canadian Proceedings VCC & Or & Rancourt vs Canadian Ministers & Or & Media, Ontario Superior Court of Justice [CV 20 00643451] (redacted)
Patents on Covid19
In some countries it would be possible to patent a man made “virus”. However, in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, products of nature not modified by humans are not eligible for patent protection. That is the case of a wild-type virus strain. Therefore, nowadays, it would not be possible for the United States to grant a patent for Wuhan coronavirus or for its isolated genes. https://abg-ip.com/coronavirus-patents/
Prime Minister- if Covid19 is in fact man made, is this crime of creating and unleashing a bioweapon on Australians still being investigated? Are there any reports of Australians or Australian organisations being allegedly complicit? Has CSIRO Geelong been cleared after they denied links with Wuhan after it was alleged they manufactured the virus and later used the Wuhan lab to amplify and test more on the virus? https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2020/Statement-Wuhan-Institute-for-Virology Have any investigations began or are they continuing in relation to the potential treason and sedition against Australians arising from this bioweapon if it is the case it was man made? If so, what are the findings?
HOW FAR BACK WAS IT PLANNED?
- Documents show the disease was named earlier than the Chinese discovery date in December 2019: for example this article from American Society for Microbiology which talks about the coronavirus SARS-CoV1, SARS-CoV2, and SARS-CoV3 (Published in 2008) https://web.archive.org/web/20200917182440if/https://jcm.asm.org/content/46/5/173 4 This WHO article talks about naming the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 as the COVID-19 https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it This indicates Covid19 (or at least the concept of it) has been around before 2008. [The WHO link is not pre-2020, The academic naming protocol is no proof of intent]
- Belgium Health Experts now demand investigations into the role of WHO in an Open Letter https://goachronicle.com/belgium-health-experts-demand-investigations-into-the-role-of-who-in-an-open-letter/
- Official patent registries in the Netherlands and US show that Rothschilds patented Covid19 Biometric Tests in 2015 https://humansarefree.com/2020/10/bombshell-proof-rothschilds-patented-covid-19-biometric-tests-in-2015-2017.html [This last one is interesting – but I will need a lot more proof than this]
IS COVID19 EVEN SCIENTIFICALLY ISOLATED?
Chinese papers that claim Covid19 (Sars Cov 2) is a new virus – did not pass Koch’s postulates. Dr Andrew Kauffman debunks all papers here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSBQUIEUbQ8
Freedom of Information Requests around the world seeking documents of the isolation of Covid19 have been met with official responses to the negative. See FOI Formal Responses EXHIBITS/ TESTING (The Australian FOI request is p27-28 of the pdf “The [Australian Health] department does not hold the documents you are seeking access to.”)
AUSTRALIA “PANDEMIC” -CONCERNING PROBLEMS WITH MODELING AND TESTS
Based on the Harrison Research Report which includes a number of medical and scientific reports about Covid19 as well as whistle blower reports regarding compromised office holdings/conflicts of interest, there were and may still be significant problems with Australian modelling. EXHIBIT- “HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT”
HARRISON 200+ PAGE RESEARCH REPORT STILL IGNORED BY SELECT COMMITTEE ON COVID-19
- On 25 May 2020 the Harrison Research Report was sent to The Select Committee on Covid-19 and Harrison requested the submission be made public. refer to “Harrison emails exchanged” in EXHIBIT- RESEARCH REPORTS
- Upon checking if the report had been uploaded as a formal accepted submission (checked in mid -September 2020), Harrison discovered that her report had NOT been submitted, nor uploaded, instead the Select Committee had uploaded published submissions from weapons manufacturers Northrop Grumman, and drug company Merck, both appearing to seek tax payer government funded payments. refer to Grumman and Merck submissions in EXHIBITs- RESEARCH REPORTS Other submissions which are also published, are dated well after Harrison made her submission to the Committee on 25/05/2020.
- Harrison has not been notified to date of the status of her submission. Was it perhaps because it contained detailed analysis of the conflicts of interest of the members of the Covid19 Select Commission Board? Was it because it contained criticism based on her research?
- The Select Committee home page says this: “The committee may not accept or publish material that is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on others.” This however refers to slanderous or defamatory material, not evidence based criticism. The APH Senate Committee guidelines say: “…it is for the committee to decide whether to receive it as evidence and whether to publish it. Unless there are strong reasons to withhold publication, [ie defamatory material] committees normally authorise the publication of submissions received. “
COVID19 TEST KITS PRODUCED AND SOLD- YEARS BEFORE COVID19 WAS SUPPOSEDLY “DISCOVERED”.
- Of the most disturbing pieces of evidence is the fact that the Covid19 Tests were manufactured and sold around the world (including to Australia), more than 3 years before Covid19 was named as a disease. Do any of you have an explanation for this?
- Robert Rothschild applied for patents for Covid19 tests in 2015 and 2017 https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/10/atomic-bombshell-we-have-proof-that-rothschilds-patented-covid-19-biometric-tests-in-2015-and-2017/
[This bit about the application for patents is not correct – Source]
- [This next bit is false] COVID-19 19 tests were manufactured and sold around the world from at least as far back as 2017 perhaps earlier. Australia was one of many nations that purchased the covid19 tests at that time. https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/AUS/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/902780#
- see EXHIBITS-TESTING
- As we know from the media, the new “novel” coronavirus COVID-19 disease appeared discovered in China towards the end of 2019. It was named COVID-19 which is an acronym for Corona Virus Disease 2019. Data from the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS), however, shows that in 2017 and 2018 – hundreds of millions of test kits for COVID-19 were distributed worldwide. This baffling data was discovered online by someone on 5 September, 2020 from the list of tariffs on the WITS site, who then posted screen shots on social media. The next day it went viral all over the world. On 6 September the WITS suddenly changed the original designation ‘COVID-19’ on its website into the vague term ‘Medical Test Kits’. Using general terms to describe a commodity in the medical/pharmaceutical trade for international distribution is not normal industry practice. There are just too many types of medical test kits for different diseases so they must be specifically named and distinguished from each other.
- The fact that WITS removed the specification ‘COVID-19’, after this data became known worldwide, raised suspicion immediately. The administrators of the WITS site however forgot to delete one detail: the product code for these ‘Medical Test Kits’ is 300215 (which means: ‘COVID-19 Test Kits’) The fact that WITS removed the specification ‘COVID-19’, after this data became known worldwide, indicates concealment. See screen shots in EXHIBITS – TESTING KITS
[Sanjeev: here are two articles on this topic to check: Countries were not buying Covid-19 test kits in 2018 and Coronavirus: False claims test kits for ‘Covid-19’ were sold in 2017]
TEST KITS FOR COVID19 UNRELIABLE (& NOT BASED ON TRUE ISOLATION OF DISEASE)
- The Australian Regulator TGA said the Covid19 tests are unreliable
Language has already been updated from that site as you can see from a historical
- Tests don’t distinguish from common colds
- The CDC admits there is no proper isolation of the covid19 virus‑
Dr Cowan comments: “Shockingly, on page 39 of the CDC’s July 2020 bulletin, the CDC acknowledges no published “isolates” of the coronavirus are known. Equally shockingly, the authors of the six most important papers on the isolation and characterization of this new virus all publicly and in writing admit that they neither purified nor isolated this virus. At this point, there is simply no evidence this virus exists, let alone causes any disease. “ refer to CDC Report EXHIBITS–TESTING KITS In a paper published on the FDA’s website, independent journalist Jon Rappaport discovered that the CDC – at least in their summer of 2020 – had no virus isolates of the novel coronavirus “currently available” and reveals that all the assays used to design diagnostic testing algorithms for COVID-19 were of other isolates meant to “mimic clinical specimen.”
