Update 3/8/22: ATAGI has now approved the Moderna vaccine for under 5 year olds, meaning the vaccine rollout will proceed to toddlers.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has provisionally approved the Moderna jab for children aged 6 months to 5 years.[1] Provisional approval is given to drugs where research is still being conducted, research that might uncover adverse effects not initially apparent.[2]

The risk to 5 year olds from the more fatal, early variants of COVID was as low as 0.0024% or roughly 1 in 40,000.[3] This does not reflect the risk of Omicron, the dominant strain across the world right now, which is estimated to be 78% less fatal.[4] On the other hand, the risk of vaccine caused myocarditis is around 1 in every 10,000 for 12-17 year old boys.[5]

There is simply not enough information on the long-term effects to decide on the risk benefit calculation like the TGA claims to have. The TGA has abandoned the precautionary principle in provisionally approving Moderna for use in toddlers and children when it has no longitudinal, years long research.


[1] https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-spikevax-elasomeran

[2] https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-information-consumers-and-health-professionals#:~:text=Sponsors%20may%20apply%20for%20full%20registration%20when%20there%20is%20more%20clinical%20data%20to%20confirm%20the%20safety%20of%20the%20vaccine

[3] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#:~:text=0018%E2%80%930%C2%B70043)-,5%20years,-0%C2%B70024%25%20(0

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971222002284#:~:text=We%20found%20that%20the%20high%20relative%20transmissibility%20of%20the%20Omicron%20variant%20was%20mainly%20due%20to%20its%20immune%20evasion%20ability%2C%20whereas%20its%20infection%20fatality%20rate%20substantially%20decreased%20by%20approximately%2078.7%25

[5] https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/vaccine-myocarditis-risk-reaches-1-in-10-000-for-a

Hon. Mark Butler, MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

Dear Minister

RE: YOUR REVIEW INTO ALL THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 VACCINE DEALS

While welcoming your review, regarding your appointment of Ms Jane Halton to conduct the review for you, I ask whether you are aware of the many reported serious conflicts of interest associated with Jane Halton on this topic, based on her reported statements, relationships, appointed positions and history?

If you are aware of these reported conflicts, how do you intend to manage her work for taxpayers and citizens so that we obtain, in your words, quote – “good independent advice to the government about our existing arrangements – the contracts that we have inherited from previous government both in relation to vaccine delivery … and treatments?”

Based on these conflicts and as a matter requiring transparency and integrity, I would seriously question whether any advice provided, or review conducted by Ms Halton, could be said to be unbiased and sufficiently independent concerning existing arrangements and contracts related to vaccine delivery and associated treatments.

Minister, how can a review be independent and credible without release to senators of the details of contracts between vaccine manufacturers, including intermediaries and suppliers, and the government?

Yours Sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

I had the great pleasure of addressing the Australian Medical Professionals Society Medico-Legal Summit, a gathering of fantastic Doctors who are speaking out against Government mismanagement despite the fear of censorship.

Their Health Reform declaration is a fantastic document. The full three hours of proceedings was recorded and is available here: https://amps.redunion.com.au/medico-legal-summit

Transcript

Well, thank you very much. Safety, truth and integrity lead to care. Care is fundamental in our human species. Thank you Kara. Thank you to the organisers. Thank you to the speakers. Thank you to the audience for being here. You’re showing how important this is. Thank you for standing up and showing your character. Not just for patients, but for 25 million people in this country and for 8 billion people around the world, that’s who you’re doing it for. So I particularly want to thank Jack, Kara and Graham Haycroft for their work with the Red Union and for starting AMPS.

I sincerely mean that it is an honour to be here tonight. I have the privilege to be in the company of moral giants and people who share frankly and truthfully. And we understand your pain and I thank you Janda for being so vulnerable. But I also see the pain in Robert Brennan and others. The hurt, the injustice, the frustration and the anger. And it underpins why we are working together to restore integrity, competence, trust, accountability and safety. And we acknowledge that you give us hope because of your courage. You’re giving us hope and humans need hope. And also your determination. Government agencies have not been able to manage COVID because they’ve never tried to manage COVID. They have used COVID to control people, that has been the agenda from the start. I fully support and endorse what’s been said here tonight. Safety is paramount.

I’ll tell you something about the TGA, because I spoke up about Ivermectin, the TGA sent me a letter, two and a half, three and a half pages long, I can’t remember. Can any of you? The TGA accused me of advertising Ivermectin. I’m not authorised to do that. So I wrote back a little short letter with the help of Hugh who is barrister in my office. And it said basically, “How dare you try to suppress a duly elected member of parliament from speaking with his constituents.” And by the way, I finished with, “… and the government has blood on its hands.”

In their response they said, “Dear Senator Roberts, thank you for your letter. Sincerely.” That is the way to handle a bully because that’s all they are. I also made the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration… Sorry, the head of the… yeah, Therapeutic Goods Administration aware that Pfizer had paid $2.4 billion in fines. And that other large pharmaceutical companies in America had paid $700 million and $800 million. And you know what their response was? He said it in senate estimates, “Oh, that was only for marketing breaches.” That was for false claims that is fundamental to integrity and they didn’t do the testing of these vaccines, these therapeutic experimental gene therapies. They relied on the drug company’s word despite knowing that they couldn’t be trusted.

The core problem is not health, it’s character and it’s a breach of oath. And it’s all about fear and intimidation. And these people are providing us hope because they’re overcoming that. But let’s have a look at fear and intimidation. You’ve heard the story, someone borrows a hundred million dollars from a bank and they can’t pay it back. They have a problem. Someone borrows a hundred billion dollars from the bank and can’t pay it back. The bank has a problem. When the hospitals try to intimidate a doctor because a doctor stands up as these people have, the doctor has a problem. But when many doctors stand up, the hospitals have a problem. The health department has a problem. Doctors have the power when united in belief. Yet fear takes over much of what we do as humans.

I can remember being a child and going to Philip Island and watching the fairy penguins come up. Anyone seen that? We’re all standing there waiting for the fairy penguins to come in. In comes the first… what do they call them? Flock of fairy penguins. And there’s one fairy penguin out front. And they march up the beach a couple of metres. And then the lead penguin turns around and they all will rush back into the water. Then they come back in another wave and they go further up the beach, another couple of metres further. And then the lead penguin gets anxious and they all rush back to the water. Then they come back in again. And this goes on for quite a while. They eventually get to the top and everyone’s home.

It’s the fear and the intimidation. And now we’ve seen here leaders continuing. And I know that what Robert Brennan said was correct is correct. There are more coming. There are doctors waking up all around the country. Medical professionals and the public demand better from governments. Years of education and experience trashed. But it’s not just AHPRA and AHPPC, it is the AMA. It is the boards of the doctors’ colleges. And it is the club, the shadowy figures who control much of these organisations in the shadows. And they’re aware of the fear that they can push. And that’s what it’s about.

We visited with a doctor, a professional who won’t get injected. He’s had years as a prominent specialist in this country. And he was telling my staff that he can still remember and has carried with him the threats and the intimidation from when he was very young as a medical professional. He was under control. That’s what they want. Therapeutic Goods Administration the same. So let me make it very clear. I support wholeheartedly your reform declaration. And I look at the person who’s number one on the list of signatories, Wendy Hoy. A distinguished academic, a distinguished medical professional. And I thank her for standing up and for the others who are signing this. And it’s not just doctors.

I want to urge people to sign to demand for legislative reform of national law and the TGA board. It’s fundamental. It’s basic. It will end in human control and restore rights and health. And it’ll be significant not just for people in the health professionals, but it’ll be significant for everyone who uses the health system and reconvert it from being a disease system back to a health system. And it’s fundamental for all Australians. So please sign the declaration for urgent demands for reform. Protect Australians from future loss of health, livelihoods, cash, freedom, community, sovereignty. Because the World Health Organization’s international health regulations are about sovereignty. This is a global issue and your medical profession needs to be resuscitated. Sorry, our medical profession needs to be resuscitated because they look after us.

We will continue, Pauline and I, to develop the Royal Commission terms of reference. Labor has said that they will have a Royal Commission. It’s implicit in the findings of the inquiry into COVID. Correct, Senator Rennick? So we want to put pressure on them so they come clean and admit their mistakes as Julian Gillespie said, but we need to come up with a good terms of reference. This has all been about money, control, deceit to get control. It is about fraud. Fraud is the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain. Thankfully the lawyers are agreeing with me. It’s also about intimidation and we will hound them down and now we can say we will hound them down.

This declaration is marvellous. We are thinking now of doing another COVID under question inquiry, but we won’t be calling it COVID under question it’ll be something to do with a doctor patient relationship. We’ll be inviting other like-minded members of parliament to join us. But I want to thank Julian Gillespie for his speech. I thought that was outstanding and same with Philip Altman’s speech. Absolutely point after point, just complete points, absolute facts. I want to thank Kara and the doctors. I also want to thank TNT Radio live because they have seen speaking out as they say quite proudly. The only thing mandated at TNT Radio is the truth. So let’s restore the medical and health professionals. Restore truth for safety and freedom and bring back our country and humanity because humans care. Thank you very much for a wonderful evening.

I joined Chris for another episode of the independent, unfiltered Primodcast for a thrilling conversation on all the things mainstream media won’t cover.

Click here to listen on your preferred podcast platform.

Transcript

Chris Spicer:

What’s up, tribe? This episode of the podcast is brought to you by Bodyweight Built. Bodyweight Built has decided to jump on and support the show, which is obviously huge for me and the podcast but also a huge step in the right direction for independent media. Bodyweight Built is an all-in-one fitness app designed by fitness trainer and buddy of mine, Matty Fox. I spoke to Matt before Christmas, and I was telling him how I hit a plateau with my regular strength training. He recommended that I join the app, which I did. The results have been fantastic. I’ve shed body fat. My strength has gone through the roof, including functional strength, which is something that I’ve always struggled with.

