reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @MRobertsQLD
reSee.it AI Summary
Three years ago, I committed to pursuing those responsible for the COVID crisis in Australia, and I remain steadfast in that mission. I've addressed the Senate five times, sharing alarming data on the negative impacts of our COVID response and mRNA injections. My latest update reveals that these injections may harm more individuals than they protect, particularly concerning is the increased cancer risk for vaccinated children. I am calling for a Royal Commission and will continue this investigation in December during my third inquiry, “COVID on Trial.”
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so. I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections. This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website). The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA "vaccines" not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes. It's time to call for a Royal Commission! I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Roberts claims new peer-reviewed studies show COVID-19 vaccines have significant adverse events (SAEs), including neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombosis. He alleges that science has been influenced by social and economic considerations, and big pharma research money.
Roberts cites the Thacker study, alleging Pfizer falsified data. The FACSOVA study purportedly found proof of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cerebral thrombosis. The Freeman study allegedly found the risk of SAEs was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization. The BENN study allegedly found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths, with a small increase in total deaths. The Doshi and Letaster study highlighted counting window failures, alleging Pfizer didn't count adverse events in the first week. The Raefke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately 1 per 400 people.
The Mostert study suggests a link between sudden deaths years after injection and the injections themselves. The TASTA study allegedly demonstrated correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths, finding that COVID injections increase the chance of COVID-19 infection and death. A study from Robin Cobby et al. allegedly showed an elevated risk of developing cancer in children 5-11 years old one year after taking Pfizer mRNA vaccines. Roberts will conduct a 3rd COVID inquiry in December.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator Roberts. Thank you. 3 years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I'll continue to do so. Here's the latest evidence of COVID nineteen being the crime of the century, taken from new peer reviewed published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, THURN conducts a limited literature review of the progression in reporting of COVID 19 vaccine severe adverse events, SAE, in scientific journals, finding, quote, the literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgment of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024.
These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombosis, end of quote. Thurn said this warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risks because social and economic considerations often influence. Why has it taken 3 years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks.
All that big pharma research money and grants and fake conferences and lavish destinations is a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the die, cracks are finally appearing. That's why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced, to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser. Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines.
There's so much in recent published science that most people aren't aware because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here's the recent top ten reasons to lock the bastards up. The Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety. Finding Pfizer falsified and misrepresented data.
FACSOVA study, in a study of 99,000,000 doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis, and cerebral thrombosis. And the study only extended for 42 days after each dose. Yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. Freeman's study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID 19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials. Yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections.
The BENN study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-nineteen deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Letaster's study highlighted counting window failures being how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the 1st week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after 6 weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. Raefke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately 1 per 400 people.
Astonishing. Mostert's study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. The TASTA study from the University of Sydney who provided input to this speech demonstrated there are correlations between COVID 19 vaccination and European excess deaths and finds that COVID injections increase the chance of COVID 19 infection and even the chance of COVID 19 death. Increase. The first study provided evidence that a healthy vaccinate bias is at play.
They only study healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-nineteen vaccines is being exaggerated beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations, which brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Cobby et al. It studied children 5 to 11 years old, 1 year after taking Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire life. Published on July 30, 2024 in the Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had 2 Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study, following healthy kids through 2 doses of vaccination with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections.
I'll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct my 3rd COVID inquiry called COVID Under Trial with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers, and politicians before held before cross party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime's perpetrator perpetrators, and I will do exactly that.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Bill Gates' Microsoft has gone down across the world. This is why we have to fight Digital ID and the cashless society. https://t.co/O96VfR9mF2
Video Transcript AI Summary
A major systems issue is affecting companies worldwide, including Sky News, due to a problem with CrowdStrike software. Many businesses, banks, telcos, and media companies are experiencing crashes and downtime. The issue is not a hack but a result of a faulty update from CrowdStrike. Offices globally are impacted, with users in the US, Europe, Asia, and New Zealand affected. The company is working on a fix, and updates will be provided as the situation develops.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi. Tom Connell here. We've got a huge unfolding story in Australia and right around the world, but we can't bring it to you in the normal way. Why? It's affecting us at Sky News at Foxtel.
Many customers, many users, many businesses. What's happened is we believe a malware company called CrowdStrike has essentially gone down. If we have a look at our studio here, this is what it looks like on many computers right around the world. Now, technical operators call this the BSOD, the BSOD, the blue screen of death. People are loading.
Systems are crashing. They're loading again and again and again. It's on a loop. So many companies are unable to work right now, including Sky News. Now it's affecting users in Australia.
We're talking major banks, telcos, media companies, Sky News, obviously. ABC Radio was completely down last time we saw it as well, but it's right around the world. This is an international company. We can see what it's doing as well to our screens. We're talking we've seen users in the US, in Europe, in Asia, New Zealand, right around the world.
This is happening. So this will be a massive story. There are offices everywhere that have just gone completely down. People unable to work. There'll be payment systems not working, and all sorts of issues, including for telcos.
Remember that last outage for Optus and all the the issues caused there. So this is massive. As I said, we believe the company is CrowdStrike. That's the belief at the moment. The last contact we had had by the way with the minister's office was that, the belief was it was going to be Crowdstrike involved and they were working to fix their systems.
But it's up to them to do it. So the stress on that is it's not a a hack, if you like, where the government has to try to ward it off. It's a systems issue within CrowdStrike when an update happens. So once that update has been pushed through across the world, as soon as that update happened, companies are just going down, including here at Sky News. You can see this is the situation right now in the studio.