- There are Physical dangers of testing with Nasal Swabs- deaths or injury have been sustained
- Victoria is the only state in Australia to have purchased tests from BGI, China without open tender and with fast tracked approval. Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) is the Chinese company chosen to provide test kits to Victoria and the company also specialises in making test kits for DNA collection. No other state in Australia has obtained their kits from this company but instead rejected them. The United States have also rejected these kits. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has written reports stating that BGI is a National Security Threat. BGI has also been accused of being an arm of the CCP and building a Genetic database of Western Populations as well as non-Han ethnic Populations. BGI test kits were banned from California by the CIA as they were deemed to be a security threat. Ref: EXHIBITS TESTING /SUMMARY [This is quite a big deal]
TESTING AND THE DOHERTY INSTITUTE
Australian governments rely on The Doherty Institute and researches there who have fast tracked test kit approvals without any gold standard: ref page 37 HARRISON REPORT
The Doherty Institute has been an instrumental influence in developing the Australian government’s policy response to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Covid-19 modellers from the Doherty Institute have interpreted international data to provide projections which inform the government’s actions. A significant number of the Doherty Institute’s Global Projects and researchers collaborate with and receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its close partner, the Wellcome Trust. ref page 73 & 89 HARRISON REPORT
HARVESTING DNA FROM TESTING AND GENE EDITING
- In the UK laws have already been passed allowing the retention of a person’s DNA after they submit to a Covid19 test. Premier and Prime Minister is this taking place in Australia now or are there plans for a similar law to be introduced here? If so, for what purpose? Is consent being obtained for DNA harvesting? Who is managing the DNA database? Is it Chinese?
- The Gates Foundation is heavily involved in gene editing technology. The Foundation has previously used genetic material taken from the databases of a commercial company 23andme (Google funded company which uses a saliva swab to determine a client’s ancestry), to perform “deep gene sequencing and sophisticated bioinformatic analysis”. Eventually the Foundation wants to deliver gene-editing components via injection into people. In 2018, Gates-founded Microsoft announced they would be joining the ID2020 alliance, “a global Alliance whose goal is to create universal digital identities for everyone.”
- The World Bank has pushed for universal digital identity for several years, stating this is in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (of which Australia is a signatory to.)
- Microsoft announced that, as a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, its developers would be working to create a blockchain based identity system, as a “shared database that is concisely reconciled”, that “would allow interoperability of people, apps, products and services across cloud providers, other blockchains and organizations.” ref page 209 HARRISON REPORT
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR COVID19 – AUSTRALIA TO ITS STATES
- There are significant financial incentives to stake holders and health care providers for carrying out testing, and care for Covid19 patients and attributing deaths to Covid19 [there is some rather interesting proof in the attached evidence that I’ve not had time to dig into yet – once again, a matter to study after the ICC complaint is finished.]
- In addition, further financial incentives were announced in the Australian Federal Budget See EXHIBITS CONFLICT OF INTEREST – SUMMARY FINANCIAL INCENTIVES
FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR COVID19 – GLOBAL ORGANISATIONS TO NATIONS
Huge foreign loans are given to sovereign nations by the World Bank, IMF and the likes. But the conditions that come attached to these loans are seldom told by governments to their citizens. A recent case in Belarus has exposed the conditions laid by these agencies for loans being provided for COVID-19.
The President of Belarus has exposed that the World Bank coronavirus aid comes with conditions for imposing extreme lockdown measures, to model their coronavirus response on that previously of Italy and even changes in the economic policies which he refused as being “unacceptable”.
Conditions of funding according to the President of Belarus were:
- His country had to impose extreme lockdown on the people;
- His country had to force the people to wear masks;
- His country had to impose very strict curfews;
- His country had to impose a police state; and
- His country had to crash the economy.
Prime Minister and Premier- is Victoria or Australia getting similar financial incentives from the World Bank or IMF for following their policies on Covid19 or any other global policy? If so what are the details?
DEATHS AND CASES – STATISTICS MANIPULATED
- The Australian and in particular Victorian Death Toll from Covid19 has been manipulated. Deceased with comorbidities are counted as Covid19 deaths even if the comorbidity was the cause of death ref: EXHIBIT SUMMARY -DEATHS AND CASES
- Total worldwide deaths on average and for all countries have not increased since the declaration of covid19 pandemic. “According to the mortality graphs, for Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic Korea, Slovakia, and Slovenia COVID-19 pandemic is definitely not a “once in 100 years event” but more like a seasonal flu event.”- EXHIBIT-DEATHS AND CASES – DATA SCIENTIST REPORT AND CHARTS
- The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not require 100% proof or testing of covid19 deaths declared- it is enough that they are “assumed”.
- The Australian Medical Association does not require 100% proof or testing of Covid19 deaths either. See EXHIBITS-DEATHS AND CASES
- No known autopsies of so called Covid19 deaths have been revealed publicly as of this date in Australia. Autopsies carried out in Italy concluded blood coagulation and other reasons for death, not a virus, and then doctors modified their medical treatment protocols.
- The Australian Government’s own report shows that 91% of deaths had comorbidity so only 9% at most were caused solely by Covid19. EXHIBIT-DEATHS AND CASES – COVID 19 EPIDEMIOLOGY REPORT NO.22- see page 14
- The CDC estimated that only 6% of all numbers attributable to death of COVID-19 19 actually died from that as the sole cause. This is remarkably inconsistent with current policies in Victoria and Australia.