Chris Spicer:

In the app, there are multiple eight and 12 week programmes all designed to be done without a gym and even equipment, which was great for me because I only had a few kettlebells and dumbbells. So, it’s been fantastic. On top of those programmes, there’s nutrition tips and tricks, yoga classes, plus much more. Listeners of the podcast, I want you to head to mattfoxapp.com to get started for just $1 for the first month. Just $1. There’s no lock in contract. You can cancel at any time. So, if you decide after a few weeks that it’s not for you, cancel, you’ve lost the dollar, no harm done. That’s mattfoxapp.com. I’ll also attach the link in the description of this podcast.

Speaker 2:

Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, podcasting, podcasting from Sydney, Australia, this is The Prime Modcast. Independent, unfiltered, and uncensored, beginning in three, three, two, two, one, one.

Speaker 3:

This meeting is being recorded.

Chris Spicer:

Nice. Got it. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for joining me again. Third time.

Malcolm Roberts:

Third time. Third time lucky, eh?

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, you’re-

Malcolm Roberts:

No, you’re welcome. Always a pleasure, Chris. I enjoy talking with you.

Chris Spicer:

Mate, it’s great. It’s always good and very enlightening. And, mate, I get terrific feedback every time. So, you’re practically a co-host at this point, with three times.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris Spicer:

What’s been happening, mate?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve seen the people have made their decision in the election last week. A lot of people are very disappointed by it, but that’s the way democracy works. Suck it up and just live with it because they’ve made their decision. Some interesting facts, though, Chris, as you probably realise, I think this is the first time we’ve had a government that’s been elected with less than a third of the people voting for it. So, more than two thirds of the people did not vote for the Labor Party. I think this is the first time, certainly first time in a long time, that… I’m sure it must be the first time, but I can’t say that for sure because I haven’t checked, but it must be the first time ever that both the old tired old parties, Liberal Party, Labor Party, have got less than 32%, less than a third of the vote. So, oh, hang on, the Liberals might be just above a third.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, what we’ve seen, a very positive sign, is we’ve seen an enormous swing away from the Liberal, Labor, Nationals club. And that’s the duopoly. We’ve talked about that in the past. There’s no difference between the two parties. They both push the UN agenda. We saw a startling admission during the election campaign. Both Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison, when asked about the UN’s World Health Organization’s International Health Orders/Regulations being changed to become coercive and take control over a country’s health system, intrude in it, they both said they were in favour of giving the World Health Organisation more power. Yet Morrison said at the start of this virus we needed to hold them accountable. And then he changed his mind very, very quickly, and he said, no, he wants to give the World Health Organisation more power. I think he said that in about April 2020.

Malcolm Roberts:

So I mean, these people are allowing the UN, if the UN comes up with this this year, this week, they will allow the UN to have more power over us. The other message that I think that came through from the election is that the Teals got a very focused campaign. They focused on just a handful of seats. They focus on Liberal seats. Fortunately, they were woke Liberals, so we haven’t lost anything by them going to the Teals. But they’re just a closet pro-Labor group. They’re funded, driven by a billionaire who is making a lot of money out of renewable energy, what I call unreliables. So, there’s something in it for him, by the look of it. So, they’re just masquerading as climate warriors.

Malcolm Roberts:

The Greens got an increase in vote as well. But both of those parties didn’t say anything concrete, didn’t say anything negative. They just silently went through playing TikTok videos and all the rest of it. I mean, complete crap. And I think what happened was people said, “We’ve had enough of two years negativity.” So, when we were pointing out messages… Our vote went up, by the way. We’re now the largest freedom party in the country by quite a way.

Chris Spicer:

Well done.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. And it looks like we might get four, possibly five senators. So, it all depends, but that’s a very good result. Yeah. The other thing is that these people went through, the Greens and the Teals went through, basically just skated through without saying anything controversial, nothing specific. They locked down their senators. All the Greens’ senators were stopped from talking. Lidia Thorpe escaped for one session, I think, and embarrassed herself. So, they locked her up again. And… what’s her name? … Mehreen Faruqi did the same. But the Greens have shut up, and all they’ve done is relied upon what I would call immature videos and just emotions. And I think that reflects that people have had enough of negativity and they just want something clear. So, they’re not going to get anything, but that’s what basically won.

Chris Spicer:

Do you think it was more of a vote against Morrison than a vote for the other parties? Because it almost seems to me like it could be the fact that they didn’t want to vote for Morrison, but they didn’t really know who to vote for. Do you think that’s likely?

Malcolm Roberts:

I think you’ve nailed it. I said throughout the election campaign, Morrison’s best asset is Albanese, and Albanese’s best asset is Morrison. They’re both woeful. The Labor Party is pathetically weak and they’re deceitfully dishonest. What was I going to say there? Morrison failed completely because people started waking up to him being a liar. I don’t know if we discussed this topic last time, but he repeatedly said day in, day out for a couple of weeks there, “There are no vaccine mandates in Australia.” That is a complete lie. Everywhere I went, I would just turn the microphone over to the audience and say, “What do you think of that statement?” And they’d be yelling out, “Liar! Bastard!” this kind of stuff.

Malcolm Roberts:

But if you look at what Morrison did, while he was saying that, he bought 280 million doses of the injections. That’s 11 each. He then indemnified the states. He then said to the states, oh, sorry, the state premier said the decision that they made at the states to mandate the injections was in line with the federal, sorry, with the National Cabinet. Now, the National Cabinet is not constitutional. It’s just concocted. But who leads the National Cabinet? Who formed it? Who leads it? Who chairs it? It’s Scott Morrison. And then you see there’s something else that’s crucial. You cannot have these injection mandates enforced without the knowledge that whether or not someone is injected. And that data comes from the Australian Immunisation Register, which is a Federal Health Department. So, the Federal Health Department made it possible.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, Morrison bought the vaccines, bought the injections, spread the injections, led the cabinet that decided on the injections, and then enabled the injections to go ahead. Plus, his party, with a few exceptions, no exceptions from the Labor Party, but just a few Liberals excepted, they opposed the bill that I introduced, Pauline’s bill that I introduced into the Senate to outlaw discrimination based on injection status. And then the same parties, led by Scott Morrison, denied us even sending it to a committee. Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Greens all stopped us sending it to a committee so that you and the other people of Australia couldn’t have their say.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then you look further, Chris, and this bloody liar, he then… You see the Defence Department. Some people in Defence are mandated. Australian Electoral Commission is mandated, and they’re having trouble getting sufficient volunteers to run the election properly. Border Force is mandated, aged care is mandated. So, they’re actually going against the constitution mandating these things. So, you make up your mind. I’ve made up my mind. Morrison was a dead set liar. And people woke up to him. They woke up to him, and that’s why they punished him. Because the Liberal Party has plummeted down to, what, 50 something seats, isn’t it?

Chris Spicer:

Yeah. Well, they were annihilated, and I think it’s a lot of that. Well, the Liberal Party, to me, yeah, they’ve gone too far left with a lot of their policies and what they’ve done. And this has been, I think, accelerated since Morrison has been in power there, where the difference between Liberal and Labor, what is there? There’s nothing.

Malcolm Roberts:

Zero.

Chris Spicer:

There’s nothing. There’s no difference where-

Malcolm Roberts:

Name a policy.

Chris Spicer:

Well, that’s what I mean. The same. I mean, they used to be more leaning towards the right with their policies. That’s what the Liberal Party is known for, but now… My father’s been a Liberal voter his whole life, and I had a conversation with him the other day about it, and he said, “The Liberal Party’s not the Liberal Party. They’re not.” He goes, “They’re a shadow of Labor.” This woke nonsense that’s going on now and all the rest of it, it’s out of control. And now we’ve got a Labor government and the Greens who have a… I don’t know how many. You’d be able to know for sure how many people are in the Senate are from the Greens Party, but they’re going to get a lot of say.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, the last Labor government was a Labor-Greens Coalition. There was a formal coalition drawn up under Julia Gillard, because she was the prime minister with that Greens-Labor Coalition. And we all know that the tail, the Greens, wagged the dog, the Labor Party. And so that’s what’s going to happen again. We don’t know the makeup of the Senate yet though, Chris, because the voting hasn’t been finished. The counting of the votes hasn’t been finished yet and probably won’t be for a few days yet. So, we won’t know the makeup, but it depends upon a couple of scenarios.

Malcolm Roberts:

If we get all the ones we look like we’re getting, then we might have some say in the balance of power, but if the Greens and the Independent in the Australian Capital Territory get it, then it’s going to be Labor-Greens Coalition in Senate. So, it’ll be Labor-Greens Coalition government. Oh, by the way, though, 15% of people, 15 to 20% of people, voted for Freedom Party. So, we now know that freedom is a definite… It’s smaller than I thought, but it’s still a sizable chunk of people. We now know that freedom is a very important issue, and I think that group is here to stay.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, definitely here to stay. And I can tell you now that I can see it’s going to grow. It’s not going to shrink, it’s going to grow, because what I think is going to be coming in the next few years is really going to get a lot of Australians, maybe even the ones who really didn’t get too involved in it due to the mandates, but when we’re talking about these climate policies and all those different policies that are incoming is they’re going to really get the backup of a lot of Australians. So, I could only see the freedom movement growing, moving forward. But quickly back to the Senate, what’s the position? What’s going on with Pauline? Because I’ve seen a lot of talk online. And I’m smart enough to know not to buy into what the media is saying. So, I’ll ask you myself. What’s happened with Pauline? Because some of them are saying that she could potentially lose her seat. Others are saying that she won’t.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. There’s potential for that. They haven’t seen the numbers today, because I can’t control them. It looks like she’ll be right to get back in, but it depends on preferences. Because what happened was Clive Palmer came in and split the vote for the freedom parties. And so did the Liberal Democrats. Now, if we get all of their preferences, or a lot of the preferences, of their voters, then she’ll be home easy. But what’s happening in pre-poll, sorry, what’s happening in the counting now is that they’re counting the postal votes, which were huge.