We're hoping this issue, why we believe Crowdstrike will get fixed so that we can get back on air and tell tell you what's going on. And obviously, we're hoping it's not disrupting your lives too much as well. So that's the update right now. Keep, keep tuned in, and we'll give you more updates as they come to hand.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Is Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF) naming libertarianism as his number one threat the greatest accidental endorsement of libertarianism ever 😂? You are correct Klaus, we want your UN/WEF hijacked governments out of our lives, and One Nation is leading the charge. https://t.co/xkdxXDgjYy
Video Transcript AI Summary
There is a revolution against the current system, known as the anti-system movement. One form of this movement is libertarianism, which aims to eliminate government influence in private lives. It seeks to dismantle the existing system.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You have this anti system movement. What we are seeing is a revolution against the system. So fixing the present system is not enough. Now there is, of course, an anti system which is called libertarianism, which means to tear down everything which creates some kind of influence of government into private lives. It's dismantling the system
reSee.it AI Summary
Big Pharma's influence on government is exposed as Minister Gallagher fails to disclose the number of vaccines with indemnity protection. This practice removes manufacturers' accountability for harm, shifting the burden to taxpayers. The focus on "safe and effective" injections masks the profit-driven motive. Disappointingly, government messaging remains unchecked, allowing misinformation to thrive. Follow the money to uncover the patent cliff, not improved health.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Big Pharma’s Stranglehold on Government Revealed! Question Time: I asked Minister Gallagher how many #vaccines are provided with an indemnity protection clause by the Australian government whereby those harmed cannot sue the company because the government has taken on the responsibility for harm done. Listen to her response. After Question time, I had an opportunity to make further remarks on this topic. Why is the government normalising indemnities? The process removes the incentive on the manufacturer to produce a safe, high quality product since any harm is paid for by the taxpayers. Follow the money and it leads to a patent cliff, not better health. It also explains the ongoing and seemingly frantic messaging of ‘safe and effective’ with every mention of these injections in government. It's a shame the disinformation legislation does not cover messaging by the Government, so much #misinformation originates there.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Senator Roberts questions Minister Gallagher about the number of vaccines that have indemnity from the Australian government. Minister Gallagher explains that indemnity arrangements were put in place for vaccines procured during the pandemic to ensure the national vaccine rollout program could be carried out safely. Senator Roberts argues that with low demand for boosters and multiple vendors, the need for indemnities is unnecessary. He questions the government's motives for issuing new indemnities and accuses them of using taxpayer money for vaccine harm. Minister Gallagher defends the government's agreements with vaccine providers and emphasizes the importance of vaccination for public health. Senator Roberts continues to criticize the government's use of indemnities and accuses them of promoting experimental mRNA products.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, president. My question is to the minister representing the minister for health and aged care, senator Gallagher. Minister, how many vaccines are subject to an indemnity from the Australian government?
Speaker 1: Thank you Senator Roberts. Minister Gallaher.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I'll just see if I can provide you with An accurate answer. I do know that there were indemnity arrangements put in place under the former government, for the vaccines that were approved Then in the early stages of the pandemic, and those, indemnity arrangements continue. I think we have traversed this At, estimates a bit. I'm not sure if there is anything else I can provide but indemnity arrangements were put in place, for the vaccines, That the government procured to enable, national vaccine rollout program To be undertaken, during the pandemic emergency.
And those that was an important part of ensuring that, we could Procure the vaccine, in the amount that we needed and provide it, to the Australian people. I would also say that whilst the indemnity arrangements Were in place, all of the required approvals, to ensure the safety of the vaccines, Prior to the vaccines being rolled through were, were followed, through the TGA processes that we have also, Traverse at length, in in estimates. And that, I think we also have the, COVID nineteen vaccine claims scheme, which was also established to, run alongside, the National rollout of of the vaccine program. And I would say that, you know, it was an important response to the pandemic, to ensure that we could get As many people vaccinated as possible in a safe way to ensure that we minimize the impact of significant disease and and the, You know, the, at the very serious end and also minimised the deaths that occurred from contracting COVID nineteen.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, 1st supplementary.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Indemnities have been issued for 14 different COVID products. Each new COVID vaccine or shot has been given an indemnity. The most recent on 10th October 2023. Minister, with demand for the booster down to 5 a half said, for those under 65 and multiple vendors, the argument that indemnities are needed to get stock is a patent nonsense.
What is the real reason for these new indemnities issued only 6 weeks ago?
Speaker 1: Minister Galliaher.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, I can't go into the confidential, agreements that have been reached with, the, you know, procuring Vaccines, you know, these are agreements that are reached between the government and the vaccine provider, and we do so in a way, that allows for the rollout of continued vaccination and booster shots, to protect people from COVID nineteen. These are the arrangements that were entered into during the pandemic. Those arrangements are continuing. We think there's a very important public health reason to ensure that we are procuring vaccines and getting them, Making them available for people to take their booster.
And I would say that booster levels remain low or that boost, and we do want to see those increase and that people should particularly go and get their booster if they're they're ready for 1 or if they're 6 months past the last COVID nineteen bout.
Speaker 1: Thank you minister. Senator Roberts, 2nd supplementary.
Speaker 0: So minister, you won't explain to the tax payers why you're using their money and putting it at risk. Let's ask a 2nd supplementary. This government has offered Moderna an indemnity for every vaccine or shot manufactured in their new Australian factory currently under construction, including regular non pandemic vaccines, minister, why has your government not been honest in telling taxpayers they are paying for new vaccine harm during the COVID period and for all time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Minister Gallaher.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, I'm not Sure, what Senator Roberts is referring to in, not in and I I reject the claim that we are in somehow Using taxpayers money and causing vaccine harm, that is not that is not appropriate or and I I absolutely categorically reject that. If there is anything further I can provide, Senator Roberts around the arrangements with Moderna, in particular, I am happy to to arrange that. I don't have That information before me but I do accept that governments do negotiate agreements with companies around the Supply and availability of medicines, and vaccines in this instance to ensure that we are able to provide the medicines Australia And also ensure that we have enough of the vaccines to provide, that appropriate coverage particularly for COVID nineteen Protection.
Speaker 1: Thank you, minister.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I take note of the answer from the minister representing the minister for health and aged care to my question on vaccine indemnities. Senator Gallagher is finance minister overseeing contingent liabilities in the budget. Although I prefer the words 'fake seen' or 'injectable', what are what these products are not is a vaccine. A vaccine prevents a person getting and transmitting an illness.
These COVID fake scenes do neither. Australia first provided indemnities in 2015 under the previous Liberal government for m pox and flu vaccines. Those indemnities are still in place. Now we have 14 more for COVID products and they'll be permanent. Latest deal to get Moderna's production plant into Australia was revealed last week.
Any vaccine manufactured in Moderna's Australian factory now under construction will receive an indemnity. The agreement sets out these vaccines will be identified as part of a pandemic vaccine advance purchase agreement and additional as part of a routine non pandemic vaccine supply agreement. In other words, every vaccine made will be indemnified with no word about testing. The new Moderna Indemnity extends to routine vaccine supply And the minister is not able to claim securing supply in a crisis. The World Health Organization has mentioned there are 400 mRNA vaccines and products under development to replace conventional vaccines with expired patents, the attraction of mRNA is protecting profit from the cliff from the patent cliff, not better health.
Those products will be for humans and livestock and pets. Our health authorities and politicians are promoting experimental mRNA products and in so doing risking everyday Australians' health. I was hoping to hear in the minister's answer why. Why is the government normalizing indemnities, giving foreign multinational pharmaceutical companies blanket indemnities so they can avoid being accountable and encouraging companies to lie in their clinical trials, fudged efficacy data and cover up in during death. As Pfizer has been proven to have done in their fake cove fake seen COVID development, this question is not going away.