- Florida is investigating all COVID-19 deaths as are other states and countries but not yet Australia. Florida investigation concluded that the data for Covid19 deaths lacked integrity. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-florida-coronavirus-deaths-cases-wednesday-october-21-20201021-r52k7q2th5dnvf3ywfeljroaby-story.html
- And a recent CDC Study Admits COVID “Virus” Infects Only Poisoned Monkey Cells, Not Humans! https://needtoknow.news/2020/10/cdc-study-admits-covid-virus-infects-only-poisoned-monkey-cells-not-humans/
MEDICAL EXPERT OPINIONS APPEAR TO BE IGNORED IN OUR HEALTH POLICY
The Victorian and Australian governments, heads of health and associated individuals and ministers responsible for delivering good health policy to Australians, appear to have ignored tens of thousands of independent medical and science expert opinions and peer reviewed studies when making or changing health policy in relation to Covid19 and the alleged pandemic. see EXHIBIT MEDICAL EXPERTS SUMMARY- LIST OF AUSTRALIAN AND INTERNATIONATIONAL MEDICAL AUTHORITIES DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS LETTERS AND REPORTS
MASKS HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION
- The Victorian Chief Health Officer as far back as in 2001 stated that masks were not even of proven benefit during surgery. Many medical professionals have spoken out about the dangers of masks. Even the WHO has stated that masks provide no known benefits, only refer to the “psychological” benefit for people that want to “do the right thing”. There is ample evidence to show that masks have no justification, regardless of whether there is a true pandemic and there is further evidence to show that continued wearing of masks pose health risks and can even lead to permanent health problems. See EXHIBIT- MASKS SUMMARY
- Dr Griesz-Brisson states that brain damage from masks cannot be reversed: ref EXHIBITS MEDICAL EXPERTS
- A new CDC study finds that the majority of those infected with COVID-19 ‘Always’ Wore Masks” – California Globe https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/new-cdc-study-finds-majority-of-those-infected-with-covid-19-always-wore-masks/
NIGHT -TIME CURFEWS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED
- The Melbourne night -time curfew (which has since been lifted) COULD NOT be justified by any credible medical or legal advice and should not be put into place again. The Loielo case in the Victorian Supreme Court challenged Melbourne’s now defunct curfew. Documents filed in the course of the trial revealed DHHS legal advice warned that there was the risk the curfew would breach human rights. (ref ref Shannon Deery, Herald Sun).
- Regardless o this lower court decision on the matter, it was publicly acknowledged by Premier Andrews that he made the call to introduce the curfew merely to assist policing operations. It was not based on independent relevant health advice.
- One wonders if the same situation arises with travel restrictions and other restrictions.
TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS NOT JUSTIFIED
- Like the curfew imposed, and the 5km from home restriction imposed, the current 25km travel from home restriction in Melbourne has no justification. It cannot be justified by any credible medical or legal advice.
- People must be able to move freely and choose a place of residence within a country (and in and out of a country) without restrictions, including establishing a purpose or reason for doing so. Governments have a duty to ensure that a person’s freedom of movement is not unduly restricted by others, including private persons or companies. The right applies to all persons lawfully within Australian territory, not only to Australian citizens. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and‑ freedoms/freedom-movement
- The original Australian Constitution specifically disallows for prohibition on freedom to travel and trade between states.
- The local, and regional and interstate travel restrictions are clearly disproportionate even if a pandemic exists. “The Australian government has not provided evidence to show that societal lockdown is proportionate to the risks of society continuing to function, with more nuanced management strategies. It has offered vague promises of ‘winning the battle” and implied threats of an apocalyptic public health meltdown if perpetual lockdown is not adhered to. This statements are supported by the advice of modellers who appear to have serious financial conflicts of interest, and who have not published the full extent of their taxpayer-funded work, to allow for external scrutiny. I believe the Australian government’s premise of the ‘fighting the Covid-19 outbreak’ may be an unjustified suspension of civil rights. It is my opinion that the Australian government’s policy response blatantly disregards the international Siracusa Principles, which indicates their policies may be in violation of international law.”
- EXHIBIT-HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT PAGE 225
PROTESTS BANNED WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS
- The Victorian Charter of Human Rights allows for protests as does the framework of human rights laws in general, even though it may allow for limiting such rights if the limitations are necessary, justified and proportionate (sec 7(2) of the Charter).
- Statements of Compatibility have been made by the Victorian Attorney General in order to allow passing of Victorian Legislation, stating that there is compatibility with the Victorian Charter as well as the Australian Constitution. However limiting rights of travel and freedom of political expression (including protests) and rights to assemble, and restricting the movement of healthy people are neither necessary, justified or proportionate.
- The Bill of Rights 1688 was adopted by the Commonwealth of Australia, The Constitution and the framework of domestic and international law on human rights upholds a person’s right to assemble and politically protest.
- It is well established in Australia that there is implied in the Commonwealth Constitution -a freedom of communication about governmental and political matters: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520. The freedom is a “limitation upon the power of government to regulate communication relating to matters of government and politics”: Clubb v Edwards (2019) 366 ALR 1 at  (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ).
- The High Court cases over the decades such as Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, the have held that Australians had the freedom of political communication, and that freedom of association is a necessary incident of the freedom of communication, given that the ability to communicate is contingent upon people being able to gather together: Mulholland v Australian Electoral Commission. The High Court has expressly noted that implied freedoms can be limited, but only if restrictions are “reasonably appropriate and adapted” to serve a legitimate objective in a manner consistent with representative and responsible government.
- It does not accord with arresting protestors or directly or indirectly banning protests in Victoria and is not proportionate.
SUICIDES, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME, MENTAL HEALTH EPISODES INCREASE
- Increased suicides and self -harm have plagued the Victorian as well as other Australian communities. Victoria is under the most harshest of lockdowns in the world.
- Doctors and nurses are reporting off the record that they are dealing with wards of people who have attempted suicide, self- harmed or have acute mental episodes. Witnesses have seen not much evidence of Covid19 cases in hospitals but plenty of evidence of attempted suicide cases. “What I say was two wards of young people mainly young women, who had tried to commit suicide because their livelihood have been taken away from them. All new business owners who lost all hope. They were the overflow into the private hospital from The Alfred (Hospital) where cases are so bad, they have taken over other floors there and still can’t cope with arrivals” – M. Walsh, Portsea
- Victorian Premier admitted himself of the increase of young people presenting to hospital for self- harm. However The Victorian Premier literally and physically turned his back during parliament questioning during September 2020, when he was told about the 2 parents who suicided after they left their children with the children’s grandparents.
- Crimes which have also increased in Victoria since the lockdowns took place are:
- drug use and possession
- breaches of intervention order
- public health and safety offences see EXHIBITs ”SUICIDES & CRIME”
- As of 7 October 2020 the known cases of suicide since Melbourne lockdowns took place -are 530 people (391 were men and 139 women) https://www.skynews.com.au/details/6198266587001
- The government records of covid19 deaths in Victoria up to same date is 800 but taking into account 80% of those were elderly in aged care with percentage of those who died WITH covid19 and not OF Covid19 (not even taking into account the fact that the tests are unreliable), it is clear that the numbers of deaths that may be attributed solely to Covid19 are significantly less than suicides during the same period.
- There have been likely more deaths arising out of the lockdowns with cancer and other patients with a high fatality rate condition, unable to obtain treatment. The lockdowns have prevented urgent medical treatment that could have saved lives.
- In October 2020 four newborns in Adelaide died after being denied lifesaving heart surgery because it wasn’t available in Adelaide and they couldn’t be transferred to other states because of travel restrictions (ref Chanel 9 News).
HYDROXYCHLOROQUIN AS A LIFE SAVING TREATMENT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE, NOT BANNED
- This study published 30th of September 2020 with lead author Professor Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD from the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, concluded:‘’The randomized clinical trials performed to date demonstrate that hydroxychloroquine use in outpatients, safely reduces the incidence of the composite of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.30.20204693v1
- Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so if used early, for Covid-19: A systematic review concluded it is consistently effective against Covid19 when used early in outpatient setting and that it is safe; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297520301281 These are very recent studies but there are many more: see EXHIBIT MEDICAL EXPERTS – SUMMARY HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
- Minister for Health Victoria Martin Foley WHY have you banned this life saving drug for during 2020 and up to 22 January 2021?