Malcolm Roberts:

And the Liberal Party is doing really well out of the postal votes. We’re doing well out of the postal votes. The Greens are falling in the postal votes. They’re not getting many. So is the Labor party. And so is Medical Cannabis. So, the threat originally was that the Medical Cannabis Party might overtake Pauline. That’s not going to happen. But the threat may be now that the third Liberal candidate might overtake Pauline, in which case she’d be knocked out. Or we might see Pauline go ahead of the second Labor candidate, which is a possibility. So, there’s a very good chance she’ll be back, but it’s not certain yet. So, we’re concerned about that.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, definitely. I hope, obviously, everything works out for Pauline. She’s a light, and both you and Pauline have been a light for a lot of Australians for the past two years. So, let’s hope that things work out well. And so you’re safe, you’re fine, yes?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I wasn’t up for election, Chris, because the Senate has staggered terms, and I don’t come up till 2025. But the other thing there, I agree with your dad that the Liberal Party’s no longer the Liberal Party, but I disagree with him that it’s become… Well, it is a clone of the Labor Party, but I think we’ve got to take it a step further. They’re both taking their orders from the United Nations. They’re both implementing United Nations instructions. There’s no doubt about that. One of the reasons, a big reason that Scott Morrison’s Liberal-National Coalition won the 2019 election, when everyone said Shorten was going to romp it in, was because of their position supporting coal and especially their position saying that they would not support the UN’s 2050 net zero decision policy from the United Nations.

Malcolm Roberts:

Then two years ago, they adopted it. Within 12 months after the election, they adopted it. I mean, that’s just the last UN policy to come in place. And Liberals have adopted it when they said their mandate was to not have it. So, that’s what’s happening. And then you look at the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations, you look at them, they’re coming in. Perhaps we can talk about it later, but a critical part of that is going to be that if we don’t adopt them, assuming they get passed this week in Geneva, if we don’t adopt them, then the world can apply sanctions to us. Now, you might say, “Well, sanctions are no big deal.” Well, they’re no big deal 40 years ago. But what’s happening is that people have realised this COVID thing was not set up in 12 months. It wasn’t set up in a few months. This was set up over the last 10 years. It’s been premeditated.

Malcolm Roberts:

But when you realise what’s happening, Chris, 50, 60, 70 years ago, we were independent, our country. We made everything we needed, almost everything we needed. We made our own toolmaking equipment for lathes, metalworking, making tools for manufacturing. We made it all. And we made some of it so well that we exported lathes and other precision equipment overseas. We had our own oil reserves. We’re now the largest exporters of natural gas in the world. We’re the second largest exporters of coal. We’re the largest exporters of energy. And yet if someone put a blockade on our country, within a matter of days we’d stop, grind to a halt, because our oil supply is stuck in the United States. That’s where our oil securities are, in the United States. I mean, this is crazy.

Chris Spicer:

It is crazy.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, you shouldn’t even let them get down low. But then, so in other words, the United Nations could just say, “We’ll put a blockade on Australia unless they take our World Health Org Regulations.” And so we would be really hurting ourself. Because what they’ve done, Chris, this has been deliberate over the last seven decades, they have deliberately made countries interdependent. Now, that sounds like a lovely thing. I’m interdependent on you. We can get on really well. We’re dependent on each other. Sounds good.

Malcolm Roberts:

But if you strip it all away, you’re dependent on me and I’m dependent on you. If something happens to me, you’re buggered. If something happens to you, I’m gone. So, what they’ve done is they’ve made us interdependent, which has made us dependent. And so now we can’t stand up for ourselves. That’s what the UN has done. And it’s been cold and calculated, and that was their aim to do that. This is not about COVID coming up in the last 12 months. It’s not about COVID coming up in the last 10 years. We know it’s taken that long to engineer this. This has been going on for seven decades, 78 years.

Chris Spicer:

Let me ask you a question about that, because a lot of people wonder, and sometimes I think about it as well. What is it with the United Nations and the World Economic Forum and all these foreign unelected agencies, what is it about them where Western leaders, they just comply with their demands? What is it? Is it the threat of sanctions and that sort of thing that give them no choice but to go along with it? What is it that is pushing them to adopt policies? So, let’s just say Albanese, for whatever reason, decided that he doesn’t think signing onto the World Health Organization’s treaty is a good idea and he doesn’t want to do it. We know that’s not going to happen. We know that he will sign onto it. So, what is it? What is it that drives these Western leaders to just go along with it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, there are a few things. First of all, the World Economic Forum had… Well, no, first of all, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum were both formed to push the agenda of the globalist predators, the major, major corporations, BlackRock, Vanguard, and the people who own them, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, et cetera. So, they control most of the large corporations across all kinds of industries in the world. They wanted to get more control. Because what’s happened, if you go back to the way we used to live in Europe and in Britain was feudalism.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, the baron or the lord of a region controlled all the land, owned all the land, and you and I would work as serfs. We would basically slog our guts out, die at an early age after working all our lives. And we would be given a plot of dirt that we could grow our crops on. And that would have to carry us through. The majority of our work, our product, would be given to the lord of the manor, but we would keep enough just to keep us alive. That was feudalism. We were controlled by the lord of the manor, and we worked for him.

Malcolm Roberts:

Then we had the Industrial Revolution, and we had freedom breakout, and we had the middle class. And the middle class was not controlled. It was free. And so the globalists don’t want that. What the globalists want is control. And so the whole thing about this UN and World Economic Forum is control. So, what they want to do is they want to control property. I won’t go into it now, but there are many things that they control. Our property. If you control property, then you control the people. They want to control our energy. They’ve got control of our energy. They want to control our water. They’ve got control of our water. They’ve got control of many of the policies in both parties.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, how have they done that? It goes back to things like the… what is it? … Young Global Leaders programme. Justin Trudeau from Canada, prime minister, he’s a graduate. Macron from France, he’s a graduate. Merkel, I’m told, is a graduate. Biden is affiliated with the World Economic Forum. They’ve actually said, the head of the World Economic Forum has said that what they’ve done is they’ve infiltrated governments around the world, especially in the West, and they have got control of those governments. Ardern in New Zealand is a graduate of the World Economic Forum’s Global Young Leaders programme. Sarah Hanson-Young, the Senator from South Australia with the Greens, is a graduate.

Malcolm Roberts:

Andrew Brag. It’s not just the Labor Party and the Greens, it’s also Senator Andrew Bragg from the Liberal Party. He’s a graduate of the World Economic Forum Young Leaders programme. Greg Hunt was the… what was he? … Director of Strategy for the World Economic Forum in the years 2000 and 2001. Greg Hunt pushed through things that drove the basis for an international carbon dioxide trading scheme, which will give the UN money, give them a guaranteed revenue source once it’s implemented. Greg Hunt pushed the climate scam. I presented data to him that shows it’s not caused by us at all, there’s just natural climate variability. Greg Hunt told me to my face, he said, “That’s the best presentation I’ve ever had on climate.” The CSIRO, as we were discussing off air before, one day we can probably talk about that, they’ve never presented any evidence. No one has presented this evidence. And so Greg Hunt has pushed this through based on bullshit. The others have fallen behind the same way.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, the globalists also push the media and they control the media. And the media narrative has been to just, “Climate change is real and it’s caused by us,” when both are wrong. The education system has been taken over by the control side of politics, what most people call a left-wing, and that’s indoctrinated people. So, most people around the age of 30 now, they think that it’s real because they’ve been indoctrinated all the way through. They can’t tell when they’re at a young age that it’s indoctrination or education. They’re not thinking for themselves at a young age in primary school. It starts in primary school. It continues on TV, on the media. It continues in university. If you want to speak out against the myth of manmade global warming and global climate change, you won’t get a job at a university.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah. No.

Malcolm Roberts:

You’d get fired. So, what happens is these people have been coerced by the media. They want votes. So, Frydenberg looks like he’s out of parliament. Frydenberg is a climate sceptic. He doesn’t believe it, and yet he’s pushing it because what he thinks is that as there are more Green voters moved to his inner city Melbourne electorate, then he has to try and appeal to them. If he came out and actually told them the truth, we’d knock this whole thing on the head. But instead what happens is the woke politicians, the gutless politicians like Frydenberg, Seselja, who’s not a bad bloke, actually, but he became woke because he’s in the Australian Capital Territory, Sharma, Zimmerman… who’s the other one? … Wilson, these people have got no evidence. I’ve had an argument with Zimmerman about it, and I trashed his argument about climate change. These have got no evidence, but what they’re doing is they’re kowtowing to inner city Greens voters.

Malcolm Roberts:

And Chris, if you kowtow to that without any evidence, then you’re endorsing it. They’re actually strengthening the Greens’ position, and they’re strengthening the Teals’ position. Zimmerman, Wilson, and Sharma were replaced by Teals. Frydenberg will be replaced by a Green. Oh, hang on, no, that’s a Teal as well. So, what they’ve done is they’ve created their own demise because of their gutlessness and their stupidity and their ignorance. So, that’s the way. It’s not a simple story. But, oh, the other thing that they’ve done to push this climate change rubbish and the control by the UN, when you watch, when you dismantle the control methods they use for pushing the climate scam, it applies to so many things.

Malcolm Roberts:

You showed me a little while ago that billionaires have advanced because of the COVID virus. Billionaires have advanced because of the climate change myth. And what they do is they make sure that the billionaires get their palms greased and make a lot more money out of it so that the billionaire says, “Sign me up.” Then when they become prominent signatories of the climate change, or the COVID, or whatever, they’re on the gravy train. But their voices are influential, and they con a lot of people into thinking that COVID is a serious problem that has to be dealt with with controls, climate is a serious problem that has to be dealt with with controls. So what you see is deceit, money, and you see massive control. That’s the objective, control. And there are many ways in which they’ve done it, but that’s some of the ways.

Chris Spicer:

Well, that’s right. And that’s what a lot of people often say, “Okay, but why do they want control? Why do these people like Bill Gates and George Soros and these characters, why do they want control?” And I say, “Well, listen, people like you and I, just born into a normal household, average income, our parents weren’t wealthy…” I’m assuming your parents weren’t wealthy.

Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Chris Spicer:

But certainly not billionaires. Certainly not billionaires, right?

Malcolm Roberts:

No, they weren’t wealthy.

