Covid Under Question: The Cross-Party Inquiry into the Australian Government’s Response to Covid: Some Thoughts By Ian Wilson LL. B and Brian Simpson
Covid Under Question is a cross-party inquiry into the Government's response to Covid held on 23rd March 2022, hosted by Senator Malcolm Roberts (One Nation Federal Senator for Queensland) and attended by Stephen Andrew (One Nation Queensland State MP for Mirani), George Christensen (Federal Nationals MP for Dawson), Gerard Rennick (Federal Liberal Senator for Queensland), Alex Antic (Federal Liberal Senator for South Australia) and Craig Kelly (Federal Palmer United Australia MP for Hughes). All of these parliamentarians have taken a critical approach to the Covid narrative and policies that have been imposed, with no informed consent, upon the Australian people. Australia is one of the extreme cases in the world, less severe perhaps than the CCP China, even with its lockdowns at present, but Melbourne did have the longest lockdown on the planet. And one must ask, with Covid Omicron moving through the population, escaping the existing multi-jabbed vaxxes, and bestowing natural immunity, what was it all for? The answer, at the end of the day, as stated clearly in Professor Flint’s video evidence, is that a movement away from liberal democracy towards Chinese style social credit (not to be confused with the good Douglas social credit) has occurred, and the dominance of the Left in our institutions has enabled this. But it is power politics in motion, too.
The Cross Party Inquiry covered these areas, and all the presentations are at the link below:
https://rumble.com/vyb02m-covid-under-question-mr-julian-gillespie.html
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/covid-under-question-a-cross-party-inquiry/
A wide range of views about how the government’s totalitarian approach to Covid has affected ordinary Australians, is given by researchers, doctors, economists and everyday people, including some who have vaccine-related injuries. Most of all, coming through load and clear is the way the pandemic was used as a game of power politics by power hungry state and federal politicians who moved along the North Korea line, to Chief Health Officers who effectively shut down parliament itself. Entire economies were shut down, not on the basis of sound science, but ideologies, if not sheep-like fear and moral panic and hysteria, what Dr Robert Malone has characterised as mass formation psychosis, with emphasis on the “psychosis.” The contents of the proceedings are as follows:
Table of Contents
- The cost of ignoring real Science
- The Business and Professional Cost
- Vaccine Injuries
- The Legal Aspects
- The failings of Regulatory Bodies (TGA, CDC)
It should be noted that most of these aspects of Covid plandemic have been covered by the tireless writers producing articles published daily at the Alor.org blog, sometimes up to 21 articles, usually 12, discussing material covered in the substacks of the leading Covid critics. However, many people do not have time now for reading vast amounts of print, even on a computer screen, and oral presentations that do not require visual study, serve a complimentary purpose. Readers may refer various curious and receptive people to the presentations for beefing up on the real agendas behind Covid policies.
Here we mention the two presentations on the legal aspects of Covid, by Julian Gillespie and Professor David flint, and we discuss Mr Gillespie first. Julian Gillespie is a retired lawyer and former barrister, who believes that the Australian people have not been given accurate information around Covid deaths, and deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccinations. At present he is managing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in the Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v. Secretary, Department of Health. The Australian Vaccination-risks Network, Inc. (AVN) filed a Judicial Review case in the Federal Court of Australia on February 1, 2022. It asked the court to order the Secretary of the Department of Health, to meet his obligation to follow the science and cancel or suspend the provisional approval for all experimental Covid vaccines in Australia. This link will give copies of all court submissions:
Case Number: Federal Court of NSW - NSD52/2022
https://www.comcourts.gov.au/pas/file/Federal/P/NSD52/2022/actions
In his video presentation Gillespie summarises the case, which is that the Australian Government have acted contrary to the Precautionary Principle, which requires that in conditions of uncertainty, to take the least dangerous path. The government thus failed in their duty of care by not just distributing and recommending, but mandating Australians to take this experimental medical procedure, without a full disclosure of risks, as these were not even known at the time, and those that were, were not disclosed. Further, by mandatory vaccination, informed consent is totally eroded, as there can be no informed consent when someone’s livelihood and ability to feed their children is under threat.