- Medical debate has been stifled and censured if it does not align with the government narrative and government cherry picked medical “experts”. Parliamentarians such as MP Craig Kelly are being ignored in Parliament (29.10.20) when seeking to table Journals including several peer-reviewed medical papers of medicine from around the world supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine. Silencing debate is not democracy.
- It is further an infringement on the doctor/patient relationship and the doctor’s ability to prescribe life- saving drugs to patients. This is in contradiction to the doctor’s oath duty to patient, and the Helskinki Declaration. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
LOCKDOWNS HAVE ALREADY HELD TO BE UNLAWFUL BY COURTS IN THE USA, NZ AND OTHER COUNTRIES
There is extensive evidence that lockdowns do not work and/or that they can be worse than a pandemic:
The Australian government has not provided hard evidence that lockdown is necessary or that it is effective. It has not shown that lockdown is proportionate to the risks of society continuing to function, with more nuanced management strategies. It has offered vague promises of ‘winning the battle” and threats of an apocalyptic meltdown if perpetual lockdown is not adhered to. These statements are supported by the advice of modellers who appear to have serious financial conflicts of interest, and who have not published the full extent of their taxpayer-funded work. The information in this letter is intended to facilitate discussion and a more rigorous examination and challenge of the government’s Covid-19 mitigation policies.
EXHIBIT-HARRISON RESEARCH REPORT PAGE 225
Further they have been held by superior courts to be unlawful:
- Michigan, USA
- Pennsylvania, USA
- New Zealand:
- The WHO itself has urged world leaders to stop using lockdowns as primary virus control method https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/who-official-urges-world-leaders-to-stop-using-lockdowns-as-primary-virus-control-method
- “Disease Mitigation in the Control of Pandemic Influenza.” Paper against lockdowns http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2006/2006-09-15-diseasemitigationcontrolpandemicflu.html
- Health Sector advice was ignored (the Victorian Pandemic Plan from March 2020 did not recommend lockdowns). It was shelved and abandoned by Victorian government. https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/about/publications/researchandreports/covid-19-pandemic-plan-for-vic
RESEARCH REPORTS ON THE ECONOMIC & OTHER EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT
- Governments have not taken into account the expert evidence in relation to the effects of lockdowns. The economic effects and consequences of indirect deaths can be worse than what they are designed to protect against. See EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORTS: & SUMMARY OF EFFECT OF LOCKDOWNS Foster and Sabhlok
- Economic Advice appears to have been ignored: Open letter to the Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, Victoria | Catallaxy Files https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/10/18/open-letter-to-the-secretary-of-the-department-of-treasury-and-finance-victoria/
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
In March 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the creation of the ‘National Covid-19 Coordination Commission (NCCC). Members of the NCCC do not appear to represent the interests of small business or ‘everyday Australians’. Instead, they hold senior board positions of companies in mining, oil and gas, airlines, private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, casinos and superannuation giants. One member is a billionaire. Another was recently accused for being ‘an international tax dodger’ by a Senator. Another chairs an international organisation at the forefront of brokering private-public partnerships and garnering billions in taxpayer dollars to fund Covid-19 vaccine development.
The Morrison Government’s choice of NCCC board members, and the glaring omission of any member who could be said to represent small business or employee unions, is a farcical premise of ‘mitigating the economic and social effects’ of Covid-10.
I believe to be the true function of the NCCC Executive Board is apparent – to facilitate the taxpayer-funded bailout of the industries they represent, and to broker the transfer of vast swathes of public money to private coffers. ref pages 75-76 HARRISON REPORT
The Conflicts of Interest include:
- Jane Halton’s involvement with CEPI and other entities: Jane Halton participated as a key panel member in the controversial and disturbing ‘invite only’ high level simulation pandemic exercise Event 201. Today, Jane Halton serves on the Executive Board of the Australian Government’s National COVID-19 Coordination Commission (NCCC). ref pages 42-62 HARRISON REPORT
- Jane Halton represented Australia at EVENT 201 on 18 October 2019 in NYC, which held a pandemic simulation exercise. She was chair of the board at the W.H.O. and worked for the BILL and MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION, she is Australia’s Covid-19 Coordinator and she is the person that both our Federal and State governments answer to. https://www.seetvnews.com/post/who-is-jane-halton
- Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Brett Sutton is the brother of Trevor Sutton. Trevor Sutton is one of three deputy Australian statisticians at the Bureau of Statistics and leads the Statistical Business Transformation Group, tasked with running a $256 million investment program that will “transform the way the ABS collects, processes, analyses and disseminates information and related statistics. Trevor Sutton is the husband of Jane Halton.
- The ABS does not report on Covid19 deaths save for “estimates” (see DEATHS)
- The Rockefeller Foundation influence on Australian policy makers: it has published their recommended policy response to Covid-19. Their answer to ‘restart the economy’ is mass genetic testing, bio-surveillance and the launch of a ‘Covid-19 Community Health Care Corps’ – a disturbingly militarised mass-testing and surveillance program. This includes using medical health records, digital tracking of workforces and resting heart rate and temperature trends, in a ‘privacy-centric’ [not private] program. ref pages 69 & 212 HARRISON REPORT
- Conflict of interest of members of the Federal Covid Commission members and task forces relate to CEPI, Cochrane, Who, and Jane Halton- see pages 78-84 HARRISON REPORT
- Greg Hunt- Doherty – Jack Ma/Alibaba Group -financial relationships and conflict of interest and big pharmaceutical companies- and using Australian blood donations. Why is Minister Hunt using his political platform to cajole Australians into handing over their blood for the apparent purpose of contributing to a ‘global leading’ pharmaceutical product? see pages 88-89 and 111-117 HARRISON REPORT
- Doherty -Glaxo -Apprise- AAHMS There are conflicts of interest as the chief Investigator of Apprise has served on advisory boards to a number of pharmaceutical/vaccine companies see pages 90-100 HARRISON REPORT
- Conflicts of interest- Dr Frazer inventor of HPV Vaccine, Greg Hunt and WHO. Despite harm caused by the HPV vaccine it is still praised by WHO, UQ and Professor Frazer and remains on the Australian Government’s immunisations schedule and advocated for by Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt. Professor Frazer remains Chair of the government’s Australian Medical Research Advisory Board, which advises the government on where to commit public funding for medical research. see 105-106 HARRISON REPORT
- Deep financial ties- Doherty Institute and Gates Foundation. In April 2020, Prime Minister Scott Morrison “reiterated that life as we know it will not return for months as global leaders race to find a coronavirus vaccine… that while many states have managed to “push the curve down”, ultimately, “there needs to be a vaccine”…“A vaccine ultimately enables everybody to go back to life as it was.. Both Professor McVernon and her employer, the Doherty Institute, appear to have deep financial ties to pharmaceutical and vaccine companies, and pro-vaccine organisations such as the Gates Foundation and CEPI. The Doherty Institute has received millions of dollars in federal and industry funding to develop a Covid-19 vaccine. See pages 130-132 HARRISON REPORT
- Australia’s reliance on WHO for health policy –but WHO receives large financial voluntary contributions from vaccine and pharmaceutical companies In its most recent 2017 voluntary contribution report the WHO accounted for the $2.1 billion it received from private foundations and global corporations. This compared to just over $1 billion voluntarily provided by governments. see pages 180-182 HARRISON REPORT
- Large pharmaceutical companies are policing approval of their own vaccines. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/10/12/big-pharma-is-policing-the-approval-of-its-own-vaccines/
- It is reported overseas that large pharmaceutical companies influence and control which doctors are on safety boards: https://trump.news/2020-10-23-big-pharma-control-approval-covid19-vaccines.html
- Conflict of Interest Dan Andrews, Brett Sutton, Trevor Sutton, Jane Halton,
Unified Security and SSG and Pinskier family https://www.seetvnews.com/post/family-ties
- Additional Conflicts of Interest- refer to EXHIBIT Summary Conflicts of Interests
VICTORIAN CHIEF HEALTH OFFICER HAS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Brett Sutton is employed by the Burnet Institute, is a consultant to government who pays the Burnet Institute for his services. The Burnet Institute through its subsidiary 360 Biolabs is actually financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Its patron is the Victorian Attorney General, Jill Hennessy. This is all documented on the Burnet Institute and Government websites.
VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT & BIG PHARMA COMPANIES
- The Victorian State Government has previously funded “money for a waste water treatment plant at Port Fairy to enable the expansion of Glaxosmithkline (GSK). In 2012, the Victorian Government announced GSK would inject $60 million and 58 jobs at the Glaxosmithkline Boronia site. A media release said “the Victorian coalition government was supporting GSK to expand its manufacturing and new drug development activities in Victoria.”
- During 2013-14 Budget estimates, the Minister for Technology Gordon Rich-Phillips declined to indicate “what level of support, the government had for that facility.”
- The Deputy Chair Martin Pakula: ”You would be aware of course that this week GSK announced the offshoring of 120 jobs..”
- Minister Rich-Phillips: “The government is disappointed, frankly, with the announcement by GSK this week around the closure of that particular line and the loss of those manufacturing jobs in Victoria.”
- Regardless of this, in 2015 GSK received an additional $1 million federal government grant for the Boronia facility.
- In 2016, the Andrews Government announced it would invest $4 million into the Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC), in a partnership between the Victorian Government, Monash University and Glaxosmithkline.
- In 2017, The Andrews Government has also funded a $10 million funding partnership with BioCurate – a collaboration between the University of Melbourne and Monash University. GSK is also developing drugs based on research licensed from the University of Melbourne. The University of Melbourne is partnered with the Doherty Institute.
- In Parliament during the 2017 announcement, the Andrews Government also said it supported a number of other initiatives including “Luring global firms to conduct world-first clinical trials to test new products in Victoria”, although it did not specify how much funding was committed to this or exactly what this entailed.
- The Victorian Government’s Medicines Manufacturing Innovation Centre (MMIC) is a formal partnership with Monash University and Glaxosmithkline. Glaxosmithkline is collaborating with the University of Queensland, the Doherty Institute and Gates-backed CEPI to fast-track a Covid-19 vaccine. (See Harrison Report page 104-“CEPI, Gates Foundation & University of Queensland”) See pages 193-195 HARRISON REPORT
- The Victorian Government appears to have a financial conflict of interest in ensuring that Victorians stay under lockdown until a Covid-19 vaccine is created (apparently to be mandatory).
MEDIA CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Murdoch and Big Pharma
In addition to ‘health scare’ and ‘pro-vaccine’ articles, the ‘No Jab No Pay’ Bill received wide and favourable coverage in the Murdoch press. The Murdoch media’s potential conflicts of interest are not disclosed- Murdoch media’s corporate partnership and association with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which conducts research on Australian children in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies.
It now appears that the Murdoch media are rolling out a similar campaign for Covid-19.
Arguably obsessive coverage of Covid-19 has dominated all mainstream media outlets, including Murdoch media. Vaccines for Covid-19 are being developed by a number of pharmaceutical companies, including those associated with Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. See pages 151-155 HARRISON REPORT
Victorian main- stream media
- It appears there is some mainstream media complicity with aiding the dissemination of false representations made by ministers and public officials, without independent impartial journalistic research.
- Mainstream media although critical of some government departments and ministers, has failed to bring to the public the evidence that contradicts the misrepresentation of a pandemic existing or continuing or of any evidence challenging the government core narrative about Covid19.
- Journalists are supposed to adhere to a strict code of ethics, which maintains that honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others are the core commitments of journalism.
- Bill Gates has also already steered at least $250 million to mainstream media to control the narrative about Covid19 which arguably has conflicted journalists. https://needtoknow.news/2020/09/bill-gates-steered-250-million-to-mainstream-media-to-control-the-narrative/
BIG TECH AND MEDIA NARRATIVE CONTROL
- As advised in the recommendations of Event 201, social media and big tech giants are playing a role in managing Covid-19 ‘misinformation’, acting as unelected ‘narrative editors’ for billions of people.
- Event 201 recommended: “Governments need to work with social media and the private sector to counteract misinformation during the next pandemic to “flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information…. media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though the use of technology.” (Emphasis added)
- Facebook is now using ‘fact-checking organisations’ to rate Covid-19 content. If content is deemed ‘false’, Facebook reduces its distribution and shows warning labels. Facebook said 95% of the time, their warning labels stopped users going on to view the content. “We’re going to start showing messages in News Feed to people who have liked, reacted or commented on harmful misinformation about COVID-19 that we have since removed. These messages will connect people to COVID-19 myths debunked by the WHO…”
- YouTube has now introduced ‘De Monetisation’ penalties for videos that the platform determines contain ‘medical misinformation’ about covid-19. “Medical Misinformation: Content that misinforms users about health matters related to COVID-19. This includes content that encourages non-medical tests or exams for COVID-19, or false/unsubstantiated claims about the cause, promotion of dangerous remedies or cures, origin or spread of COVID-19 that contradict scientific consensus. See pages 205-206 HARRISON REPORT
BIOSECURITY ACT IS NOT A LICENCE FOR UNFETTERED POWER
- On 18 March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia, the Governor-General declared that a human biosecurity emergency exists. The declaration gives the Minister for Health expansive powers to issue directions and set requirements in order to combat the outbreak. This is the first time these powers under the Biosecurity Act have been used. On 3 March 2020, Law Council of Australia President, Pauline Wright, cautioned the government on the Biosecurity Act 2015, prior to the Governor-General’s declaration of a human biosecurity emergency.
- Ms Wright said “…powers under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) are extraordinary and must be approached with the utmost caution and should only be used as a last resort. The exceptional powers under the Act do not have the types of safeguards and independent oversight protections afforded to our law enforcement and security agencies’ exercise of coercive powers. The determination of a particular disease as a Listed Human Disease (LHD) can have significant repercussions under the Bill, particularly in relation to control orders.”