Chris Spicer:

So, we’ve had to work for everything. And you’re driven not necessarily by money, well, by money, but to use for good or to give your family a better life. That’s my dream, and that was your dream. But these people that are born into families with endless amounts of money, like Bill Gates… Bill Gates’ father was loaded. Bill Gates never had to work for anything in his life. He never had to. He never missed out on anything in his life. He had it handed to him. Those are the people that grow up and chase. They don’t need to chase money like you and I. They’ve already got it. They chase power, they chase control.

Malcolm Roberts:

Bingo. Bingo.

Chris Spicer:

And they’re relentless in that. It might be originally, “Oh, I wonder if we can get people to wear face masks.” Then they’ve got that amount of control. “I wonder if we can get them to lock up inside their homes for a number of months.” They’ve got that control. They’re after power and more control. They’re not going to get to a point and think, “Okay, we’ve got enough control now.” It’s never going to end. So, people need to understand that the way they think, the way their brains operate, isn’t like the average person. It’s different.

Chris Spicer:

So, you can’t really understand it. Because we’re all stuck in the rat race, the 9:00 to 5:00, and trying to earn money and give ourselves and our families a better life. They don’t need that. They need control, and they want more power. And that’s, I think, where a lot of that comes from. So, it’s almost asking the average person, “Why does a serial killer like Ivan Milat, why does he do that? How could you do that? It’s evil.” We don’t understand it because our brain chemistry isn’t the same. And it’s the same with these people like Bill Gates. We can’t think. It’s irrational to us because they’ve got a different makeup than we have.

Malcolm Roberts:

Let me give you an example. This is from a Canadian broadcasting system, which is a bit like the ABC, this Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a government owned station. They made a video, a… what do you call it? … documentary, mini documentary, about an hour long, on Maurice Strong. Now, you say, “Who the hell’s Maurice Strong?” You may know of him, but he was the guy who fabricated global warming, fabricated climate change. He was the guy who said that he had two aims in life. Get how sick this is. One is to de-industrialise Western civilization, de-industrialise us, take us back to the caves. The second is to put in place an unelected socialist global governance.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, I can run a company so long as I get into a position of influence, I can run a company’s board of directors without having the dominant vote. I can do that because of personality. You can do it because of personality. We know that boards of directors are generally filled with people who just kowtow. They’ve been selected to do that. So, someone can take over a company effectively without having a vote. That happens. You can take over countries the same way. It happens. You can take over a football club. It happens. So, Maurice Strong, this is his background.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, he became very senior in the United Nations. He basically ran the joint. So, when he was 17, he did an intern at the UN. And just think about this. The guy came back from that place as an intern. And someone asked him, “What was your impression, young Maurice?” And he said, “That place will have enormous power one day.” What 17 year old thinks like that? “That place will have enormous power one day.” Now, think about this. It backs up exactly what you said. Then at the age of 25, he was running a large… Well, no, not a large but a significant oil corporation, producing oil. Got that? Producing oil.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

And he says, “I’m doing pretty well, but I want something else.” So, he puts his company in the hands of another manager and goes off and works for Canada’s most influential family. Canada’s most influential family at the time, I can’t remember their names, controlled both sides of politics. There’s that word, control. So, he works for them. And then someone asked him, “Is your ultimate objective to get into politics?” “No, no, no, no. That’s not where the power is.” The power. So, he ended up commissioning a report on the state of the world, or state of the Earth, or state of the planet, whatever it was back in 1970.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, 1970, he commissions this report, and it comes back and says the world’s buggered. We’re going to hell in a hand basket. Okay. So, he then uses that report to develop the United Nations Environmental Programme, a department within the United Nations called UNEP, United Nations Environmental Programme. And guess who becomes its first head? Maurice Strong. So, the people who sit at senior levels of the United Nations are basically diplomats, failed politicians, and bureaucrats. And all of a sudden, you get Maurice Strong coming up in there, and he’s sitting as head of UNEP. He’s sitting one level below the United Nations Secretary General, the head of the United Nations. But he’s in that top management group.

Malcolm Roberts:

And so he starts developing lots of policies about the environment. And we know there were some problems with the environment in the 1970s, because people had just started getting right into industry, new technologies, and they were making mistakes. But the significant thing was that people were correcting those mistakes. They don’t like lakes being set on fire, covered in oil, beaches covered in oil. So, anyway, Maurice Strong then makes the environment the issue. So, all of a sudden, people are saying, “We need environmental policies.” By the way, the Nazis did the same. So, this has been copied from the Nazis in Germany.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, hang on, the head of the UN and the other bureaucrats that live just below the head of the UN, they know nothing about the environment. So, they all say, “Well, what do we do, Maurice?” And Maurice tells them what he’ll do. Then Maurice concocts the global warming scam, 1970s, he created that. In 1988, he formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He was an exceptional brain, an exceptional networker, very good at manipulating people. He then started controlling people like Greenpeace, WWF, or having significant influence on them. Then in 1992, he led the United Nations Rio Declaration, which was about 21st century global governance. And he got control of the floor, of the delegates. He brought a lot of people in from overseas, through Greenpeace and WWF, and they all spoke very strongly in favour of climate action.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, see how he started it? He then had a conference in 1980 in Villach, Austria, where they invited the chief climate scientists from around the world. They came, and they had a conference. And they were presented with a document that said, “Sign this. It’s a declaration stating that we need to cut our carbon dioxide.” And the scientists said, “No, mate, we’re not signing that because there’s no evidence for it.” So, 1985, in the same town of Villach, Austria, they had another conference, but this time Maurice Strong organised it so that they picked the scientists that would represent each country. And guess what? They passed a motion saying that our carbon dioxide affects global warming, even though it didn’t. And so then he got the 1992 Rio Declaration, which was about 21st century global governance. I’ve got the document. Hang on, I’ll just get it. There’s been many, many documents written about this. The United Nations are not denying it. Can you see that?

Chris Spicer:

Yep. Summit Agenda 21. Yep.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Agenda 21 came out in 1992. When it first came out, that was Agenda 21: 21st Century Global Governance. They’re warning, by the year 2000 for the 21st century global governance in place, they would control everything. And at first, our politicians… They all signed up to it, by the way. Keating signed up to it on behalf of the Labor Party, and our prime minister in 1992. At first, the politicians on both sides denied it. Pauline spoke out about it in 1996. Then when people became more informed about Agenda 21, they went, “Yeah. Well, it exists, but it’s got no teeth.” What they didn’t tell people was that they were pushing through parliament, sometimes in regulations avoiding the parliament, regulations that would control various aspects: our energy, our water, our property rights, our regulations on how we live, what kind of food we eat. They were being drafted. They control all of those things, and they’re seeking more and more control.

Malcolm Roberts:

And why do they do it? Because they like power. Maurice Strong, at 17, said, “That place is going to have power one day.” That attracted him. He then influenced all this power. This is how one man can shape the world. And people say, “Well, hang on a minute. That’s a bit unusual.” I said, “No, it’s not, because you’ve had Genghis Khan. Well, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, we’ve had Hitler, many people trying to control the world. Maniacs.” And if you look at these people, there is some maniacal bent in them. I mean-

Chris Spicer:

All of them.

Malcolm Roberts:

… look at Gates. Look at Gates. But the significant thing, Chris, is that always beneath control, there is fear. So, if you try to control me, it shows me that you’re afraid of me. Otherwise, you wouldn’t need to control me.

Chris Spicer:

That’s right.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, these globalist freaks, these globalist predators that are trying to control, are doing so because they’re afraid. And what are they afraid of? Well, if you go to the ultimate, the ultimate… what’s the word? … deceit is the way they create money. And we’ve had this proof from the Reserve Bank of Australia’s Deputy Governor, Guy Debelle. I asked a question in Senate Estimates. He confirmed it. They create money out of thin air. Now, the significant thing there is that people don’t really think about money. It’s in everything we do. It’s intimately woven into every single thing we do in our lives. So, we take it for granted. But if you sit back and say, “How do they come up with a dollar bill? How do they come up with a $2 coin?” It’s just journal entries and “electronic journal entries,” to use Guy Debelle’s words. They just pull it out of thin air and just write it down. So, they can create all the money they want.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, that’s a wonderful system if you’re the one controlling the money printing, but it’s not for us. Because what happens is that these people control governments, and they have done for centuries, literally control governments because they control the central banks. Now, in the case of the United States Federal Reserve Bank, it has power over so many other countries because the dollar is essentially the global currency, until Putin came along. But anyway, it’s the global currency. So, the Federal Reserve Bank is privately owned. Privately owned. As Ron Paul, Senator Ron Paul said, Federal Reserve, it’s neither federal, state, federal government, it doesn’t have any reserves. It controls the money supply. It controls the interest rates. It controls everything in the United States.

Malcolm Roberts:

Now, our reserve bank is not owned by anyone other than the people of Australia, but it’s controlled by major bankers, which is the Bank for International Settlements, which is a central bank of central banks. So, what we’ve seen is a massive control of funds. And the same people who have the control behind the scenes over you and I also control BlackRock and Vanguard, which own most of the corporations. And what I believe they want us to do is to go back to being serfs in the futile times where we eke out a living. And that’s what’s behind the Digital Identity Bill. We get just enough to survive so that we’re producers, and they can scram all the profits off us. And they can also control the money. But what they’re afraid of is people waking up and taking over.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, which is happening. I mean, there’s a lot more people now than this time last year that are actually speaking about these things, which is great because that’s what we need. Individually, you and I, what can we do? Nothing. It’s going to be a collective effort and just enough to make them uncomfortable, just enough to make them think about it twice or even prolong it. Just say they wanted to achieve this by a certain date. If there’s enough pushback from the people and they can see that, hold on, the people are getting a bit restless, they’ll prolong it, prolong it, prolong it, prolong it. And what we’ve seen in the past few years is an incredible acceleration from these globalists trying to achieve their goals and what they… Yeah. The Great Reset, which I’m sure you’re very familiar with. So-

Malcolm Roberts:

Build back better, The Great Reset, New World Order, you name it. And the significant thing, Chris, is that those slogans are used by Ardern in New Zealand, Trudeau in Canada, Macron in France, Merkel in Germany, she used to be there, Morrison, Boris Johnson. They’re used within hours of each other. It’s all coordinated.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, that’s right. And that’s what I keep saying to people, “We’ve just got to keep speaking. Just keep doing your part.” We all have our part. Obviously, your part, you can speak to the parliament. You can speak to a wide range of people about these issues. I’m lucky that I’ve got a big platform to raise these issues and speak on. But even to the average person who may not have that, a big following or whatever, just speaking to family about it, speaking to their mates at the pub about it, just getting the word out so people, or at least it’s in the back of their mind. So, when they raise things, for example, the Labor Party with the co-ownership of the housing, 40% equity in the homes, the minute I heard that, I thought, “Oh, we’ll own nothing, but we’ll be happy.” Straight away I heard that. I thought, “That’s exactly what they want.” I mean, I believe that’s a step in that direction, because it’s blatantly obvious.