We will relentlessly hound you down.
reSee.it AI Summary
The COVID Royal Commission needs public input on its Terms of Reference. The origin of COVID, funded by the US and conducted in Wuhan, raises concerns. Moderna's mRNA vaccine production in Australia is worrisome, as indemnities put the burden on taxpayers. The makers of 400 new mRNA vaccines should be responsible for any harm caused. Adverse events and deaths related to COVID injections must be objectively examined. We should scrutinize the health effects of lockdowns, economic hardship, healthcare provision, and treatments for the virus. We need transparency on the Pfizer contracts.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Make Your Voice Heard on the COVID Royal Commission Terms of Reference! With the origin of COVID now known to be the result of gain-of-function research, funded by the United States through Anthony Fauci's NIH and conducted in #Wuhan China to escape regulatory barriers, it's even more important that Australians have input into the Terms of Reference for a COVID Royal Commission. If any member of the public, medical profession, whistle-blower or other interested party wishes to make a submission I urge them to have their say to the committee via this link: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/COVID19RC47 With #Moderna setting up #mRNA vaccine production in Australia, it is concerning that both the Morrison and Albanese governments have provided 16 #vaccine indemnities since the COVID outbreak. That means the bill to compensate those who are harmed by these products falls on taxpayers, not the pharmaceutical industry that rolled out their products with indecent speed. There are 400 new mRNA vaccines under development to replace the off-patent conventional vaccines. Responsibility for harm from these products must rest with the makers, not the public. The emerging pattern of adverse events and deaths correlating with the #COVID injections is overwhelming. It must be objectively examined and not simply dismissed. There is no reason why these COVID injections should not be given proper scrutiny in the same way we scrutinize health effects from lockdowns, economic hardship, inadequate healthcare provision or even inappropriate treatments for the virus. Is there? What is in the #Pfizer contracts that we should know about? #CovidInquiry #CovidVaccines #BigPharma
Video Transcript AI Summary
One Queensland community is being updated on the committee inquiry for a Royal Commission into SARS COVID-19. The deadline for submissions is set for January 12, 2024, and anyone can make a confidential submission. The origin of COVID-19 is discussed, with claims that it was engineered through gain of function research funded by America's National Institute of Health and Anthony Fauci. Vaccine indemnity is also mentioned, with concerns about taxpayers paying for damages caused by vaccines. The contract with Pfizer and the increasing number of adverse events and deaths related to vaccines are highlighted, calling for further investigation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As a servant to the many varied people who make up our One Queensland community, I would like to update my constituents on the committee inquiry One Nation secured in terms of reference for a Royal Commission into SARS COVID nineteen. The committee has set the 12th January 2024 as a deadline for submissions. If any member of the public, medical professional, commercial entity, or any interested party wishes they can make a submission, confidential if you want. I'll post the link into social media and onto my website, and I urge whistleblowers and senior medical practitioners and academics have to have their say. The, I've received many suggestions for terms of reference and firstly, can I say, please tell the committee that's the process?
Let me talk about a few terms of reference now. The firstly, the the origin of COVID. An article in today's Australian from Sherry Markson sets out proof, and I do mean proof, that COVID was engineered as a result of gain of function research funded through America's National Institute of Health and its former director, Anthony Fauci. The the research that was conducted in China because it was out of reach of America's regulations and cheaper. Gain of function research is supposedly so that health authorities can create new viruses and then an antidote or a vaccine so that if nature supposedly produces that virus, there'll be a vaccine ready to go.
Secondly, vaccine indemnity. I spoke this week about a little known fact. Australia has provided 16 vaccine indemnities in recent years. Now an indemnity does not prevent a person who's been harmed from suing. It just means any damages are paid with taxpayer money, Not big pharma.
Pharmaceutical companies keep the profits and taxpayers pay for the damages. Even more troubling, the Albanese Labor government has provided Moderna with a blanket immunity the for every vaccine they make in the new Australian factory. There are 400 mRNA vaccines under development. Not all will be made in this plant, yet many will be. The Morrison and Albanese governments are normalizing vaccine indemnity.
I want to know why. The terms of our contract with Pfizer must be examined as we will still be signing hidden purchase contracts as recently as last month. The surely this pattern, not only of adverse events and deaths tracking injections, upward and downward, prove causation of vaccine deaths by their tens of 1,000. The the science is now overwhelming. This can't be ignored and must be investigated.
COVID-19 Royal Commission
COVID-19 Royal Commission
aph.gov.au
reSee.it AI Summary
ASIC received a detailed complaint about a company selling gold, silver, and palladium. Allegations included selling unowned bullion, inadequate storage, and difficulty in retrieving purchased bullion. ASIC's investigation found no wrongdoing, but doubts remain about the audit's credibility.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
ASIC and the Case of the Missing Gold! The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) received a significant, detailed complaint of misconduct concerning a company that sells gold, silver and palladium to the public, and then stores the bullion on behalf of their customers. The complaint suggested the company was selling bullion it did not own, failed to purchase that bullion and had a storage vault incapable of holding the volume of bullion they were minding. Further, that customers are having trouble getting their purchased bullion and there are questions around council approvals and the suitability of their "vault". ASIC investigated and found nothing wrong, however there is doubt around the veracity of the audit.
Video Transcript AI Summary
ASIC conducted an investigation in response to a complaint about a precious metals business. The aim was to determine if there was a breach of the ASIC Act or the Corporations Act. They took the allegations seriously and engaged experts to check the holdings. The investigation took considerable time and resources. The speaker couldn't confirm if ASIC provided advance notice to the company before a physical site inspection. They disputed claims that the company had an opportunity to alter its affairs. The speaker didn't comment on search warrants but offered a briefing. The speaker also couldn't confirm the number of clients or the amount of gold. They took these questions on notice and assured that the investigation was treated seriously. A briefing would be arranged.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Moving to, another topic quickly. ASIC's response to as per ASIC's response to questions on notice, ASIC conducted an investigation involving a precious metals business in financial year 2022, 2023. This was in response to a complaint regarding the company the pressure not holding the precious metals it was supposedly charging storage for. So the questions relate to that. Can ASIC describe what was the nature of the investigation?
Was ASIC investigating whether the bullion was fake or was it missing? What was the purpose of your investigation?
