Updated: Dec 14, 2021
There is a big push by our governments to medicate all Australians with a covid-19 injection, still in clinical trial. Hesitancy with this treatment has been addressed in two ways;
removing and withholding people’s freedoms until they comply, and
ongoing and relentless media campaigns promoting the injections as safe and effective, and compelling Australians to roll up their sleeves and do their “civic duty”.
All this has been done under the guise of protecting the health and wellbeing of Australians, who have been ushered into a nation-sized henhouse for their “protection”.
There has never been an open public debate of valid concerns with safety, which is largely driving vaccine hesitancy because of the lack of safety data. Instead, valid questions have been shut down, differing expert opinions ridiculed, and mass censorship implemented across social and mainstream media.
National Cabinet meeting details have been kept secret, despite a court ruling they should be released. Commercial agreements with the companies manufacturing the experimental medications are being withheld from public scrutiny, citing they are “commercial in confidence”, and throwing further fuel on the hesitancy fire; legal indemnity for harms caused by the vaccines has been granted to these companies, who have criminal records for making false and misleading claims, bribery and kickbacks.
So, it’s understandable why Australians might ask who exactly is getting the kickbacks for implementing these treatments and who is being bribed? Perhaps the continuing mass exodus of politicians may lend a clue.
Modelling continues to be relied upon in the decision-making process, despite us now having access to excellent real-world data which tells a very different story, with hundreds of studies showing the covid measures implemented here have failed in their purpose.
We were expected to accept that we should be the Crash Test Dummies for these new untested vaccines, because of the threat of covid-19, but now that we have real-world data that shows these injections also pose health risks, our governments have doubled-down on their agenda, choosing to ignore these data.
If hesitancy comes from mistrust, isn’t it logical to address the issues of trust through an open and transparent public dialogue?
Instead, the Australian people have been herded like hens while their “leaders” obstruct debate, and the health regulator discourages health practitioners from providing medical exemptions and reporting vaccine injuries. When was it ever sound health advice for a government to interfere with the sacred doctor/patient relationship?
Except for military matters involving national security, our governments should provide complete transparency on all things, especially public health. Especially now.
However, the way our governments have been withholding information around the covid-19 response, would indicate they are treating public health as a military exercise. Substantiating this opinion is the appointment of a senior army officer to the head of Australia’s COVID-19 vaccination program.
In charge of the country’s vaccination program is Lieutenant-General John Frewen, which circumvents the typical bureaucratic red tape, with Scott Morrison claiming use of the military can “cut through all of that other process”. One might argue this is just another way for Scott Morrison to shirk responsibility.
While Frewen claims to be “a completely agnostic, fresh set of eyes”, one has to wonder whether a military approach to public health is fit for purpose. Using statements like “we are going to wargame the weeks and the months, and figure out how do we get there“ and “there’s about 20 per cent who are still making up their mind. That’s the 20 per cent that we really will want to go after.”, seems an unlikely fit.
All this government secrecy and meddling causes one to rightly question their intentions and understandably motivate us all to investigate the reasons. Without proper transparency it’s easy to speculate, and sometimes very difficult to arrive at the truth.
Given Big Tech’s involvement in censorship, it’s easy to see this agenda is a global one. Mainstream media’s promotion of these medications is also logical, since Big Pharma advertising accounts for most of their revenue. Clearly discrediting, shaming, and smearing the reputations of dissenting voices, regardless of their calibre of expertise, pays a lot more than journalistic reporting.
Mandates are the popular tool of our government, so if this is about public health and not about control, why don’t they mandate the reporting of all “vaccine” adverse events? Instead, they use AHPRA, the health regulator, to discourage reporting them and by the time knowledge of these adverse events reaches the public, they have been vetted and filtered, again withholding valuable information on a critical issue.
Prior to being made head of TGA, John Skerritt was deputy secretary of Primary Industries. He is not a medical doctor, has never treated patients with covid-19, and while his PhD is in pharmacology, his specialty is in wheat. Why is a person who has no clinical experience with covid-19 making decisions on new medications using novel technologies never used in a mass treatment campaign?