Chris Spicer:

Then yesterday I see an article down in Victoria, it was. I’ll bring it up. I’ll read it to you. There we go. “Proposed petrol car cutoff date in Victoria in Environment and Planning Committee report.” This is from the Herald Sun. “A Greens backed parliamentary inquiry has recommended a cutoff date for the sale of new petrol cars.” So, things are moving at an incredible rate. They really are. And I just hope that the cash ban, that I think it was yourself and Pauline that stopped that happening a few years ago, it’s actions like that. Because imagine if you didn’t stop it back then. Imagine where we would be now. We wouldn’t have had cash for a few years. We’d be in all sorts of trouble.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, you’ve got to have cash because it’s an alternative to the digital currency they have said they’re bringing in. At Davos in the World Economic Forum this week they’ve talked about the digital currency. The Australian Banking Association’s Conference a few months ago that I went to, every single speaker talked about either the digital identity or the digital currency. The reserve bankers talked about it. They’ve been working on it for years. Davos has admitted that they’re working on a digital currency. The Reserve Bank of Australia has admitted they’re working on a digital currency globally and interacting with other nations. So, with that cash ban, it’s very, very important, because if we don’t have cash, there’s no alternative. You will go on that digital currency.

Malcolm Roberts:

And then they will determine what the value of that currency is from day to day. And if you don’t behave yourself, you’ll have less value in your digital currency. If I behave myself and kiss their arse, I’ll have more value. So, what they’re doing is they’re trying to get coercion in. But what you said a little while ago about the cash ban was significant. It was my office. I was the one who raised the awareness of this. We went to the Labor Party, and the Labor Party said, “Yeah, you’re right,” but they voted for it through the lower house. The Liberals pushed it through the lower house. So, then when it came to the Senate, we created such a stink with the crossbench and we put so much pressure on Labor that it was consigned to a committee to be evaluated.

Malcolm Roberts:

We also then got in touch with significant players in the grassroots membership of the Liberal Party. There’s a couple of them stood up in Victoria, and good on them. Steven Holland in particular was one of them. Not the swimmer, but another Steven Holland. And we had talks with them, and we had talks with other people in the grassroots. And they created such a fuss in the Liberal Party that the Liberal Party let it go. And so we moved a motion in the Senate saying that we would dismiss that from the Senate list. And it’s gone.

Malcolm Roberts:

But they’re coming back because the Digital Identity Bill is where they want to bring back another cash ban. So, we’ve got to fight that. But we will beat them, Chris, providing we do exactly what you said, talk to our friends, talk to our family, talk to our workmates, talk to our sporting mates, and spread the word. And then speak up with the politicians, put pressure on the politicians, as they did in Victoria with the cash ban. Speak up and spread it out. The other thing that gives me a lot of hope is that… How can you put it? We had questions of the Digital Transformation Agency in federal Senate Estimates, right?

Chris Spicer:

Yep.

Malcolm Roberts:

Mate, they struck us with their incompetence, that they can’t do this. They will try, but they can’t do it. But they’d cause a lot of damage by trying to do it. So, what we can do is make sure that they don’t do it by spreading the word, then destroy anything that they can create. Just not cooperate, just hold them accountable everywhere they go. But they’re not going to be able to do this. And the other thing is that control, always beneath control there is fear. These people, except for the very senior level, are either afraid and they’re pushing this… Even the senior level is afraid. But imagine being one of these people pushing these controls. You couldn’t do it, Chris.

Chris Spicer:

No.

Malcolm Roberts:

Even if you wanted to, even if they were rewarding you, you couldn’t put your heart and soul into it. They’re not going to beat our passion and our energy across the everyday Australians. They are not knowing what they’re doing. They cannot put their whole heart and soul into it. So, this is not a fait accompli. They’ve got enormous power, but they haven’t got the will. They haven’t got the real passion.

Chris Spicer:

No. And look, there’s so much going on at the moment too, that I feel like a lot of people, their brains are just overloaded with so much. I mean, you’ve got COVID, which is still going on, not to the degree that it was 12 months ago, but still very-

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, the fear of COVID. COVID is not really the problem. It’s the government restrictions and the government fear and sensationalism, that’s the problem.

Chris Spicer:

That’s the problem, but that’s not where it is. A year ago to today, you can’t compare the two. People don’t care anymore about COVID. But instead, we’re hit with this monkeypox. Then, on top of that, there’s a war in Ukraine that dominated the airwaves for weeks. Now, all of a sudden, no one’s talking about it. So, that’s what they do. They almost intentionally overload you with so much information, and there’s so much going on at any given time that… We just got over COVID, two years of it, of government interference and overreach, and then, bang, monkeypox. The first thing I think of is, “Fuck. Here we go again. Here we go.” And this time it’s going to be worse because it’s not going to get any better. So I thought, “Well, it’s going to be worse.” But that’s sort of sitting idle at the moment.

Chris Spicer:

But it’s just, look, I don’t understand how… I speak to my mates about this all the time. I say, “I don’t know how the average person doesn’t think, ‘Hold on. What’s going on?'” Because me personally, I’m 29 now, prior to COVID, there was nothing. There was an occasional bad flu season every five, six years. That was it. Then in the space of three years, we’ve been hit with bushfires, COVID, floods, more COVID, floods, monkeypox, the war in Ukraine. That’s in three years. That hasn’t happened in the 30 years that I’ve been alive. So, that should ring alarm bells in itself as to why are all of these events… Just where are they coming from? Why is this happening? Why are we having an outbreak of monkeypox that’s in 12, 13, no, it’s now 15 different countries, when, if you know anything about the virus, it’s uncharacteristic of the virus to pop up like this? Why is this happening? Why is all the-

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s shingles.

Chris Spicer:

Well, I’ve got Dr. McCullough coming on Monday to have a chat to me about it and get his opinion, because everyone’s going to have different opinions on it. It looks like shingles when you look at it. It could be they’re masking vaccine side… Who knows what it could be? Who knows? But what I do know-

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, they did say-

Chris Spicer:

… they’re pushing bullshit.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, they’re definitely pushing bullshit. What people have been saying for about six months now… Oh, what’s the name of that virus supposedly coming out, starting with the letter M? Mergon or something like that. And anyway, they said that there will be a virus coming out that will hide the vaccine injuries. And this could be it, the people keeling over, because we know that they’re doing that in the thousands. Hospital admissions, ambulance trips have been skyrocketing. And they’re in case they’re… what do they call it? … category one hospital trips, which is heart problems. “I wonder what that could be,” says Yvette D’Ath, the State Minister for Health. I wonder, Yvette. It’s no wonder at all, but-

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, I know.

Malcolm Roberts:

… you look at these things-

Chris Spicer:

I heard that. I remember when she said that. I’m thinking, “What do you mean, you wonder?” You’re not a stupid woman. Come on. Just, we know what it is.”

Malcolm Roberts:

She’s either deceitful or dumb. But climate change, invisible. COVID, invisible. Bushfires, there was not a problem there. Those bushfires were nothing unusual by our standards in this country. They were less than earlier bushfires in our country, including in the 1800s, including the 1974, including earlier on in the 19th.

Chris Spicer:

Let me just quickly, sorry just to disturb you, just quickly, well, just let me finish this part about monkeypox. So, I wrote an article the other day about it, because I’ve heard about monkeypox for quite a number of months and I was anticipating it somewhere to pop up unusual. And I wrote an article on it. And do you know, they ran, there’s actually two sets, there was… I’ll try and find it now. I did publish it on the… I’ll tell you what. Because I don’t know if you know, and if you don’t know, you wouldn’t believe it. It’s almost hard to believe. So, they ran, like they did with COVID, prior to COVID they ran Event 201, which is a simulation of a coronavirus outbreak.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yep, yep, yep.

Chris Spicer:

I’m sure you familiar with that.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. They had several simulations.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, that’s right. In March 2001, there we go, the NTI, which is the Nuclear Threat Initiative, they held a tabletop exercise focusing on reducing high consequence biological threats with catastrophic consequences, and the virus they used for that simulation was a genetically modified version of monkeypox. Now, in September last year, the UK Ministry of Defence, they used… There’s a software that’s called Conductor. I don’t know if you’ve heard of it. It’s this software that you can run simulations, where it brings up fake Twitter profiles and fake Facebook and all the rest of it. You won’t believe this when I tell you. And it’s all there. That’s the little graphics for the event that they ran. So, you can find it. It’s on Google. It’s online, right? So what it was, well, here, on Conductor, so this was the UK Ministry of Defence, they ran a simulation about how the world would react to Russian disinformation during a monkeypox outbreak. I’m not joking. They ran that in September last year before the war on Ukraine was going on. Why are they running that event in September? Come on! That’s not a coincidence. It can’t be.

Malcolm Roberts:

No. Well, they’ve had six years of Russian disinformation. No, sorry, disinformation about Russia. We had Trump being accused of being allies with the Russians, complete bullshit. And then there’s another thing. So, the fires, coming back to the fires, there’s nothing unusual there except that the media blew them up. Nothing unusual at all. And the media blew them up. And then you see Ukraine, that was the other one, Ukraine, all we’re getting is one side in the media. That’s all we’re getting. I stood up in parliament and said, “Hang on, hang on, hang on,” I was the only one to do so, “Hang on just a minute here. All we’re getting is the Foreign Minister saying this, we’re getting the Labor Party saying the same thing, getting the Liberal Party saying the same thing, getting the Greens saying the same thing.”