Speaker 1: So Senator, that's right. As you say, Assik had had a has had a complaint. I think as we've advised the committee previously that if I talk broadly in relation to gold bullion
Speaker 0: I thought he'd mentioned company names, so that's fine.
Speaker 1: Sitting here today, I'm not sure if we've mentioned that company name publicly or not, Senator. I'm certainly very familiar with the matter that you are referring.
Speaker 0: So let's assume we both know the name.
Speaker 1: Yes. So we received, a report of misconduct in relation to that company, in April, of last year, so 2022, we have been, investigating that, carefully, we've done a very
Speaker 0: thorough What was your aim of the investigation? Was it to investigate whether the bullion was fake or whether it was missing?
Speaker 1: Well, at a high level, Senator, the aim of our investigation is to ascertain whether or not there's been a breach of The ASIC Act or the Corporations Act.
Speaker 0: So it was both, was it?
Speaker 1: Which is what we, admitted to. In the course of that investigation, we did do, And I'm cautious about how much I say, publicly Senator, but we certainly, took the allegations very seriously. We did, ascertain, the extent of the holdings, if I could put it in that
Speaker 0: how many clients it's got, how much coal it's supposed to have.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed, we did. And indeed, we, part of the reason that it has taken us some time to conclude that investigation, Senator, is because we have engaged, experts in that area to, do a physical, check, if you like, to, ascertain those holdings. So, we had significant detailed complaint. We've taken that complaint, very seriously.
We have expended considerable resources on that investigation over the course of the last 18 years.
Speaker 0: How much advance notice did Asic provide the company before conducting a physical site inspection?
Speaker 1: I'd have to take that on notice.
Speaker 0: Okay. Because I understand, ASIC gave the company sufficient time so that created an opportunity to alter his business affairs before a physical site inspection was allowed. In other words, move gold in.
Speaker 1: Senator, as I say, I'll take that on notice. But I should put on the record, I highly doubt that that is the case.
Speaker 0: Okay, thank you. The complainant had reports that a large quantity of gold was moved into storage to perhaps make the books balance. A tweet that was possible because of the long notice that was provided. Why don't you just get a search warrant and turn up for a surprise check?
Speaker 1: Senator Roberts, I dispute that characterization of what's taken place.
Speaker 0: Can you get a search warrant?
Speaker 1: I'm not going to comment on, our investigatory process in relation to a particular company. But I, of course, we're very happy to give you A briefing, Senator.
Speaker 0: If you could, and a time line?
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed. We can take that on notice, Senator. Next question, Senator Roberts.
Speaker 0: The claim the company claims to have tens of thousands of storage clients. So I'd like to know, did you confirm that, the clients, as well as the amounts of physical asset amounts of gold that's supposed to be there? And why did ASIC use taxpayer money to test the authenticity of the physical bullion rather than charging the subject?
Speaker 1: Senator, I will take all of those questions on notice. They do involve, a particular investigation. We are conscious that a range of allegations have been made and continue to be made about this matter. As I said earlier, we have focused significant resources in getting to the bottom of these issues, and we will finalize our investigation shortly. I'm very happy to give you a briefing in relation to that and to take your questions on notice, Senator, but please be assured we have treated this with the utmost seriousness.
Speaker 0: Okay. So if your office could contact my office to arrange a time for a briefing? We going to be in Canberra quite a bit in the next couple of months.
Speaker 1: Yes, indeed. We'll go through the appropriate processes and do that, Senator. We'd be very pleased to assist you with that information.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
reSee.it AI Summary
Doctors targeted by AHPRA for questioning COVID injections found them unsafe and ineffective. AHPRA's rejection of concerns contradicts overwhelming evidence. Health practitioners fulfilling their duty by providing informed consent should be celebrated. Regulatory bodies must prioritize patient well-being, not pharmaceutical interests.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Many doctors have been targeted or notified by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) simply for questioning the COVID injections. These injections have since been found to be unsafe, not effective, and testing was inadequate. Doctors were targeted by AHPRA simply for fulfilling their professional duty by proactively warning of risks and providing information in reaction to questions from their patients. In providing patients with the advice and information required to give informed consent, health practitioners were providing a standard of care that is universally accepted as competent. During my questioning of AHPRA, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) jumped in and said they do not accept any of my three statements. The government still maintains, in the face of overwhelming international evidence, that the vaccines are safe, effective and that they work. If health practitioners are choosing to practice their duty of care as professionals in providing the advice that allows their patients to make an informed choice around the medicines they take, then this should be celebrated. Any health authority or regulatory body that vilifies or punishes this standard of care is acting only on behalf of pharmaceutical interests and not in the best interests of patients or the healthcare profession.
Video Transcript AI Summary
ARPA has faced criticism for its decisions against doctors and lack of medical input. The Medical Board of Australia, responsible for regulating medical practitioners, consists of two-thirds medical practitioners and one-third community members, with a medical practitioner as the chair. Regarding COVID-related concerns, 31 practitioners were suspended, but no further suspensions have occurred since then. Currently, 15 practitioners remain suspended, with ongoing investigations or referrals to independent tribunals. Some cases have been closed due to lack of public interest. ARPA denies targeting doctors and claims to respond to concerns raised by the public, employers, or other practitioners. They take regulatory action if there is a potential risk to patient safety. ARPA also denies targeting addiction physicians and emphasizes their commitment to patient safety.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you for being here. ARPA has made many unjustifiable decisions against doctors and other allied health professionals. Many doctors have told us this. What proportion of ARPA members are practicing doctors? Why is there such a lack of medical input into ARPA's investigations of doctors?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Senator. So, there are about 130,000 registered medical Practitioners in Australia, I can give you the exact number on notice but that's roughly that figure. The regulation of medical practitioners in Australia is the same by the Medical Board of Australia. That board has 2 thirds medical practitioner members, 1 third community members and is chaired by a medical practitioner.
Speaker 0: Many Doctors in Australia were suspended for commenting on COVID Vaccinations, many of the concerns expressed have now been shown to be evidence based. Can you please explain ARPA's actions which deprived Australia of valuable medical manpower at a key juncture when doctors were sorely needed?
Speaker 1: So Senator, I think we've previously advised the committee that there were in fact, 31 practitioners suspended Associated with concerns in relation to COVID-nineteen and the pandemic, and there have been no further use of our IA powers or immediate action powers or Suspension since we last met with the committee. There are 15 practitioners who are currently suspended. In 9 of those cases, there is an investigation ongoing. In 6 of those cases, a referral has been made to the tribunal And we make a referral to the tribunal and we have it's the independent tribunal in each state and territory, where there is a concern about Possible professional misconduct and those tribunal matters are either at a hearing stage or we're waiting for an outcome. So, that's the current status of practitioners that Tissues have been suspended.