Skerritt is also responsible for preventing Ivermectin being administered as a preventative and treatment for covid-19. This is a drug with a safety profile akin to aspirin, listed by WHO as an essential medicine; the same drug that successfully broke the back of covid-19 in the Uttar Pradesh region in India, with a population of 240 million.
When the Department of Health recently responded to a Freedom of Information request to disclose conflicts of interest in members of the Therapeutic Goods Administration statutory advisory committee, the information received was heavily redacted. This includes financial interests, shares, funding and financial benefits, patent ownerships, board memberships, commissioned work, paid speaking engagements, grants, retainers, significant “hospitality” and other financial involvement with goods, services and products in connection with therapeutic goods.
What the FOI responses did show was that potential conflicts were declared, but the details of these were withheld. Where there is smoke, there is fire. They are treading the fine line between secrecy and confidentiality.
If there is nothing to hide, what is the value in hiding it, especially at a time when trust is low?
The TGA has been made responsible to assess the safety of the apparent therapeutics (which are part of their name, after all) on this already vastly under-reported and filtered data and provide approvals for these drugs. If in fact the TGA is funded by the taxpayer, as is alleged, then the taxpayer needs full transparency, because conflicts of interest create the perfect conditions for corruption to exist.However, in what appears to be a gross misjudgment - or is it by conscious design? - the TGA generates 96% of its funding through a model of recovering costs from sponsors or industry groups, which include Big Pharma.
This cost-recovery funding model, which clearly raises potential conflicts of interest, creates and supports a perception that the TGA works for industry, not consumers, because industry funding will influence TGA activities, including approvals, disclosures, adverse events reporting, monitoring and post market surveillance.
We find ourselves in a very similar situation where the Doherty and Burnett Institutes, which have been highly influential in the governments covid-19 response, and have received significant funding by industries and businesses associated with vaccine development.
get fast-tracked provisional approvals,
gain legal immunity where injury and death occurs,
influence monitoring and reporting of adverse events and post market surveillance,
utilise the Media as their promotional marketing arm, and
ensure approvals are given, including doses for children aged 5 and above, with ongoing boosters, providing a financial boost for their already-boosted profits.
Parents need to beware, because the overwhelming evidence shows that covid-19 poses little-to-no threat of serious illness and death in children. Yet these covid-19 injections have been approved and promoted by agencies that have been captured by an industry that profits enormously from this rollout.
With reports of deaths in children shortly after receiving their doses, approval should never have been given. Reasoning that it protects those at-risk is either an admission that we should sacrifice the lives of our children to protect ourselves, or that it’s not about health at all and more about control and profits.
With all this criminal activity, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, cover-ups and secrecy, it doesn’t surprise me to learn that ¾ of children between 12-15 have been injected, because parents have been hoodwinked. And then Health Minister Greg Hunt stated ,in relation to approvals for children from 5 years old, that “there are no red flags at this stage,” and - presumably in reference to those assessing the dosing of our children - “It’s heading in a positive direction, but they genuinely are fully independent”.
Consider the recent U.S. Federal Court ruling, which directed the Food and Drug Administration to release safety monitoring data submitted by Pfizer. This data revealed that the first two months’ cumulative analysis of adverse events cite 42,086 case reports containing 158,893 events, including 1,223 deaths; a sensible response in the best interests of public health would be an immediate suspension and recall of the Pfizer injection, right?
People for Safe Vaccines, a not-for-profit organisation pursuing proper safety, transparency and accountability with the covid-19 injections, has today written to Health Minister Greg Hunt, asking for an explanation.
Persisting with provisional approvals to inject our children with this very medication, while having knowledge of the massive cover-up of significant injuries, is perhaps the biggest red flag of all, leading one to ask whether the henhouse is in fact being guarded by a group of incompetent fools, or foxes desperate to feast upon their juicy kickbacks.