Malcolm Roberts:

The Greens, by the way, are the greatest control freaks in the country. They want to inject people. They’re very much into control, because they’re pushing the UN agenda for them, and the UN’s all about control. And so we had all these people saying, “Just follow Ukraine. Bash Russia. Bash Russia.” And I said, “Hang on a minute. I’m not going to take a side here because I don’t know enough. But I’m going to ask one question. What the hell are we doing? Where is the information? Let’s stop and not just follow America into another war.” Because we followed America into so many wars in the last 100 years.

Malcolm Roberts:

And there again, Chris, you look at Ron Paul. Senator Ron Paul mentioned that in a book I read, a very good book, it’s End the Fed, end the Federal Reserve Bank, he said, “Every…” And this guy is phenomenally educated, self-educated largely, but very, very strong and respected by both sides of the house in America, both sides of politics, incredibly well-respected, very strong, very honest, very competent. He said, “Every major war since 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bank was created is directly attributable to the United States Federal Reserve Bank.” Every major recession is directly attributable to their policies. They flood the joint with cash. Does this sound familiar? They flood the joint with cash, lower interest rates. People overcommit. Then they jerk up the interest rate suddenly and people collapse and foreclose.

Chris Spicer:

That’s what’s going on now, right here.

Malcolm Roberts:

Okay? That’s the basic mechanism that they’ve done time after time after time. And that’s how they engineer it. Because who takes over the assets when you foreclose? The banks. Who owns the banks? The same globalist predators, BlackRock, Vanguard, the same families that run the whole lot. So, all of these things attributed come back to the use of money and the control of the people who control the money.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah. It’s just, look, I don’t know what’s going to happen here. I mean, interest rates, there’s talk they’re about to go up to 2%, then they’re projecting up to 4% by this time next year. With the way the fuel prices are going, fuel is well and truly back over $2 a litre again. Now, I can speak about it because I know. Obviously, I’ve got a young family with five kids. And it’s tough, very, very tough, to the point where-

Malcolm Roberts:

Especially when you’ve been mandated out.

Chris Spicer:

Well, that’s right. That’s exactly right. So, it’s just the pressure. You’ve got an event or you get invited to a family gathering or whatever it may be, it’s a few hours away up the coast or whatever. It’s going to cost you a couple of hundred dollars in fuel just to get there. You got to take that. You never used to have to worry about that. But when fuel’s up around $2.30 a litre, you got to think about it because that’s a huge chunk of money that’s coming out of your budget. It’s almost forcing you to stay local because families can’t afford to be going on holidays because the fuel’s so excessive. I mean, it’s double what it was a year ago, a year or two ago.

Chris Spicer:

I remember about three or four years ago it got down to 86 cents a litre in parts of Sydney, and now it’s $2.30 a litre of fuel. And there’s no end in sight. We’ve got food shortages. The food comes back and they’ve hiked the price up on that. And then they’re imposing sanctions on Ukraine and they’re blaming that for a few of the cost of living issues that we’re dealing with here. And it’s like, “Well, stop sanctioning them. Stop it. If you’re making the Australian people suffer because you’re sanctioning Russia because they’ve made innocent Ukrainians suffer, you’re doing the same thing with your sanctions,” if that’s what they want to blame it on. I mean, if they’re saying that a lot of this, the inflation at the moment and shortages of different produce, is because of the war in Ukraine, because of their own sanctions, stop it.

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, mate, one of my researchers is extremely good, and he’s been across all the topics we’re talking about for quite a while. He’s been alerting me to the fact that so many food processing plants are shut. Shut.

Chris Spicer:

Yes.

Malcolm Roberts:

In America, they’ve got the largest… And TNT Radio, for anybody who’s listening, when Chris is not on air, go and listen to tntradio.live. I can tell you more about that.

Chris Spicer:

That’s right. You’re on Saturdays.

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, I’m on every second Saturday. But during the week, phenomenal, they tell the truth. They talk about the topics we’re not allowed to be talking about. I heard Rick Munn on the evening show. He’s broadcasting out of Belfast, Ireland. He said that the largest baby formula factory in America was shut down a few weeks ago because of some bacterial infection. They found out that it wasn’t due to that factory. It was false. But the thing has not opened up since. It’s still shut down. So, they’re trying to drive the price of baby formula up by making it scarce, or they’re trying to just make it scarce and put pressure on families. There is so many food processing plants in the United States, something like 30, shut. That’s creating an artificial food shortage. So these people, I don’t know how they’re doing it other than through ownership of the major companies like maybe Nestle, maybe some of the other food companies. They’re all owned by the globalist predators as well, BlackRock and Vanguard. So [inaudible 00:57:37]-

Chris Spicer:

Because it’s not even a conspiracy, it’s a fact that they’re impacting, they’re deliberately impacting, well, causing food shortages in America. The baby formula shortage in America is horrific. I know babies are going to hospital now and some are probably dying due to not been able to get… There was one lady who said that she’d driven, I think, 300 kilometres from her home, well, 300 miles, whatever that is in kilometres, from her home to find formula and put it. So, is it control? Is it just to put the population just in shambles? What is it? What are they gaining from that?

Malcolm Roberts:

Both of that. What they gain is control over people, and they get then cheap Labor. They get us basically back to feudalism, back to communism, working as slaves. These people have destroyed property rights, which is fundamental to a free democratic society. They haven’t destroyed them, sorry, but they’ve destroyed them in certain sectors in this country. And I mentioned it to a group of doctors who invited me to their meeting. These are doctors against the mandates, oh, a couple of months ago. And they suddenly had woken up. They realised it wasn’t just them being impacted individually. It was a whole medical fraternity being impacted. And they suddenly realised they’d lost their profession. The whole profession has gone. And I said, “Now you know how the farmers feel like.”

Malcolm Roberts:

Because farmers in Australia lost their right to be able to use their property. They’ve got to get permission from people to grow certain things. I mean, this is just insane. If you own property, you bought it to produce whatever you want to produce on it. So, losing property rights is fundamental to a return to communism. Destroying religion, and they’ve destroyed that not with guns, but they’ve destroyed that. They’re destroying it by infiltrating the churches. The churches have come up with woke policies now that push climate change. The churches have been shut down during the COVID restrictions, the government’s COVID restrictions. The churches were shut down, but the pubs weren’t. The abortion places weren’t, but the churches were. So, they’ve got an all out war against religion, because people turn to religion for guidance and a code of conduct. When the church is gone, they’re buggered.

Malcolm Roberts:

So, they’re also destroying the family through the family law system, which was introduced into this country in 1975 by a Labor government. It doesn’t matter, Labor or Liberal, it’s the same. And they are destroying families. They’ve injected the kids, infiltrated the kids’ education, indoctrinated the kids with all kind of gender bending influences, all kinds of sexuality changes. And then they’re just indoctrinating them with climate change crap. So, they’re changing the family, the construction of the family.

Chris Spicer:

The family unit, yeah.

Malcolm Roberts:

They’re changing nation states. They’re destroying the borders between nations. Fortunately, Abbott stood up. Tony Abbott stood up. He’s the one leader we’ve had who stood out by actually doing what was right on so many issues. I think he’s aware of some of these things. But he was under so much pressure from his own party, people like Malcolm Turnbull, that he couldn’t do the whole job properly. So, they’re destroying the fabric of our society, destroying the foundations of our society. They’re destroying our borders.

Malcolm Roberts:

And what they want is a global governance, which means you don’t have national borders, you don’t have elections, unelected global governance, and they just control things. They make the decisions that will determine your life, what you’ll eat. And they’ve seen it. Davos has talked about this. They will soon be able to track your so-called carbon dioxide output or usage. And that will then enable them to say, “Well, Chris, you’ve had too much carbon dioxide produced this week because you’ve eaten too much beef. So, therefore, you’re going to be cut back next week.”

Chris Spicer:

That’s happening.

Malcolm Roberts:

They want to control how we live. I mean, they said it. It’s not me saying this. Davos has said it.

Chris Spicer:

Well, in Sydney, I don’t know if you heard about this, a few weeks ago, Channel 9, it was, obtained a report from, I think, the New South Wales government about distance-based tolling. Did you hear about that?

Malcolm Roberts:

No. Oh, distance-based tolling. So, in other words, you pay per kilometre however far you drive?

Chris Spicer:

Yeah. So, just say I want to go into Sydney Harbour, and, well, where I do live is probably about 70ks out of Sydney, I will pay a lot more to go there than what somebody would who lives 20 or 30ks away. So, they’re going to charge you-

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, that’s fair enough. That’s fair enough because somebody uses less energy should be paying less. But it depends on the structure, how they’re going to do it, because I’m guessing it’s to control so that you don’t drive very far, you’ll catch a bus.

Chris Spicer:

Well, that’s what it is. It’s-

Malcolm Roberts:

They want us inducted in the scheme. Of course.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah, that’s right. And you’re seeing that now. I mean, Victoria, they’re well-advanced in terms of this. They’ve already got electric buses. They invested a huge amount of money to get electric buses, and even buses now where you can put your pushbike. They’ve created these. Did you see that? The Victorian government have created buses where they’ve got bike racks on every single bus so you can load your pushbike up to the front of the bus and then take the bus. So, that’s what they want. They want us out of cars. They want us into buses, electric buses, which is what it will be, riding pushbikes. Out of cars, that’s what they want. But back to your religion for a second that came after-

Malcolm Roberts:

I’m going to have to go, Chris, because I’ve got an appointment at 1:30, so it’s 17 minutes past.

Chris Spicer:

No, you’re right. It’s gone fast, hasn’t it?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, it has. We’ve covered a lot of territories.

Chris Spicer:

It always goes fast. But I’ll finish on this point, as to why they’re coming after religion, I believe. I think it’s a lot harder to control a man who has faith. A lot harder. Because he doesn’t fear you. He won’t fear you. He fears God. He won’t fear the individual. And on top of that, a lot of our moral compass comes from religion. So, destroying that is another way of demoralising us. That’s my reasoning for it, because a lot of people ask me, “Who cares? It’s only religion.” But those are the points that I make, that a lot of our life here is from religion.