Of the ones who are no longer suspended, there's been 2 where we've completed tribunal proceedings and tribunal has taken action. So in other words, As upheld the view that there was a finding that required, action on the part of the tribunal, 6 of those practitioners have either surrendered Their registration will move to a form of non practicing registration. So we've closed those matters on the basis that there wasn't a public interest in continuing to pursue those matters. 1 has surrendered awaiting a tribunal outcome. And 5 have had their suspension lifted and another restriction, was imposed by Our board, that might be a condition on their registration or an undertaking that they've agreed to accept in relation to their Certain requirements on their registration around traditional education or training or supervision.
Speaker 0: Are we able to get the details of those cases on notice?
Speaker 1: I can certainly provide that data to you, yes. And, I mean, we need to be careful not to identify individuals, but we can certainly give Give you some of the sort of general themes in relation to, the actions we've got.
Speaker 0: Yes please because I know a number of doctors who have said the hell with it and they've left medicine, very good doctors because of the way ARPA has chased them. ARPA has been reported as having targeted reported as having targeted 20 of the 60 Addiction medication medicine and physicians in Victoria. It also targeted a leading addiction medicine physician in Queensland. A Queensland doctor and a Victorian doctor's stories were covered in the press. In both cases, these doctors were reinstated.
Why was that? Please explain this vendetta against addiction physicians across the country. How can ARPA suddenly forget their case against community minded doctors who are supported by the media?
Speaker 1: So Senator, I can't agree with the, with the opening statement in your question. We don't target Medical practitioners, we don't target any registered health practitioner. We respond to
Speaker 0: A lot of doctors think you do.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not sure why I long to think that because we don't target Practitioners, what we do is respond to concerns that are raised, with us often by members of the public, sometimes by employers, sometimes by other Practitioners, and we assess each of those on in the context of the concern that's been raised, in the context of that person's practice. And if there is a concern that we have about a potential future risk for patient safety, that is when a board would take regulatory action. So we don't target practitioners and we certainly don't have a campaign against particular areas Of our medical or clinical practice.
Speaker 2: So how
Speaker 0: is it that some doctors have been targeted by ARPA or notified by ARPA simply For questioning the COVID injections which have since found which have since been found to be unsafe and not effective And were never tested. And why is it that those doctors have been questioned by ARPA simply for Giving informed information and asking patients to just give informed consent.
Speaker 2: Senator Ford, We don't
Speaker 1: expect We don't we
Speaker 2: don't we don't expect any of any of those or all of those 3 statements. The the facts that Let's just ask that they are effective and they do work.
Speaker 0: Let's have a look at the one about testing. I asked professor, Skerritt or doctor Skerritt is it, and he said no, they did no testing here. That was in February senate estimates. He said they relied on the FDA. The FDA said they did no testing, they relied on Pfizer.
Pfizer will shut down its trials because of the poor results. They've been heavily criticized. Where's your testing of the COVID injections?
Speaker 2: There was a full regulatory assessment, Senator, and our colleagues in the TGA, when you get to ask them, we'll we'll assure us of that. But they were safe. They were tested and they were effective.
Speaker 0: K. We'll come back to that.
Speaker 2: Sorry, mister Fletcher. We might keep going with other senators for APRA. So
reSee.it AI Summary
Professor Brendan Murphy, former Chief Medical Officer for the Australian Government, clarifies that the TGA did not endorse vaccine mandates. They only supported mandates in specific high-risk settings. The TGA authorized Moderna's vaccine for children with health conditions, although the study is ongoing. The TGA relies on sponsor data and does not require patient-level information. Independent scrutiny is now being called for. Mortality figures for cancer have increased since the introduction of vaccines, as they were not tested for carcinogenic properties. Pfizer's dossier justified its authorization in Australia.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
Professor Brendan Murphy, former Chief Medical Officer for the Australian Government and now Health Secretary, rejected the suggestion that the TGA ever took a position on vaccine mandates. He said that the government only supported mandates in limited circumstances earlier in the COVID injection roll-out - health, disability and aged care settings, due to their high vulnerability. Murphy claims that everyone, including other departments and jurisdictions, took their own position. The TGA did not promote the COVID injections or mandates. Incredible! The TGA authorised Moderna's injection for young children with co-existing health conditions despite the fact the study is only being conducted in healthy children. That study is also not yet completed. ATAGI's guidance is that the 'vaccine' is recommended ONLY for high-risk children with a comorbidity. Under questioning, the TGA admits it does not require patient level data and relies on a dossier from the sponsor (the pharma company). The #ATAGI advice was that this shot be reserved for use in 'at-risk' children, i.e those with immuno-compromising pre-existing conditions. I asked the TGA about reporting performances in the DAEN database of adverse events including fatalities. I wanted to know whether adverse event notifications were higher in those parts of the country where reporting is required compared to those without mandatory reporting. Strict independence of scrutiny for these products is clearly needed and is now being called for by a highly regarded epidemiologist. #Mortality figures for cancer are higher since the injections were introduced. The COVID products were not tested for carcinogenic properties simply because those responsible have taken the position that the substances involved don't warrant such studies. The TGA did review #Pfizer product on paper only for genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. In its dossier, #Pfizer justified the absence of studies into cancer risk based on the exposure threshold concept. However, there is an absence of repeat dose toxicity data and the assessment of the stimulation of cytokine release. Pfizer's dossier, as sponsor of the product, adequately justified the authorisation of its use in Australia by the TGA and so we joined what former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, called the largest human trial and the largest vaccination trial that the world has ever engaged in. @TGAgovau #Senate #COVID19 #VaccineInjuries
Video Transcript AI Summary
The TGA approved the Moderna COVID pediatric vaccine for high-risk children based on the results of the KidCOVE clinical trial. The trial evaluated the vaccine's effectiveness in healthy children aged 6 months to 12 years. The TGA relied on clinical data provided by the vaccine sponsor and did not require patient-level data. The TGA's approval was based on interim clinical data, as part of the provisional pathway. The TGA does not have exact numbers on the reports of deaths or adverse events waiting to be checked. There is no evidence of a vaccine-associated increase in cancer risk. The TGA does not support vaccine mandates, but some agencies and states have implemented them. The TGA rejects any suggestion of misfeasance and has not taken a position on vaccine mandates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, chair. Let's talk about approval of pediatric COVID vaccine. The TGA approved the Moderna COVID pediatric vaccine on the 19th July last year for children 6 months to 5 years. This was based according to your website on the results of the Kid COVE clinical trial run by Moderna in the U. S.