In his video presentation, Gillespie states that the Australian Department of Health in the past has cancelled dangerous drugs that had a death rate of 2.4 per annum, but the TGA adverse events data base lists 800 deaths and 110,000 adverse events, including serious injuries such as blindness, in the past 12 months. Thus, the main point is that present deaths and adverse effects from the Covid vaxxes are greater than any past drugs that have been banned, and so, the Covid vaxxes should be too. A good argument that is also made to US courts.
That is the first limb of the case. The second is that there is growing evidence that the mRNA spike protein not merely does not stay at the injection point, as originally proposed, but migrates to organs, such as the heart, brain and ovaries among other organs. This sets up a response that can produce blood clots, hence the incidence of strokes and heart attacks. But the next frontier is the integration of mRNA spike proteins into the cellular DNA, which was also not tested for. The result of this could be infertility down the track, and cancers sooner. In support of this, we post below some material released this week supporting these claims. The key point here is that putting these vaccines out at what Trump called “warp speed,” did indeed warp normal testing protocol, and there were no studies done related to genetic toxicity and cancer-causing potentials. That takes time to do which was not done in the time frame of the Covid vaccination rollout.
Both Mr Gillespie and the next and final legal speaker, Professor David Flint discuss a complex separation of powers issue, where bodies such as the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA), as well as Chief Health Officers, assumed powers not yet seen in Australia before. Dealing with these entities by administrative review is difficult, as Gillespie argues, some have been set up using interstate powers and are thus hybrid creatures that would have to be addressed on a state-by-state basis, and as Mr Gillespie says at one point, these state cases have crashed and burnt on the ground. It presents an unsolved legal quagmire.
What then can be done? Well, there is the Federal court case Australian Vaccination-Risks Network Incorporated v. Secretary, Department of Health which at the time of writing has completed preliminaries, and will begin hearing on 28 April 2022. But given legal difficulties limiting litigation and judicial review of interstate entities, and barriers that have been created via the separation of powers, Professor Flint argues in his presentation that there are severe limitations to the conventional court-based solutions. He hopes to see a movement towards more “direct democracy,” to counter the totalitarian drives that we have seen with Covid. We believe that major constitutional reform will be needed to introduce measures such as Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR).
We agree with Professor Flint. The totalitarian glob commo politics behind much of the CCP-inspired Covid mandate measures, the vast censorship and cancellation we have seen in places like Canada with the truckers, can only be met by a grassroots democratic revolt. We are all part of this and must make our daily contributions to the greater good. It is the battle of the century, happening now, and we are in it! Everything we hold dear in Western civilisation is now at stake.
Here is some more information to support the points made in this essay. As well, to detail the separation of powers and control issue, a letter by Senator Rennick is reproduced.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-03-29-pfizer-vaccine-potentially-alters-liver-cell-dna.html
https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm
“Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-vaccine-potential-alter-dna-human-liver-cells/
“Researchers from Lund University in Sweden published a study showing the mRNA from the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) can be reverse-transcribed into DNA in human liver cells in vitro (outside the living body).
Transcription is the normal process by which mammalian cells use DNA to synthesize a molecule of RNA, before translating the RNA into protein. Reverse-transcription is when the cells use RNA molecules to synthesize DNA.
Some articles and social media posts interpreted the Lund study to mean that if the BNT162b2-derived DNA is reverse-transcribed, it can then integrate into the genomic DNA within the cell nucleus, and thus change human DNA.
However, this interpretation is incorrect. What the study actually showed is that mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine can be reverse-transcribed into DNA fragments within the cells of a human liver cell line in vitro.
In other words, the researchers witnessed the reverse-transcription process in a lab, outside the human body — they did not observe the reverse-transcription in a human who received the vaccine.
The authors concluded further studies are needed to investigate whether BNT162b2-derived DNA can integrate into human chromosomes.
The authors are right — scientists should conduct these studies.
Why? Because if vaccine-derived mRNA can be reverse-transcribed into DNA, and then integrate into the chromosomal DNA in a given cell, it’s possible this cell would be able to keep making the spike protein indefinitely. If that were to happen, and the spike protein continued to “present” on the cell’s surface, the immune system would target those cells for destruction, which could lead to organ damage.