Malcolm Roberts:

You’re correct. You’re correct, all those things. That’s what Lenin said, that’s why he wanted to destroy religion. It’s one of the first things you do. You are absolutely correct. History has shown that repeatedly, mate. You’re spot on.

Chris Spicer:

All right. Well, I’ll let you get to your meeting. Malcolm, it’s been a pleasure, as always.

Malcolm Roberts:

Same here, mate. Keep going. We’ve got to have independent media, what I call independent new people media.

Chris Spicer:

Yeah. Well, it’s going well. There’s a big market now. From when I first started till now, it’s great. I love seeing it. Because to me, it’s not competition, for me, I love it. It’s, we’re a community. I don’t look at another show as a competitor. It’s a community. And good work with what you’ve been doing, and also Pauline. Thank her for me as well that you both have been incredibly important to this country over the past few years.

Malcolm Roberts:

It’s her birthday today, mate.

Chris Spicer:

Pauline’s birthday?

Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris Spicer:

Happy birthday, Pauline. Yeah. Make sure you pass that on for me. But-

Malcolm Roberts:

Will do.

Chris Spicer:

… yeah, again, Malcolm, thank you very much.

Malcolm Roberts:

You’re welcome. And thank you for what you’re doing, Chris. Really appreciate it.

Chris Spicer:

Thank you, mate.

A new, dangerous World Health Organisation pandemic treaty is a threat to all Australians.

The next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022, will vote upon proposed amendments to the International Health Orders (IHO).

The vote is to make the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations mandatory on member nations. Australia is a member.

If the vote is successful, Australia will then need to ratify the new arrangement by way of passing legislation through Federal Parliament, handing power over Australia to the WHO in the event of a pandemic.

The Liberals have already expressed support, it is most likely that our globalist uniparty (Liberal, Nationals and the ALP) will wave these measures through with only One Nation in opposition.

IHO regulations are a comprehensive guidebook to implement even worse restrictions than Australia suffered through during COVID-19.

Measures specifically provided for in the regulations include lockdowns, hard borders around quarantine zones, vaccine passports, mandatory check-in and contact tracing, mandatory health tests, mandatory removal and quarantine.

Even worse, compulsory vaccination is part of the International Health Regulations, and may now be forced on all Australians if this vote succeeds.

Regulations are in place for as long as WHO decides is necessary.

The World Health Organisation can declare a pandemic without justifying or even publishing their reasons. There is no appeal, no transparency, no fairness.

In 2009-11 WHO created a false pandemic called H1N1. This disease also “escaped” from a lab and was no worse than a bad flu, a fact not in dispute today.

The WHO response to H1N1, if repeated for the next lab “escape” of a manufactured virus, will implement International Health Orders in Australia, including forced vaccination and forced removal & quarantine.

The police and armed forces have already demonstrated their support for these measures during COVID.

One Nation strongly opposes the ceding of our sovereignty to the UN and WHO. Unelected, unrepresentative foreign bureaucrats should not have the power to lock Australia down and force Australians to undergo medical procedures.

The Government should never have the power to force a medical procedure without your consent, an unelected international organisation certainly should not.

This brazen proposal shows the WHO is not fit for purpose, cannot be trusted and does not operate with Australia’s sovereign interests in mind. Australia must immediately exit the WHO and maintain our sovereignty.

Dear Minister Hunt

I am writing to you to express my absolute disgust at the way your government and you in particular have failed to manage Covid-19 effectively in Australia.

One Nation is pro-medicine and pro-choice, supporting medicines and procedures that have been fully tested and found to be safe, effective, affordable, and readily available.

Why is it that Australians have been forced to receive injections that were not tested in Australia and never fully tested anywhere and not found to be either safe or effective for everyone.

Taxpayers have born the costs with no choices for those being forced into submission through threats of job loss and worse.

One Nation supports free choice of people to determine what goes into their bodies. This is an issue of bodily autonomy. Consent to such treatment must be freely given and not the result of coercion.

Australians have been denied the free choice to be vaccinated or not. This borders on criminal behaviour.

Government coercion has been a prominent feature of your gross mismanagement and it is disgraceful that a Liberal-Nationals government would be so draconian in its operations.

Voters will not vote for you when they become aware of the lies and misconduct that your actions have spread in the community.

The approval for use of the Covid-19 injections, referred to as vaccines, is still considered provisional in Australia and the injections are in fact still experimental.

You said as much when you told Australians that we are engaged as participants in the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial.

One of the outcomes of your actions has been the destruction of the relationship of trust that used to apply between doctors and their patients.

When a doctor is told by the registration body, Ahpra, that if they speak out against the injections they will risk losing their registration. The insertion of government between the doctor and patient shatters the doctor/patient special relationship.

When a doctor is forbidden to speak freely with her/his patient about the options to be considered before a patient gives consent to treatment, how can that special fiduciary relationship be considered one of trust and good faith if one of the parties is acting through fear for their own livelihood?

Your actions and omissions have destroyed that special relationship.

When reports of adverse reactions to the injections started to emerge, why did you not halt the use of the vaccines until full research was completed to prove or disprove the reports that the injections had the potential to kill or injure recipients?

This would happen routinely for any other drug or procedure, yet this did not occur with the injections. Why were the injections considered a special case?

The injections should be ceased now until the full longitudinal research and testing is completed and done so independent of the manufacturer.

Reports from the manufacturers recognise significant side effects including death from thrombosis and heart anomalies. These are now recognised as foreseeable possible side effects.

Pfizer’s own data acknowledges adverse effects including paralysis and death.

Where is the peer reviewed data from sources independent from the pharmaceutical companies as to the injections’ safety and efficacy?

Where is the evidence showing that injection derived RNA does not integrate into the human genome other than self-serving promises from the pharmaceutical companies?

Are you aware of the current studies that identify non-organic structures within the vaccine components that are of concern to pathologists?

This is dishonest behaviour and I would expect more from you as a Minister.

One Nation has proposed six Covid strategies to rectify your health disaster. Your government’s Chief Medical Officer added a seventh being personal hygiene including hand-washing and confirmed my strategies as complete and appropriate. The strategies are clear and well thought through.

Yet more than two years after the Covid-19 virus’s arrival in our nation your government still has no comprehensive plan for managing the virus. Instead, of managing the virus you have colluded with state Labor and Liberal/Nationals governments to use the virus to control the people, often brutally and inhumanely.

Of first importance now is to hold a Royal Commission into Covid-19 mismanagement. This would examine the roles AHPRA, ATAGI and the TGA have played. It would need to examine the roles and relationships of the federal and state health departments, including the senior bureaucrats and state premiers. The amount of harm these relationships and people caused is staggering in its breadth and severity.

There is an urgent need to rebuild the longstanding doctor/patient relationship that Ahpra’s immoral overreaching actions have destroyed. Whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality and privacy and the concept that firstly doctors should do no harm?

Even the commonwealth’s own immunisation handbook states that consent to immunisation must be given freely and voluntarily. Why was this blatantly and calculatedly ignored and violated?

The basic law that applies to consent says that for consent to be valid it must be given voluntarily and must be provided with sufficient information for the patient to decide freely for themselves in the absence of coercion. In terms of negligence, this means the patient must be provided with all material facts in order to provide an informed consent.

This includes all facts about possible side effects, the nature of the injections’ contents, details about alternatives and a full risk profile to enable the patient to decide whether to consent to having the vaccine or not.

Where a possible side effect is death or serious bodily harm, failure to advise a patient of these risks would be grounds for legal action in negligence or if death were to occur, criminal negligence.

Given the complexity of these decisions, it is totally unrealistic to consider that a child or infant could consent to this injection being delivered.

The immoral and inhuman mandates for injecting Covid injections must end now. Your health department and the government in which you are a senior minister have enabled these mandates’ implementation and enforcement.

Agencies and departments under your responsibility and in contradiction of extensive, thorough and widespread medical and scientific evidence, have failed to proactively seek proven safe, effective, affordable and readily accessible treatments and prophylactics. The use of Ivermectin and other medicines and natural treatments have been denied, removed and suppressed while being hailed as rapid cures and effective prophylactics overseas.

As a result of inhumanely suppressing the use of Ivermectin for instance as one example, your government is responsible for otherwise avoidable deaths and for prolonging the impacts of avoidable restrictions that state and federal government implemented in what was wrongly claimed to be due to the virus. Those deaths, the widespread and irresponsible capricious destruction of livelihoods and lives and the crippling costs to families and our nation now burdened with needless debt are due to your actions and omissions.

A comprehensive plan for managing the virus and its variants must now be developed and published as soon as possible as there is not one in existence now.

Australia needs to develop its own plan for Australians and not merely replicate what the United Nations and your former employer the World Economic Forum dictate or call for. This is not a time when one size fits all.

 As the past Director of Strategy for the World Economic Forum 2000-01, surely you would see the conflict of interest that you have faced in your current position as Health Minister?

What is your understanding of the World Health Organisation Pandemic Treaty and its contents? What is the level of commitment of your government to signing this Treaty and what are your expectations in relation to Australia’s sovereignty in the future by potentially giving away responsibility to the WHO for the management of a pandemic within Australia?

It is clear that the Therapeutic Goods Administration has failed in its obligations under s. 22D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act (1989) that requires the Secretary of the Department of Health to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of the Covid injections are satisfactorily established for each cohort for which the injections were granted provisional approval.

There needs to be a full independent review of the activities of the TGA with a particular assessment of the TGA approval process related to provisional approvals granted to the pharmaceutical manufacturers of the Covid injections.

The government relationship with Ahpra, a non -government body that wields too much power over the health and allied health sector must be pruned back and the relationship reviewed considering the coercion and the extortion-like behaviour that enabled the mandated injection rollout.

What was the reason for removing Ahpra from the government sphere and converting it to private enterprise beyond the scope of Estimates overview?

Ahpra or its future equivalent needs to be brought under parliamentary scrutiny to ensure accountability. Despite having enormous power over doctors, nurses and health services AHPRA currently is not accountable to the senate estimates process.