A. And Canada. The approval was for all children, but ATAGI's guidance is the vaccine is recommended only for high risk kids having one of a list of serious comorbidities. Is that correct?
Speaker 1: I believe so, Senator, I'd have to check the current target guidance. I can, vaccine.
Speaker 0: The KidCurve thank you. The KidCurve clinical trial is listed on clinicaltrials dot gov as, quote, a study to evaluate the effectiveness of Moderna's vaccine in Healthy Children Healthy Children aged 6 year 6 months to 12 years. Healthy Children on what basis did TGA authorise the use of a vaccine tested on healthy kids for use in Australia on high risk kids with serious comorbidity.
Speaker 1: Ms. Prime Minister Robertson, I think What we've learned throughout the pandemic is that the disease of COVID is most damaging to those with other comorbidities and particularly people who have immune systems that don't work well, and so our our recommendation or the recommendation of Otagi and the recommendation of the TGA would have been to be able to support young children with precisely those conditions, by demonstrating that the virus was safe and efficacious in a healthy population.
Speaker 0: But the the the study was to evaluate effectiveness of Moderna's vaccine in healthy children, yet you approved it for children with comorbidities. On no basis.
Speaker 1: Again, it's a sort of thing that can be extrapolated, and it was very important to be able to provide, a protective therapy for young, Australians who were at risk of serious illness from COVID nineteen.
Speaker 0: So you just extended the study into a completely different field without testing.
Speaker 2: Sir, you can't do the clinical trials in those those trials have to be done in healthy children. You wouldn't be able to do that first first in population trial in people with severe underlying diseases. You'd have to get healthy volunteers and that is a good way of showing that the But then the Ahtagi advice is then considers all the other risks of COVID as well so the safety can be shown in in healthy people, but then the Aetaghi advice is relevant to the risk of severe COVID.
Speaker 0: So there's no disconnect there. Your approval was in July 2021. That clinical trial finishes in November 2023. So it is not even finished yet. The TGA must have worked from interim documents.
Did the TGA evaluate the patient level data? Or did you just take Moderna's word for it like you took Pfizer's word for
Speaker 3: Senator Nick Henderson, acting for Assistant Secretary of Medicines Regulation Division. The Moderna vaccine was approved through the provisional pathway, which is a well established pathway. It was an established pathway before the pandemic, that allows for approval based on interim clinical data, and data would be supplied on a rolling basis, over a period of time.
Speaker 0: Did you evaluate the patient level data before you made approved it?
Speaker 3: Senator, I think we've we've answered questions that are in relation to patient level data. The TGA, we do not require patient level data. We do require clinical data that is sufficient evidence from the sponsor of the vaccines.
Speaker 0: So you relied on relying on the sponsor of the vaccines?
Speaker 3: Test? We relied on, a dossier provided by the sponsor with, a full with clinical data provided.
Speaker 0: So would this be misfeasance on the TGA?
Speaker 3: Sorry, Stena, I'm not sure
Speaker 0: let's move on. Quality of reports in the DANE. The Dane reports can come from medical practitioners and also the general public. How many of the reports of deaths from COVID vaccines recorded by Dane, recorded by Dane came from members of the public and amni from medical practitioners.
Speaker 3: I don't have those exact numbers on me, Senator, take it on notice.
Speaker 0: And why is the first question you ask when a person makes a report. Are you a medical practitioner or a member of the public?
Speaker 3: I guess it's, to allow us to have a I guess, as a richer data set as we can, Senator.
Speaker 0: Why is the first question that way, though?
Speaker 1: Sandra, it it allows the triaging of the subsequent questions
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: As you go through the form.
Speaker 0: Just checking these reports, my staff have checked the reports, suggests there is a waiting room at the Dane database holding reports that have been made but not yet checked and registered, which seems logical. How many reports of COVID vaccine harm are waiting to be checked and how many of those are reports of death or permanent injury, serious injury?
Speaker 3: Again, sir, I don't have those numbers on me, but I'll take that on notice.
Speaker 0: Thank you. With more reports to Dane made by states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect notifications, which I think is New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, which is only 62%, as against states without mandatory reporting of vaccine harm. Was there a higher proportion of, reports of adverse events from states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect reporting notifications.
Speaker 3: 1st again, Senator, I'll have to take that detailed question Thank you.
Speaker 0: There's now a call for a vaccine safety office from a epidemiologist, I won't I was going to go into that, but clearly he's calling for he's pretty highly regarded in my understanding. He's calling for independence in the scrutiny. When we have a provisionally approved medication, surely, that's all the more important to have a very strict reporting of adverse events.
Speaker 3: We've got a very comprehensive and rigorous, safety monitoring system at the TGA. We with a number of mechanisms to to look for safety signals, as well as, you know, talking to our international regulator colleagues, and sharing information in relation to safety issues with the vaccines.
Speaker 0: Have you done any testing on whether or not doctors and the public are what percentage of them are reporting at adverse events?
Speaker 3: No, we haven't No. Okay. That say but,
Speaker 0: I'm not sure Let's count on the carcinogenicity of the vaccine. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, a 140 page assessment report for the Pfizer vaccine. On page 55, it says, no genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. Then it says the components of the vaccine are lipids and then RNA which are not expected to have genotoxic potential. The carcinogenicity part of that statement was catered straight over, and I want to ask you about that.
Did you receive any genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies in support of the Pfizer application?
Speaker 3: I do not believe we did, Senator.
Speaker 0: No. The words carcinogenicity and cancer do not appear in your 42 page assessment report. Did you review the did you review the Pfizer product from the perspective of cancer?
Speaker 3: I believe there was, a no need for that, Senator, but I'll take None,
Speaker 0: according to the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics in their latest release of the provisional mortality statistics, which we know underrepresented deaths. This was from the head of the, of the ABS the other night, he told us by 15% because it does not include autopsy reported deaths, only doctor reported. The figure for provisional mortality from cancer was as follows: based on average for January, February over the last 4 years, 3,637. January February, cancer deaths in 2023 was 3,803, plus 15%. And for 2021, it was 3,816.
Both years are above trend. Remembering, trend includes autopsy deaths and the provisional mortality figures do not. Yet the provisional mortality figures for cancer are above the, the other the, past. So the problem is worse than these figures suggest. So let's review, we have injections that were approved without carcinogenicity testing, We had now have a spike in cancer.
Can you please show me where you have investigated this spike and ruled out it being from the COVID injections? Have you even considered that?