- Despite section 60 of the Biosecurity Act (Cth) referring to individual control orders in relation to individual people with illnesses, there has been unfettered use of power against masses of healthy people.
BIOSECURITY ACT AND QUARANTINE
The first cohorts of Australian citizens coming from overseas were forced into quarantine without any testing. It has been reported that they were put in solitary confinement with police and army continuously violating their privacy and ignoring personal requests to be left alone. The behaviour was threatening and intimidating and in violation of the human rights that Australian citizens who are not accused of a crime NOR are sick have as a matter of right. The government does NOT give human beings free will and liberty. They are also not entitled to take it away.
It is reported that further cohorts are being forcibly temperature checked every day (against their wishes) as well as being forced to have multiple nasal swab tests. This is a grievous breach of body sovereignty and the threats being used by the health officials and the police in order to force compliance are unacceptable. People have the right to refuse medical treatment if they so wish. Threats of jail time and fines for simply requesting that their person not be continuously violated simply because they have been forced into quarantine (which is unlawful) is unacceptable behaviour from any person paid out of the public purse and is beneath the expectations set for Australian society.
EVEN IF A HEALTH CRISIS EXISTS THE LAWS ARE BEING MISUSED AND DIRECTIONS MADE ULTRA VIRES (OUTSIDE PROPER AUTHORITY)
- Most if not all of the Covid19 related Directions of the Victorian Chief Health/Medical officer (CHO) are ultra vires (outside the power given to him).
- Sect 190 of the Public Health and Wellbeing 2008 gives the CHO powers but they are not to be arbitrary- decisions must be supported by evidence that is relevant and reliable. Citizens must be informed and the measures must be proportionate not arbitrary and any infectious disease prevention is to be with minimum restrictions on rights (sec 190, 5, 8, 9, 11)
- The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Commonwealth) has been wrongly interpreted at best.
- Section 8 of the Bio Security Act 2015 (Commonwealth) clearly states that every state law enforced must not be inconsistent and must abide by this Act. Under the act there is no provision for locking up healthy people or directing them to do things that infringe upon their liberties including forced masking or testing or answering questions from police. The Act makes it clear that an individual would first need to be served with a bio security control order given by the Federal Health Minister, and only if the individual is exposed to a health risk to the disease or if you have signs and symptoms to that disease. We are healthy until proven sick. A zero case elimination strategy was never the intention of passing the Bio Security Act.
EMERGENCY POWERS OVERREACHED
- Based on the evidence, there is no justification for the Premier of Victoria to declare a state of emergency or disaster in relation to Covid19.
- The CHO of Victoria has not complied with section 199 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 regardless of the state of emergency, because he cannot justify that all his specific directives are necessary to eliminate a public health risk, and he has overreached in authorising officers to exercise emergency powers in this way.
- Even if such declarations were valid, The Public Health and Wellbeing Act Division 1 Section 111 states the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with MINIMUM RESTRICTIONS on the RIGHTS of any person.
- Anything more would give the Chief Health Officer arbitrary power to decide what’s minimum to get his job done as he sees fit, and with no consultation with or consent of the person, whose rights are being restricted.
VACCINE DANGERS NOT MADE TRANSPARENT
Despite Prime Minister Morrison’s Covid19 vaccine announcements for Australians, insufficient disclosure about the dangers of vaccines has been made to Australian public. For example: Astra Zeneca, a vaccine company that the Prime Minister of Australia has stated will be engaged in making vaccines for Australia, has a history of violations, fines and unsafe practices. This includes millions of dollars in penalties for unapproved promotion of medical products. Only six companies (out of 65 parent pharmaceutical companies found in the Violation Tracker database) were penalised with higher amounts than AstraZeneca.
Other penalties fined to Astra Zeneca include for kickbacks and bribes, consumer protection violations and false claims and related offences. refer to EXHIBIT- RESEARCH REPORTS/ ASTRA ZENECA RESEARCH REPORT
ALARMINGLY, THE CDC NOW CLEARLY STATES THAT COVID19 HAS STILL NOT BEEN ISOLATED
The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated 13 July, 2020 and on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” it states: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
In other words NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE, NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS, AND NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS. So, what can Covid19 testing and Covid19 vaccines be based on?
DUE PROCESS IN PASSING LAWS HAS BEEN IGNORED ON IMMUNISATION LAWS
On the 13th of October 2015, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights scrutinised the legislation and reported that it had identified significant human rights incompatibilities in the No Jab No Pay Bill. The Committee requested a response from the Minister of Social Services, (now Prime Minister) Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison did not respond. Without addressing the Committee on Human Rights’ concerns, on the 23rd of November 2015, the No Jab, No Pay Bill passed both Houses. See EXHIBIT RESEARCH REPORT- HARRISON REPORT This lack of due process is irregular and arguably the no jab no pay law is invalid.
AUSTRALIA’S SOVEREIGNTY COMPROMISED BY FOREIGN BODIES & CORPORATIONS
In a research paper Wilyman (2015) says, “The Australian government’s NIP [National Immunisation Program], like all member countries of the World Health Organisation (WHO), is recommended by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI). This is a partnership with the WHO and UNICEF that includes the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the Rockefeller Foundation, the United Nations Development Fund (UNDF) and other private research institutions.
On 25 September 2015 the Hon Julie Bishop MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, joined 193 Leaders and Ministers from across the globe at the United Nations in New York, to welcome and endorse the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda). Australia actively participated in international discussions to design the 2030 Agenda and supported the involvement of all development actors, including civil society organisations, the private sector, philanthropic organisations and academia. https://www.dfat.gov.au/aid/topics/development-issues/2030-agenda/Pages/default
Police force being used against citizens to further global agendas, contrary to human rights
The letter to Michael Fuller Police Commissioner of New South Wales from Senior
Constable Cooney dated 26 October 2020 sets out serious concerns about the police force being expected to enforce oppressive rules in the name of Covid19. “ We feel a real calling to do our part to stop this oppression, so we are writing to you to raise the following issues:‑
- Police Force employees have ‘choice’ as to whether or not to receive vaccines;
- The Police believe that all members of the community also have choice around receiving vaccines;
- Police do not participate in any way in the forcing of vaccines upon the population;
- That the Police Association start preparing to defend Police employees who choose to not be vaccinated
- To raise the alarm that there is a global dictatorship occurring and the Police Force is being used as a tool to push these global and corporate agendas upon the population; and
- To warn the Police Force not to simply acquiesce to these requests, rules and laws and to act in the best interest of its population, not tyranny of government. “
see EXHBITS GLOBAL AGENDAS- COVID COP LETTER
AUSTRALIANS DID NOT VOTE FOR THESE GLOBAL ORGANISATIONS & CORPORATIONS TO RULE OVER THEIR HEALTH & HEALTH POLICY!
