Thoughts on economics and liberty

Category: Current Affairs

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

EXTRACT FROM A SUPERB EMAIL RECEIVED:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[i] https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-m-the-virus-expert-cited-by-mp-craig-kelly-vaccines-are-critical-but-he-s-not-all-wrong-20210204-p56zfc.html

[ii] https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ohp-ahmppi.htm

[iii] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329438/9789241516839-eng.pdf?ua=1

[iv] https://inference-review.com/article/on-the-futility-of-contact-tracing

[v]https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/519F9392797E2DDCCA257D47001B9948/$File/Border-2019.PDF

[vi] https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations

[vii] https://www.unicef.org/social-policy/child-poverty/covid-19-socioeconomic-impacts

[viii] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/30/hhs-accelerates-clinical-trials-prepares-manufacturing-covid-19-vaccines.html

[ix] https://www.health.gov.au/initiatives-and-programs/covid-19-vaccines/learn-about-covid-19-vaccines/how-covid-19-vaccines-are-tested-and-approved?fbclid=IwAR30MJ2yKnZlXnlaV0NqLryfNzBGm6XXRFT42N1sx01Unl1ir_XlsHE0Frg_aem_AShDp_roLotgML6_CEItEtWBokmCpHS3xa1T9uiUZytIIlM5oXQiFO59ZNaH6iQJasvoMjaA-wExP1rcJBciFnkWbJY1JcVInoi8N0cpwAJpgoKFDTMv8tiBArWaF6eIFR0

[x] https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/99/1/20-265892.pdf

[xi] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/interview-sam-maiden-newscomau

[xii] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

[xiii] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html

[xiv] https://www.pm.gov.au/media/interview-sam-maiden-newscomau

[xv] https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6229978909001

[xvi]https://www.pm.gov.au/media/interview-sam-maiden-newscomau

[xvii] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/27/covid-vaccine-ad-campaign-aims-to-reassure-australians-about-safety-and-efficacy-of-jabs

[xviii]https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/dr-brendan-murphy-answers-questions-about-the/13119036

[xix] https://www.tga.gov.au/tga-grants-provisional-determination-covid-19-vaccine

[xx] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/

[xxi] https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/

[xxii] https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/no-jab-no-pay-new-requirements-fact-sheet

[xxiii] https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/antivaccination-parents-face-15000-welfare-hit-under-no-jab-reforms/news-story/9b2e49f83ef0c5b3b69fe3937c1fd28e

[xxiv] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-05/coronavirus-australia-live-news-covid19-national-cabinet/13122610

[xxv] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/29/who-warns-covid-19-pandemic-is-not-necessarily-the-big-one

[xxvi] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32717182/

[xxvii] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24845462/

[xxviii] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2766651

[xxix] https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement/en/

Continue Reading

Conclusive proofs that this is an experimental vaccine

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

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

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

GREG HUNT SAYS SO HIMSELF

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/interview-with-david-speers-on-abc-insiders-on-the-covid-19-vaccine-rollout

https://t.me/thegreataustralianparty/97

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

Another person has lodged a (short) complaint to the International Criminal Court

Received via email. I’m sharing – but I suspect this doesn’t go into the level of detail that will attract ICC’s attention. Nevertheless, it might be helpful supplementary material for them.

——-

To INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Dear Sir or Madam,
This covid FLU shenanigans has thrown up so many lies, scaremongering, rule changes, acts of evil cruelty that it needs investigated. Those acts have been done by politicians, establishment, government advisors, councils, health bodies etc and have been aided by media and police etc!? All involved can only be described as evil perfidious scumbags!
In my eyes the politicians and NHS in UK should be on murder charges for killing thousands of elderly!
2016 an operation called Exercise Cygnus was carried out by UK government to see how it could deal with a pandemic, the outcome was ignored and worse still kept from the public. To I that is criminal!?!?
Then when the governments round the world wide were caught out by the covid FLU panic set in and some governments decided to send elderly from hospitals to care homes and death. UK/Scotland participated in such an evil criminal act. Those that advised on the evil care for the elderly should be strung up!
Then tens of thousands have been litterly abandoned by the NHS, with appointments and operations cancelled. Another criminal act and sure it does not fit in with the Hippocratic Oath.
Then the scaremongering which I have never seen the likes of before is so criminal those that did it should be taken out and flogged in public. That would be politicians and media.
Then the bullying, as only seen before by the likes of by the gestapo etc has also been criminal and that is by politicians and police!
The cases and testing is another shambles/scam that is criminal and the perfidious scum know that the tests are not accurate but still they carry on with the SCAM!?
Not happy with the first round of slaughter they have started on the second round with the SYNTHETIC PATHOGEN injections they call a vaccine! Since the injections started in UK cases, illness and deaths rocketed!
One can only hope that more people write to the International Criminal Court and that you do something about it for the sake of the people or we are all fcuked for ever and ever!?!?
What is behind it all. Things that keep cropping up are Universal Basic Income, Great Reset, Satan ‘B Gates Pox yearly injections, so is this what the covid flu shenanigans is all about—CONTROL!?
I shall end by a statement I have made many times—-The world is a lovely place and we know of the dangers in the jungle, oceans etc but the real worry is the people. The perfidious evil begins at the top with royals/leaders/WHO/politicians/UN/councils/churches/Gates&Rothchilds likes etc and aided by the perfidious media/cops and then trickles down through society and the covid FLU shenanigans has put it all on the world stage and is clear for all to see!!?
Continue Reading

Prof Ted Steele points out serious flaws in Peter Doherty’s advocacy of the vaccine

(note: do read this: Covid vaccine watch)

I’m sharing an EXTRACT from Prof. Ted Steele’s widely shared critique of Peter Doherty’s article. This is vitally important.