Speaker 2: There's no evidence in the sense that that increase in cancer risk is vaccine associated. As Professor Langan said there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines administered. If there were a significant association with cancer. I think the international the World International Data would have shown it. We the there's no evidence that there's an association.
Speaker 0: Liquid nanoparticles. The reference to liquid lipid nanoparticles, sorry, in earlier conversations around COVID vaccines suggested the nanoparticle stayed near the injection site and passed out of the body. Am I remembering them correctly?
Speaker 1: Senator, that's correct and we've dealt with this on a number of occasions on other questions on notice as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Documents released in the Pfizer Gate Court ordered document dump showed that Pfizer knew at the time of seeking approval for their product that the lipid nanoparticles not only collected at the injection site but significant concentrations were also recorded in the adrenal glands. From a table in the Pfizer test data accumulated in the ovaries, the liver, the kidneys, the brain, they go all over the body and and the adrenal glands. Did you know that did you know at the time of the Pfizer application that lipid nanoparticles collected across the body?
Speaker 1: Senator Roberts, what you're describing is a particular aspect of the preclinical studies by which an element of the lipid nanoparticles was labelled with a fluorescent label and so what's seen in those studies is the fluorescent label and not necessarily the lipid nanoparticles.
Speaker 0: Is it still your position then that this build up does not have an adverse health effect?
Speaker 1: Correct.
Speaker 0: Why did former minister Greg Hunt say the world quote, the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial? Why did he say that as Health Minister?
Speaker 1: I can't speak for, Minister Hunt's comments, I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: We've dealt with other agencies and employers who relied upon you as a TGA. They cite your advice for the basis of their policies, their decisions. CASA Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Fair Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman, Department of Employment, Work and and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the Fair Work Commission Judiciary, the Home Affairs Department, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Department, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, state and federal health ministers and, and chief medical officer and the chief health officer. All drove vaccine mandates. The National Cabinet cited you guys.
Millions of people have been gutted based on this horrendous vaccine injuries. Ball pointing their finger at you. Does your board do the members of the board of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance in public office.
Speaker 2: There is no board of the TGA. The TGA is a department,
Speaker 0: do the heads of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance?
Speaker 2: [SPEAKER PRIME SAENZ DE TEJADA:] Very much understand the concept of misfeasance, and we totally reject any suggestion that that has taken place the TGA I should point out the TGA has never taken a position on vaccine mandates the TGA's remit initiatives to assess the safety efficacy sorry
Speaker 0: do you support them or not
Speaker 2: I think that I think the commonwealth department has supported them in limited circumstances, particularly early on when transmission, production was was much more beneficial. We certainly supported them in aged care workers and aged care and disability workers. We the Commonwealth Department has not taken a strong position on community wide mandates but some of the states and territory
Speaker 0: Who advised from your senior leadership position, who advised the former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to buy the injections at 1,000,000,000 of dollars to then give them to the States, to indemnify the States, to also then, provide the the health monitoring data so that vaccine mandates could be introduced. Who who who then the the state premiers then said that they mandated vaccines on the basis of the National Cabinet which the chief medical officer is associated with, I understand. And then we saw the former prime minister mandate vaccines in defence, the Australian electoral commission, aged care and then we see the former Prime Minister said repeatedly, daily for 2 weeks, we have no injection, no vaccine mandates in this country. It was a blatant lie. Did you do anything to stop him lying?
Speaker 2: Prime Minister, I can't comment on what the former Prime Minister I know supported vaccine mandates in aged care and disability that was very much a national cabinet position because of the high vulnerability of the residents and the workforce in those settings, I don't believe national cabinet took a community wide mandate approach but various agencies, state and territory, commonwealth and private sector agencies made their own decisions about that but I don't think it's fair to say that the TGA has been promoting vaccine mandate it's not their remit and they've never done anything to stop it.
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
If we hadn’t witnessed these I would not have believed it Add mandates forcing people to get the untested injections Australia (Thank you for meme, Darren)
reSee.it AI Summary
It's been 4 years since COVID emerged, causing chaos worldwide. Lockdowns, job losses, and civil rights violations followed. Despite a new variant, medical experts say it's mild and shouldn't fuel fear. Surprisingly, research suggests vaccinated individuals may face more illness. Pfizer's vaccine has raised concerns. #COVID19 #Pfizer #VaccineSafety
@MRobertsQLD - Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺
I've been asking for a Royal Commission into #COVID for more than 2 years. I am told it's too early. It's now been 4 years since COVID was first found in #Wuhan and in Italy and sent the world insane. Lock-downs, business closures and job losses, civil rights violations, coerced vaccination contrary to the #NurembergCode. Simply inhuman! Now we have a "scary" new variant, #Pirola. Medical evidence provided to me by qualified medical practitioners state that it's extremely mild and isn't cause for keeping the COVID scare alive. I also share the latest research which shows the reason why the "vaccinated" are getting more sick, more often than the unvaccinated, and that this may continue to be an issue for quite some time to come. #Pfizer #CovidIsntOver #VaccineInjuries #vaccinedeaths
Video Transcript AI Summary
On the 4th anniversary of COVID-19, Senator Roberts asks the Senate to consider the latest scientific discoveries regarding the new variant called 'Pirola'. He summarizes the work of viral immunologist Dr. Byron Bridle, who suggests that Pirola is not a serious threat due to its low number of cases and the poor design of COVID-19 vaccines. Dr. Bridle argues that natural immunity is more effective in targeting multiple components of the virus, making it harder for new variants to evade. Professor David Dowdy comments that alarm bells shouldn't be sounded for every variant. Senator Roberts raises concerns about gain-of-function research, injection-induced injuries, and the lack of transparency from medical establishments. He calls for a Royal Commission into COVID-19 and a halt to COVID-19 vaccinations.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Senator Roberts. Thank you. As a servant to the many different people who make up our One Queensland community, tonight on the 4th anniversary of COVID nineteen, I ask the Senate to consider the latest scientific discoveries and I then make a request. The latest variant of COVID nineteen called 'Pirola' is now dominating the news cycle and leading to calls for a return of masks, lockdowns and injections, despite there being only 12 cases in 5 countries. Doctor.
Byron Bridle, a viral immunologist, who specialises in vaccines, has published work relevant to Parola, which I will now summarise here. If Parola is a dangerous virus, it would be easily detected because the increase in suffering and death would prompt testing. With only 12 cases, PIROLA is not serious. Pirole contains more than 30 mutations on the spike protein, which is what helps the virus enter cells and cause an infection. An accumulation of mutations in the spike protein is exactly the expected results from the poor design of these COVID injections that we've been inflicted with, specifically the targeting of a single spike protein.