Moreover, this DNA would be replicated each time the cell divides, giving rise to an entire cell line that is potentially capable of generating spike protein.
Another potential concern is this: If the BNT162b2-derived DNA can become integrated into human genomic DNA, this could cause genetic modification of the germline, meaning the DNA within egg or sperm cells. If this were to occur, the genetic modification could be inherited.
Pfizer’s preclinical data from animal studies showed that small amounts of BNT162b2 end up in the ovaries and testes after injection.
If BNT162b2 DNA became integrated into an important gene in an egg or sperm cell, and disrupted the expression of that gene, that could be catastrophic for the resulting embryo.
Worse, if the DNA coding the spike protein remained intact and expressed, that would likely be lethal to an embryo.
The BNT162b2-derived DNA could also become integrated into a non-coding region (a region of DNA that does not code for a protein), and not cause issues. The key is to determine if this is a possibility, and if it is, what is the risk?”
https://www.gerardrennick.com.au/my-letter-to-ahpra-health-practitioners-must-not-be-intimidated/
CEO, AHPRA
GPO Box 9958
MELBOURNE VIC 3001
Via email:
23 December 2021
Dear Mr Fletcher,
Thank you for your letter of response to my initial query dated 4 November 2021 and published on your website on 23 November 2021.
I ask that AHPRA provide a response to the following points for the good of the Australian public.
- AHPRA IS UNDERMINING INFORMED CONSENT
It is deeply concerning that AHPRA and the National Boards are seemingly forcing doctors, nurses, and other health professionals to breach the principle of ‘informed consent’.
While AHPRA is no doubt aware of what informed consent means, its actions speak otherwise.
The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care states that for there to be valid
informed consent, the person consenting must:
- Have the legal capacity to consent
• Give their consent voluntarily
• Give their consent to the specific treatment, procedure or other intervention being discussed
• Have enough information about their condition, treatment options, the benefits and risks
relevant to them, and alternative options for them to make an informed decision to consent. This includes the opportunity to ask questions and discuss concerns.
With respect to COVID-19 vaccines, informed consent ensures that medical professionals fulfil their
obligations to:
- Advise their patient of all potential and contested risks (for example, where adverse events have been reported and the authorities have decided that the administration of a vaccine could not possibly be related),
• Advise their patient of unknown risks and known benefits,
• Advise their patient that these vaccines have ‘provisional approval’ only (because, as the TGA states, long-term side effects are unknown),
• Advise their patient that it is well known that not all adverse events will not be recorded when such reporting is voluntary,
• Ensure that the patient is not being coerced into taking the treatment, and
• Seek the voluntary consent of the patient.
AHPRA’s heavy-handed approach to launching or threatening regulatory action against medical practitioners who don’t fully comply with the national immunisation program has the potential to contravene informed consent, as it creates a culture of fear within the medical profession that informing patients of all the risks and discussing concerns about adverse events could be interpreted as undermining the national immunisation program.
I have been contacted by multiple health practitioners who believe AHPRA has crossed the line from regulation into intimidation.
- AHPRA HAS IGNORED THAT THE VACCINES ARE PROVISIONALLY APPROVED
The TGA is still assessing preliminary data for the COVID-19 vaccines using the provisional pathway and rolling review procedures. The long-term side effects of these vaccines are still unknown.
It is vital that medical professionals advise their patients of all potential risks, the ‘provisional’ status of vaccines, the fact that long-term side effects are still unknown, and that the data is emerging and not established. They need to be able to do this without the concern of regulatory action being imposed.
To impose no discretion of the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine is counter-productive to
producing positive health outcomes and maintaining confidence in the public health system.
- WHAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY DOES AHPRA HAVE?
In AHPRA’s joint statement with the National Boards dated 9 March 2021, the Authority quotes Mr Brett Simmonds as stating, “any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media… may be subject to regulatory action”.
What legislation empowers Mr Simmonds as co-chair of the Forum of NRAS Chairs to threaten regulatory action against health practitioners?
Your response letter states, “Under that National Law, neither AHPRA nor the 15 National Boards have any legal powers to ‘deregister’ a registered health practitioner. In circumstances where this was being proposed by a Board, cancellation of registration could only be a decision of a state tribunal or a Court.”