Doherty’s response:

TED’s EMAIL’S TITLE: I strongly disagree with your vaccine advocacy

Dear Peter:

So there can be no misunderstanding in what I now say and analyse, I attach a scan of your article which appeared on the Opinion page 22 of Melbourne’s Herald Sun newspaper on Monday February 22, 2021.

Your article is a political tract , an article of advocacy, not Science. Sorry, that is the way it is. But I will engage you at both the scientific and political levels.

Your article contains scientific contradictions which I highlight (yellow) here for further discussion ( my
comments follow in
red) , Paragraph 15 though 19 viz.

“Apart from some issues for highly allergic people I don’t see danger signals to date ( large numbers
of deaths of elderly Pfizer recipients in Norway?- what type
of allergy B/T cell? or innate immune? ) , or any reason as yet to doubt that the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines protect against severe disease” ( Where is that
evidence? That seems a faith
based statement to me. Why has Merck made a strong advisory that the AstraZeneca vaccine not be given to those > 65yr? Why is this advisory being ignored not just by you but also the Federal
Government?

Then

“ And, while they may not stop early infection in the nose, my personal guess is that they will reduce
the extent of transmission . But that will take a while to emerge. At this stage , its probably too early to know whether prior infection or vaccination provides better long-term protection.”
Why say all this inthe public pages of the Herald-Sun newspaper when you simply do not know the answer?You cannot have it both ways- that is why your article is a political tract.

Then

“ We know that people who had clinically mild COVID-19 can sometimes be re-infected but,
with the widespread use of nasal swabs and the sensitive PCR tests we all
hear about every day , we’ve set a higher standard for COVID-19 proetction than
has ever been applied to any respiratory pathogen. (
Yes , I agree, past
seasonal common colds epidemics and pandemics ( and flus) have never
been tracked like this before
– but both have always been lethal for elderly
co-morbids in aged care and nursing facilities. My estimate is the 0.1 % of all
genuine COVID-19 patients run the risk of dying. This
is the group
longitudinal studies identify as having little if any innate immune anti-viral
defences , see Figure 2c in Lucas et al 2020
).

“ The basic message is : minimise any chance that you will develop symptoms of COVID-19 by
taking whatever vaccine you’re offered at the earliest opportunity” (
What an
extraordinary exhortation given your statement above
viz. .”. my personal guess is that
they will reduce the extent of transmission .


But that will take a while to emerge.
At this stage , its probably too early to know whether prior
infection or vaccination provides better long-term protection.”
.
How can you
possibly advocate that unless on political grounds- is the Doherty Institute
beholden financially to Morrison or the Andrews governments? The average
citizen sees through this advocacy- that is why the Australian Open crowd
spontaneously erupted and loudly boo’ed the other night
when the MC
tried to sell the vaccine! To a tennis crowd – you are just being a
political advocate here, pure and simple, it is so transparent
.

Then

“You owe that to yourself , to your family, and to your fellow citizens” – Peter, the
air and the public space is already saturated with lies and misinformation, and
here you are adding more pure unadulterated BS to the mix.

Then

“ And, the more of us who are vaccinated, the less governments will see a need for
lockdowns and border closures” .
Surely you do not agree with those
latter measures which are have now destroyed our society and economy and caused
untold misery – far greaterv tyan any common cold virus.

On ABC TV Insiders’ the day before your article appeared, Minister Greg Hunt frankly
admitted this is the” biggest clinical trial in history and much data on safety
and efficacy will be will be collected…” !! . Normally citizens are only
exposed to a medicine or vaccine
after a clinical trial. The
treatment campaign is not considered a clinical trial. That cannot be true as a
normal clinical trial is also subject to halt at any stage (‘first do no harm’)
with any significant adverse reactions (Pfizer should have immediately pulled
its vaccine after the Norway nursing home fatalities).

Immune defenceless and compromised elderly should be last people
to be exposed to an untested experimental vaccine
, not the first as is
planned in this ill thought out roll-out. Surely the aim should be, in this
vulnerable group, to boost the Innate Immune response rather than an acquired
adaptive response? See the clear deficiency in elderly co-morbids in the
“severe” COVID-19 category, in Lucas et al 2020.

I have widely circulated this criticism of your misguided public position – to
colleagues, collaborators and newspaper editors both as Cc and Bcc.

Continue Reading