That approach of targeting a single spike protein encourages the virus to mutate and mutate until it finds a variant the shot does not protect against. In this case, vaccination causes mutation. Natural immunity though, natural immunity targets multiple components of COVID nineteen. A person with natural immunity will have both antibodies and T cells that can kill COVID nineteen by virtue of recognizing things that other than the spike protein. So it will be more difficult for new variants to completely evade natural immunity.
He continues, Australians with only vaccine induced immunity will be more susceptible to getting infected. That means no immunity. And listen to this quote, we'll be prone to more severe illness than people with natural immunity. End of quote, in our haste to force vaccination in every we have weakened the immune systems of our nation and delivered weakened bodies into the hands of the medical establishment responsible for this crime in the 1st place. In the months ahead, as the medical establishment and their media mouthpieces scare the Australian public into more injections, masking and other manifestations of Soviet control, remember this.
Parola is likely less dangerous than any other strain, especially for those with natural immunity. So far it looks like Parola might cause a typical wave of the common cold. It might spread to a lot of people like most cold causing viruses do, and for most, it will cause mild, if any, disease. Of course, follow medical advice if you're immunocompromised or unwell. Thank you, Doctor.
Byron Bridle. Next, David Dowdy, professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health commented, We don't want to be sounding alarm bells over a variant that is just as likely to die out as it is to become the next big thing. If we did that for every single variant, we'd be sounding alarm bells every single day. The professor seems to be missing the point that fear is the point and from fear comes control. If you want to slow the emergence of new variants like Parola, stop the shots, stop the COVID nineteen injections.
And while we're at it, stop manufacturing viruses like COVID nineteen in labs. Seriously, what else is in these labs that may escape one day? Surely, a Royal Commission would have to ask that question. It's now 4 years since COVID nineteen was discovered in filed, when 3 junior researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology presented to a hospital in Wuhan with flu like symptoms. It's 4 years since September 14, 2019, the date Italian medical staff detected what became known as COVID nineteen.
In the years since, the world has gone insane. Lockdowns, business closures and job losses, civil rights violations coerced vaccination contrary to the Geneva Convention, inhuman. And military on the streets acting on instructions from the Medical Countermeasures Consortium, a military health joint venture that oversaw development of COVID nineteen as a medical countermeasure along with the antidote, sorry, the vaccine produced in case the virus ever occurred in the wild. That's what medical countermeasures are. Was this military health unholy alliance responsible for suppressing the inquiry into the source of COVID nineteen, lest it call into question the wisdom of gain of function research.
That's an important question, the same research conducted with funding from the US government and supported across USA vessel states, including ours, Australia. I've previously spoken about our CSIRO's involvement in gain of function research. Injectables we're produced claiming to do something that a real vaccine can't do, stop the spread. In the decade before COVID, mRNA vaccines were tested and rejected repeatedly for product failure and adverse health outcomes. Then along came a lab engineered virus and those failures were swept aside in what felt, almost felt like a Palm Sunday Hosano reception.
The injections were said to be our salvation, rescuing us from restrictions government imposed in order to sell the dam injections, a masterful media manipulation worthy of a Royal Commission inquiry and to the approval and response process that has proven deadly. Meanwhile, the medical establishment have ignored the obvious signs of injection induced injury and death. Our medical establishment has responded to each new alarming study and damning data with a routine the internet has dubbed Doctor Baffled. The World Health Organization is currently investigating an unusual rise in severe myocarditis cases amongst newborns and infants in the United Kingdom, one of which resulted in the death of the infant, Doctor. Bathurst doesn't know what's behind the rise in pediatric myocarditis.
He's baffled. Yet somehow he does know for sure it isn't the injections despite myocarditis being a known COVID injection side effect. In a peer reviewed study published in the Curas Journal of Medical Science on July 20, researchers found a correlation between neonatal vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in developed countries. According to data collected from 2019 to 2021, there's a positive correlation between mortality rates and the number of vaccinations administered to neonate's aid from birth to 5. In short, higher vaccine rates were linked with higher infant mortality rates.
Doctor. Baffold refuses to even look at this and so many other similar findings and as a result, Doctor. Baffold remains baffled as to why these children are not thriving on a diet of injected chemicals and genetic material. In groundbreaking research presented last month, statistician and Luzerne University Professor, Doctor. Konstantin Beck said increased miscarriage and still birth rates in 2022 in Switzerland corresponded directly with COVID nineteen vaccination amongst pregnant women 9 months earlier.
And he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time. If they cared to look, if they looked, of course, they couldn't continue to be baffled about the findings. That's why they're baffled, they won't look. A study of the 500 largest school districts in the USA found that children forced to wear masks in school are on average 3 times more likely to get sick than districts without a mask mandate. Masks amplified diseases found in the wild.
A random sample of used children's masks found pneumonia, meningitis, diphtheria, sepsis and staphylococcus in amplified levels, schools without masks recorded higher COVID infection rates early in the year, then cases fell away quickly, proving that healthy children only need natural immunity. It's the best immunity there is. Doctor. Beddold has no comment on the data but assures everyone that masks the safe contrary to the evidence. A new paper from the University of Melbourne published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology have made the stunning conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine, when given to children, reduces their immune system response to other viruses and bacteria, like the bacteria I just mentioned that are found on children's masks, it reduces children's health.
New information last month shows that Novavax, touted as a protein only vaccine, free of genetic material, did in fact contain genetic material and at Transpectant, Sapanin, meaning Novavax, is a gene therapy product. Another massive scandal the public had not yet been told about. If the media does not speak further on this, I will. The TGA never pulled apart the injectables in their own labs. The TGA relies on what the manufacturers told them was in it, so they can maintain plausible deniability about what was in them.
A Royal Commission should short out Professor Battled and the TGA expert committees on what seemed to be a textbook case of malfeasance in office. Undeterred, the TGA is doubling down. It just announced the removal of pack inserts for all injected products. These inserts used to inform doctors of known side effects and adverse drug interactions. For that reason, printed inserts are a legal requirement saving the doctor from a web search most wouldn't have time to conduct.
Typically, when the TGA sees a problem, it hides the problem. Without this information, Doctor. Baffold will be even more baffled as to why patients keep dying suddenly. On the issue of excess deaths, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows Australian excess mortality remains at 27%. 40,000 Australians are dead this year who should not be dead and nobody in this government gives a dam, no one gives us stuff.
One Nation calls on the government to call the Royal Commission into COVID now and until that inquiry happens, stop the COVID shots now.