If not deregistration, and aside from temporary suspension, what regulatory action does AHPRA take?
Furthermore, what evidentiary standards and guidelines does AHPRA follow when considering temporary suspension and other regulatory action?
There is a fine line between regulation and intimidation when people’s jobs are at risk, is there not?
- AHPRA SHOULD WITHDRAW THE THREAT TO PRACTITIONERS WHO ISSUE EXEMPTIONS
AHPRA states, “practitioners must be careful not to discourage their patient or client from seeking vaccination.”
This broad and unqualified statement fails to allow for the individual circumstances of the patient, who AHPRA has no diagnostic relationship with. There are a wide range of risks among the Australian population that are best assessed by medical practitioners in direct consultation with their patients.
A doctor has an obligation to do no harm. In the sacred doctor-patient relationship, the doctor must always be free to advise the patient as to what, in their professional opinion, is an appropriate procedure for the client. It is essential that doctors can advise patients of all perceived risks and unknown risks without fear of consequences.
Mandates and a one-size-fits-all approach ignore the risks and undermine individual freedom.
Doctors ought to be free to write exemptions in accordance with the current ATAGI exemption guidelines without fear of investigation or disciplinary action.
I have been overwhelmed with correspondence from doctors and patients who have communicated a culture of intimidation from AHPRA against practitioners issuing exemptions, including when the patient is clearly eligible.
- AHPRA SHOULD REMOVE ITS GAG ORDER ON DOCTORS AND OTHER PRACTITIONERS WHO
WISH TO EXPRESS THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
AHPRA states, “Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards. It may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.”
This is yet another a heavy-handed statement. The ‘best available scientific evidence’ is a controversial and contestable issue.
- Who decides what is “the best available scientific evidence”?
ii. What if a doctor relies on scientific evidence that someone on a national board disagrees with?
iii. What if a doctor relies on the thousands of adverse reports to the TGA to advise someone not to get vaccinated, or to advise someone of the risks, which according to AHPRA would be contrary to the national immunisation campaign?
iv. When a health official says the vaccine is ‘safe’, how is this statement correct considering the large number of adverse events reported to the TGA? Is this not a question as to the ‘extent’ of safety? Evidence to date makes it clear that COVID-19 vaccines are not 100 percent safe.
v. What if a doctor or other health professional has a different medical opinion from a Premier, Minister, Chief Health Officer or other political leader who is driving the national immunisation campaign, none of whom are medical practitioners?
vi. What if a patient has a condition that increases the risks of vaccination, but the national immunisation campaign has not addressed this condition and its associated risk? What if the doctor discusses this increased risk? Will the doctor face regulatory action over proper fulfilment of their professional obligation to that patient?
vii. Given ATAGI has acknowledged that some trials were not powered to detect certain adverse events, how can AHPRA determine what is the best scientific evidence?
The vaccines are still undergoing significant evaluation by the TGA and as such arguably there is no conclusive evidence at this early stage of data collection. Best available does not necessarily equate to being safe.
There is a very important difference between “there is no evidence that the vaccines cause side effects” and “there is evidence that the vaccines do not cause side effects.
- SAFETY DATA IS MISSING
There was a large amount of missing information in the initial trials relating to pregnant and breastfeeding women, immunocompromised patients, frail patients with co-morbidities, patients with autoimmune disorders and long-term safety data.
To gag doctors from reporting information that will improve safety around the vaccine is wilful and reckless behaviour that is subjecting Australians to potential harm.
There is no legal basis for gagging doctors and other healthcare professionals who, in their professional opinion, do not agree with all aspects of the national immunisation campaign. Importantly, doctors and health professionals advise individuals based on their individual needs and circumstances. It is concerning that regulatory bodies and AHPRA are attempting to intrude on that important relationship.
- VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
I refer to my letter dated 4 November 2021 that AHPRA’s behaviour in threatening medical professionals with prosecution and regulatory action violates the Constitution that specially prohibits any form of civil conscription in the provision of medical and pharmaceutical benefits.
Despite claiming otherwise, how are the actions of AHPRA consistent with the constitution?
Thank you for taking the time to read my correspondence. I look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Rennick
LNP Senator for Queensland
Cc:
Minister for Health
The Attorney-General”
Comments