“When governments apply compulsory health measures the IHR’s do not require due process protections… Global health strategies have resulted in a decline in the authority of governments over the control of population health even though governments formally have the right to decide health policies for their own regions and populations. This is a fundamental principle of the international community and transgressing this principle results in a loss of authority over human rights for individuals. Australia is legally bound by the WHO’s International Health Regulations and to follow WHO’s health directives, including the management of the Covid-19 outbreak. But who is really dictating the direction of the WHO’s policies? About 80% of the WHO’s finances come from voluntary contributions.” See pages 107, 118 and 225-226 HARRISON REPORT
HUMAN RIGHTS BREACHES AND ABUSES
Provisions of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been overridden by ministerial and bureaucratic overreach and policing in Australia, particularly in Melbourne, Victoria, namely:
Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
HUMAN RIGHTS APPLY DURING TIMES OF PEACE
International human rights law (IHRL) APPLIES IN BOTH TIMES OF WAR AND PEACE, and to all human beings. The universality of human rights is highlighted in the UN Charter, which commits member states to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, colour, sex, language or religion. The UN Charter is a binding international treaty. No one can take away a person’s human rights. Australia is bound by this.
A person’s human rights can be violated — and often, they are — but this doesn’t mean that they are taken away from the person concerned. Human rights are interdependent and equally important. This means that the realization of one human right is linked to the realization of the others. For example, in order to be able to express a genuine political opinion through a vote, citizens must have access to adequate and relevant information. Over time, human rights have come to be protected by domestic laws, national constitutions, and international law. Because human rights are established in international law, they are legal and internationally guaranteed. – ref: AdreaTejada, Humanitarian and former Ambassador, International Human Rights Advisory Council.
COMPROMISING RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY
- The Omnibus Act in Victoria that amended the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 and other acts which further infringe on human rights and are INCOMPATIBLE with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Australian Constitution.
- Any further proposed laws to mandate vaccination (either directly or indirectly by withholding a citizen’s right to travel and receive tax paid government benefits etc) also infringes on human rights and would be also INCOMPATIBLE with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution s.51(xxiiiA) FORBIDS Commonwealth provision of medical and dental services to require anybody to accept those services (medical conscription).
- A signed compatibility statement stating that such legislation/ amendments are compatible with the Constitution, in order to get the legislation passed, DOES NOT mean that they are in fact compatible or lawful. You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig. Such legislation is open for judicial review for validity. You are testing the Australian people if they are forced each time to bring such matters the courts to address legislation passed which is not in fact lawful or valid.
LEGAL EXPERT OPINION APPEARS DISMISSED
Legal correspondence about human rights and other legal violations, from lawyers and legal agencies has been ignored by the Victorian government. – refer to EXHIBITS LEGAL EXPERTS
THE MEANING OF THE ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT HAS BEEN IGNORED TO PASS PRETEND LAWS
- Acts of intimidating Victorian citizens, manipulating parliament sittings and due process, passing laws that are clearly not in line with the Constitution or the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and/or disproportionate and knowing same in light of medical legal and other expert research available ARE ILLEGAL.
- There is a difference between legislation passed to make something “legal”, and what is actually in law “lawful”.
- Simply writing out a “compatibility statement” stating that a new law is compatible with human rights charters and the Constitution glossing over the reality does not suffice.
- Statements of compatibility need to be questioned -who exactly gave legal advice before they were signed off and what was the legal advice about compatibility? Attorney General Jill Hennessy please respond in this regard concerning the 2020 amendments made to the Public Health and Wellbeing Act and other amendments introduced to public health via the Omnibus Bill.
Covid19 cannot be used as an excuse to wipe out human rights.
“A pretend law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all” ~Justice John Latham, High Court of Australia HCA 1942 (65 CLR373 at 408)
STATE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE
- Whilst it may be claimed as a defence that the state of scientific knowledge at the time lockdowns and other restrictions were imposed and implemented, based on the knowledge that supported those decisions, that can no longer be the case.
- Further it is not for the public to have to prove certain medical directives imposed are dangerous or harmful. The onus should be on who is imposing such directives for testing, isolation, vaccination etc. to prove safety and benefit. There is insufficient evidence of safety or benefit of these directives and proposed directives.
APPLICABLE LAWS IGNORED BY GOVERNMENT DECISION MAKERS &-VIOLATIONS OF LAW
Forced testing of, and quarantining healthy people and forced expenditure for same as a condition of travel, imposed lockdowns, forced masking, imposed contact tracing, curfew or travel restrictions, restrictions over protesting, assembly or association and freedom of speech, marshalling businesses, and martial law type actions against the citizens under the guise of Covid19 or a health crisis which does not exist -cannot be justified at law.
It is submitted to you DIRECTLY AND PERSONALLY that the continuation of these restrictions and medical conscription actions imposed on Australians is a breach of the following laws amongst others:
- The Victorian Charter of Human Rights– (legislation must be compatible before being enacted);
- The Australian Constitution (legislation must be compatible before being enacted)
- Occupational Health and Safety (Work Safe) Laws;
- The Universal Charter of Human Rights (which links in with domestic human rights law);
- International Law and Treaties and Codes including the Nuremberg Code and The Siracusa Principles ;
- The Bill of Rights 1688 also espouses basic rights;
- Magna Carta;
- Oaths of office of Ministers personally taken and associated covenants;
- (arguably) the Australian Federal Criminal Code in relation to forced medical conscription and prohibiting people to exercise their day to day lawful activities and legal and political rights – Section 83.4, Section 92.3 reckless foreign interference, section 137 False and misleading statements, Section 142.2 Abuse of public office, giving information from falsely derived or misleading documents Section 145.5 and causing harm to public officials and acts not in proper administration of government (Part 7) http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consolact/cca1995115/sch1.html
- Compatibility principles being falsely or improperly applied; Domestic laws cannot be made that are incompatible with international law: https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/statements-compatibility-templates
- The advice of actual head of UN human rights is also being ignored: https://www.devex.com/news/covid-19-is-not-an-excuse-for-human-rights-violations-un-human-rights-chief-says-98192 (see EXHIBITS LAW- LEGAL LINKS)
MISFEASANCE AND BREACH OF OATH OF OFFICE
- It appears probable if not possible that responsible ministers and chief medical officers may have or are blatantly and recklessly disregarded science and medicine (including from the WHO and CDC) bio ethics, economic and legal advice in imposing lockdowns, the quarantine of healthy people, forcing the wearing of masks, restricting travel, closure of business and other restrictive impositions.
- Conscious or reckless indifference by certain minsters and chief health offices as to the consequences and risks of implementing a new health plan involving inhuman isolation and prohibition of carrying out expression or movement protected by human rights carries LIABILITY.
- Secrecy of sources of advice cannot continue. Ministers are not fully immune to the obligation to provide reasons for decision just as are subordinate administrative public servants and bodies.
- Passing unprecedented legislation through the parliament during peacetime which is in contradiction with the Australian Constitution, Human Rights Charter of Victoria and universal human rights laws, which is not in accordance with the seven international treaties- is at best misuse of power, but at worst conscious maladministration or deliberate abuse of power.
- This could arguably amount to misuse of public power that holds SPECIFIC LEGAL PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES
- Class actions against government ministers both state and federal for breaches of office and malfeasance and misfeasance are now likely to commence if not commenced already applying principles laid down in Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberin (2017) 248 FCR 311(Nyoni) http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2011/1.html
RECKLESS AND UNLAWFUL STATEMENTS AND ACTIONS OF LEADERS
In addition to civil claims and class actions seeking judicial review, there have been Victoria OHS Work Safe reports already made seeking to prosecute. Additional reports to Federal Police to prosecute under sec 137 of the Criminal Code (Cth) 1995 have been made and more are expected. See Afp asked to investigate EXHIBITS LEGAL EXPERTS
Overseas lawsuits are also commencing based on crimes against humanity. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is a consumer protection trial lawyer in Germany and California. He is a member of the German Corona Investigative Committee. The committee also comprises doctors, and scientists who together have reached the conclusion that COVID 19 may well be the greatest crime against Humanity in history. Dr Fuellmich describes how there is no legal doubt about the possibility of a class-action lawsuit against those responsible for the lockdowns. He covers the key players such as the WHO, faulty PCR tests, and the impact of this global lockdown. https://soundcloud.com/ulf-bittner/dr-reiner-fuellmich-about-crimes-against-humanity-and-corona-fraud-2020-10-20
MISLEADING THE AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC
In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995: section 137
INTERFERENCE WITH POLITICAL RIGHTS
In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995: sections 83.4
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
In addition, based on the facts and evidence, but dependent upon the individual’s knowledge of the facts and evidence and intentional or reckless disregard of same, there may be potential claims, liability and prosecutions based on the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995:
268.12 Crime against humanity–imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty “committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population”
268.13 Crime against humanity—torture “committed intentionally or knowingly as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population” noting that expert research has found that “no touch” torture is an actual form of torture upon the human psyche: http://mindjustice.org/wisdom.htm
- Chapter 8 — Offences against humanity and related offences (inhuman treatment, biological experiments, wilfully (recklessly causing great suffering)
DENYING THE SICK MEDICAL TREATMENT IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY
Intentionally withholding the option of a medical treatment, from a person with a potentially life-threatening illness, by interfering in the sanctity of the Doctor/Patient relationship, when the weight of international evidence demonstrates that the treatment is safe and effective – is both a violation of human rights and a crime against humanity that should be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice. State Government ministers and health bureaucrats are now ON NOTICE https://www.skynews.com.au/details/6194885914001
LOSS SUFFERED BY AUSTRALIANS AS A RESULT OF GOVERNMENT AND MINISTERS ACTIONS
As a result of reckless excess of authority and statements made by ministers Victorians and Australians have suffered unnecessary fear, trauma, deaths including suicides, health problems, mental health problems, spike in domestic violence, financial losses, job losses, business bankruptcies, and other financial and health and freedom losses.
- Our civil liberties are being stolen under the guise of emergency measures.
- Ministers in Australia and other countries are not exempt from having to explain reasons for decisions for health or emergency policy and directives: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1717/index.do
- Victorians and all Australians deserve to know the truth and to be protected from misinformation.
- All ministers and chief health officers need to act on the truth, not selectively chosen science to match up protocols and directives from global think tanks.
- Ministers are to represent their constituents, not their own party or corporations or global agendas at the health and financial expense of their constituents.
NOTICE OF CALL TO ACTION
Premier Daniel Andrews:
- Let the People of Victoria go!
- There is insufficient independent legal medical or other basis to support all the lockdowns and their restrictions or declaration of state of emergency or disaster so we request you immediately reverse your declarations.
- Make any guidelines for health regarding covid19 voluntary only, with each person and business to decide how to protect their own health and that of their staff and clients against Covid19 if they deem it necessary. Wind back all Omnibus laws.
- There is otherwise a prima facie case against you and we forthwith put you on NOTICE OF LIABILITY.
- Allow protests and social gatherings, and restore the rule of law and Westminster system of democracy and separation of powers.
- Fully declare your financial and other interests and that of your family members in companies engaged in the Hotel Quarantine Program, pharmaceutical companies, contracts with the CCP and otherwise all financial interests.
- Fully declare the funding allocated towards Covid19 public relations, advertising and public influence.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison:
- Release all modelling and data that you have based your decisions on in relation to all Covid19 measures.
- Restore our Australian sovereignty and detach from global agendas and wind back all agreements that have had or will have adverse effects to Australian citizens.
- Fully declare your financial and other interests and that of your family members in vaccine companies. Refute the evidence of collusion reported by independent journalists and researchers. https://cairnsnews.org/2020/09/24/morrison-andrews-and-halton-in-big-dirty-vaccine-deal-part-2/
- Open up all our state and country borders.
- List all types of “emergencies” that the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 is designed to cover. Why this unprecedented move to allow foreign troops and police into our country? And why are they being given immunity from prosecution? Will they be used against Australian citizens who lawfully protest? Will they be used against citizens who refuse medical conscription such as testing and vaccinations? What will they be used for and who will be paying for them? https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/morrison-to-further-enhance-military-deployment-capabilities-for-civil-emergences/
All Chief Medical/Health Officers and State Premiers:
- Declare each and every financial interest you have relating to pandemic measures taken and be transparent regarding your conflicts of interests. Resign if you have conflicts of interest that interfere with acting in the best health interests of Australians.
- Release all modelling and data that you have based your decisions on in relation to all Covid19 measures you have advised on or directed.
- Advise your State Premiers to end Covid 19 states of emergency/disaster immediately.
- Publicly account for all contracts and agreements with vaccine and vaccine research companies involving yourself and family members.
- Account for all reasons for decisions for imposing stage 2, 3 and 4 of lockdowns recommended by you to cabinet and ministers of government.
- Disclose documents relating to such decisions including polls taken and any activity related to Covid 19 planning, actions taken and reports commissioned since 1 Jan 2017.
Notice to All Ministers:
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of the medical evidence and the law; and
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of the financial and other conflicts of interest of ministers, chief health offices and members of the government appointed Covid19 committees and some task forces. Although one can understand that elected government ministers who are responsible for portfolios of health or overseeing same may not necessarily have any medical background (as they are simply elected representatives ) there is no excuse for governments to appoint boards to advise government on health matters where the board members clearly have no medical background but do have other vested interests or at least conflicts of interest personally and professionally. Accordingly YOU are put on NOTICE should you continue to be guided by- committees task forces or delegated officers of any kind who have neither medical qualifications or experience as well as conflict of interests concerning foreign companies and bodies- when you making Covid19 or other health laws and directions; and
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of potential liability against you; and
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of alleged breaches of international and human rights law, OHS laws and federal criminal codes and international codes against you; and
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of this request to meet your responsibilities of your public service office; and
- YOU have been put on NOTICE of this request to direct the wind back of the lock downs and other Covid19 restrictions and cancel the state of emergency and state of disaster declarations and allow full open up of trading and travel.
Notice to All Parliamentarians:
- We request that you make full and frank disclosure of all financial interests and connections with pharmaceutical and drug companies (including vaccine research development and manufacturing) that you or your family members have.
- We request that you also make transparent all gifts, bonuses, financial incentives received from such companies by you or your family members.
- We also request that you make public all relevant disclosures as to the processes, tendering and and/or discussions and negotiations leading to the contracts being awarded for any vaccine company.
We request that you hold other ministers in office accountable and raise questions in open parliament about all these issues.