Vital data that has been missing from public view must be made available in reasonable time. This includes Covid injection related deaths, adverse incidents, and recent negative research reports. This is instead of the current practice of burying or denying recent findings that contradict the government’s initial or previous position.

Why have the contracts entered into by the government with the pharmaceutical manufacturers been less than transparent?  We still have not been told what the contents of the vaccines are or their manufacturing costs. Commercial in confidence responses do not cut it.

The injections have a serious negative profile that you have clearly tried to suppress, even in the face of growing substantial scientific data to the contrary.

The damage to the Australian economy from the mandates and the unnecessary closures of businesses is unacceptably and inhumanely high. Many small businesses were forced to shut down with many never to recover. The financial stress and loss of jobs that the shutdowns capriciously and negligently imposed has been a factor in the rise in suicides, bankruptcies and mental illness within our community.

You clearly have a large share of the responsibility for these atrocious actions.

You have been responsible for a fraud on the Australian population and worse, trying to impose unproven injections on our next generation. There is no doubt that in time your culpability will become clearer.

Minister, based on your failures to protect the health of Australians and your destruction of much of the Australian economy, no thinking employer should seriously consider that your track record  warrants further involvement in strategic decision making.

Should this government win another term at the coming election I am pleased to hear that you will no longer be responsible for the health portfolio.

Your shame alone should have had you stepping down if not being moved aside or removed.

Australian voters will have their say soon enough.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

cc

Senator Anne Ruston

Mr Mark Butler, Opposition Spokesman for Health

Visit the original article from the AMPS here: https://amps.redunion.com.au/blog/episode-6-discussions-from-the-front-line

In this episode, we welcome Senator Malcolm Roberts to AMPS Discussions from the Frontline. 

Kara and Senator Roberts discuss the impact of the mandates and the importance of transparency and accountability in Government, all politicians are supposed to serve and listen to the people.

In this video series, “Discussions from the Frontline”, we are discussing AHPRA overreach and the consequent impacts on Health Professionals, the search for evidence-based best practices and overall public health outcomes.

AMPS and NPAA members have repeatedly raised concerns about government overreach and the negative consequences this is having on healthcare, our professions and the public. 

AMPS understands the cost of questioning government policy and politically correct orthodoxy. Questioning “the science” is tragically now often a career-ending decision, a silencing tactic that works by threatening your livelihood and ability to provide for your family.

We believe highly educated health professionals should be allowed to participate in debates on scientific evidence, treatment protocols and in the public square of ideas without government threats of disciplinary action.

Deaths in January were a shocking 2,965 (22%) above the baseline for Australia. This increase coincided with a large increase in COVID-19 infections which is being blamed as the cause. However, if we dig down a bit on that claim it does not stack up.

ABS figures show that only 442 COVID deaths were recorded in January. What is the explanation for the remaining 2,443 deaths above baseline?

Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/provisional-mortality-statistics/january-2022#australian-deaths-by-week-1-february-2021-to-30-january-2022
Source: ABS https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/covid-19-mortality-australia-deaths-registered-31-january-2022#deaths-due-to-covid-19-year-and-month-of-occurrence

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA“) and their buddies, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“ATAGI“) and the unaccountable Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA“), have enabled the distortion of science in Australia that has seen COVID vaccines mandated, the minimising of vaccine reactions, banning of alternative treatments and general COVID mismanagement.

In this final Senate Estimates session before the election is inevitably called I tried to desperately get straight answers out of Australia’s Chief Health bureaucrats about how they could do so much of this without evidence.

Part 1

This session goes to the over 801 deaths reported around COVID-19 vaccines and the Health Department’s incompetence or negligence in failing to answer over 47% of my formal questions on notice in 6 months when the deadline was 6 weeks.

Transcript (click here to read)

I’d like to table just a portion of the transcript from the previous session in February, 16th of February. There are 15 copies here. Thank you. The latest available TGA DAEN report from your website dated 24th of March, 2022, says there are 801 deaths, 11 of which are attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. So there are 801 deaths reported by doctors. So according to the TGA 801 deaths that doctors have reported as being due to COVID-19 vaccination, doctors reported them. The TGA then steps in and reviews these doctor certified reports and says that there are only 11 deaths attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. How many of these 790 cases have been reviewed and closed? And how many are still under review?

Senator firstly, your assertion is not factually correct. Doctors have not said those deaths, 800 and something deaths are due to COVID vaccination.

They’ve reported that.

There have been reports as we have said before and misplace, doctors will often provide a report and then they say in the report, we don’t believe it’s due to a vaccination in a majority of jurisdictions, a majority of states and territories, there is a requirement for the state and territory health systems and their doctors working between to report deaths that are temporarily associated. In other words injection one day someone has a heart attack a week later. But in many of those cases the doctors indicate that they don’t believe there’s a link. So I think it’s highly misleading to say the doctors say these deaths are due to a COVID vaccine. Having said that, we do as we’ve indicated before we review all deaths in these reports and we follow up for further information including with coroners where coroners reports are done in postmortems, with the state and territory systems. These deaths are generally in health facilities. So there have been post-mortems and there is a thorough medical history on them. And as I’ve indicated before if there is something unusual and there is a possibility that it could be associated with a vaccine, we convene an independent, by independent not departmental staff. We convene an independent expert group of relevant doctors to evaluate whether there is likely causality. And we use World Health Organisation protocols and these approaches are used by regulators globally.

[Malcolm] Thank you. So how many of the 790 cases have been reviewed and closed and how many are still under review?

Senator I would have give, take that on notice

That’s fine. at the current time but the overwhelming majority has been it’s just that obviously it’s a figure that changes by the hour.

Okay. That’s fine. I’d happy to take that on notice, for you to take it on notice. Of any outstanding reported deaths, some could be death related to COVID-19 vaccination. Do you have a timeframe for when the TGA adjudication will be completed?

Our part is relatively fast once we have all required information, but if, let’s use a hypothetical of someone who has a vaccination on Tuesday and has a heart attack on Friday, they’re in a hospital in Perth, the WA health system reports to us. This is a hypothetical. We obviously require the information from a postmortem that may have been done, had that person say, had AstraZeneca and was it a major thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in their brain? So it also requires postmortems to be done. It may even require a coroner’s report to be done. So the timing at which we can close a case and then if we need to refer it to his expert committee senator does depend on when we get the information from the hospital system, the postmortem and all that. Because otherwise you are working in the dark. And so it’s really important to have that objective information by the professional people who carry out postmortems and if need be, if it has been referred to the coroner, the advice from a coroner, because again that’s their professional role to determine cause of death.

So it’s variable. How long do the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] Sorry.

How long does the TGA reviews take per death?

So once we receive the, it’s an iterative thing. So if we have a death report, we’ll come back and we say, “Look, it says headache in the report. Can we get information on whether they had a bleed in the brain?” Now the hospital may respond within hours or they may say, “Look, we’ve got the brain.” And again, this is a bit gory. “We’ve got the brain in the freezer. We will have to conduct some morbid anatomy on that…” Sorry, we’ll have to look at the brain in a postmortem sense. So sometimes it actually can take weeks if they then have to do those laboratory and other forensic tests. Once we get the information we move as quickly as possible. And we also move as quickly as possible to report any reports of death. So for example, the very first report of death which was in April last year, I think we reported it within 24 to 48 hours of the group concluding that it was associated and we do so in our weekly updates. Now, fortunately there have been no confirmed deaths due to vaccination this year. And there’s also been no confirmed cases due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia this year.

Okay, thank you, Australians, our constituents want to know who is accountable for this process? Who decides whether the death was a COVID-19 vaccine death and who certifies if this is the case.

So if it’s due to vaccination it’s the role of the Therapeutic Goods as a safety regulator. But acting on, as I said on the advice of this external panel and with the commitment and responsibility of publishing weekly safety updates on which report this information.

So you are the head of the TGA so it’s your responsibility.

Yes.

So you’re accountable.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Who’s on the expert committee?

There is no fixed expert committee. It’s really important to emphasise that if say a death was due to some neurological condition, we have a large number of neurologists. There are some, it’s not a standing committee. And so there is no fixed membership Senator. If it’s a cardiac thing, we’ll have cardiologists and we’ll have cardiac pathologists. And there’s so many subspecialties in medicine these days. And so the composition of each panel is different depending, because we want the best scientific and clinical expertise.

[Malcolm] Okay. So I’ve asked you Dr. Skerritt or Professor Skerritt sorry, about the questions raised at previous Senate estimates rounds. And if you refer to the transcript of the February 16th Senate estimates. If you go down the bottom there, you’ll see that you’ve twice failed to deliver what you have promised. We asked first in October and we had a six-week deadline for that

Sorry Senator, you asked for what in October?

The process, by which deaths reported by doctors are reviewed by the TGA.

We’ve provided every-

[Man] They haven’t.

Every response to every… We’ve provided them through to the government. Every response to every question on notice .

Well, then ministers, who in the government is responsible because Professor Skerritt, you said, I asked you again in February 16th, after the, four months after the first request in October. And I said, “Could we have that process in writing?” And you said, “I believe it has been provided but we can provide it again.” And I said, “We haven’t received it.” And you said, “We can provide it to you.” They’re categorical.

[Skerritt] Senator-

So now it seems to me minister that the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is saying he’s provided to the government but the government hasn’t provided it to us. What’s going on?

I can’t comment on the process following that. What I can say is if you wish to write to me please write to me and I can provide in .

Professor Skerritt, we’ve asked you twice and twice… And once we were put on notice and last February, just two months ago, you told us personally you would get it to us. This is the first I’ve heard about having to write to you about it.

Well, I don’t deliver responses to you directly, Senator.

[Woman] So then I asked the government what’s interceded because we have not got the material from the TGA.

[Skerritt] .

[Woman] Do we have a question on notice number that we’re talking about?

Yes, we do.

[Woman] That would be very handy to have so that we can ask somebody to check that.

Question number 14, details of how a decision of death due to COVID vaccination is made?

So what was the question on notice number? Do we know?

So that was back in October. I don’t know that one

Senator we’ll take what you’ve just requested on notice and and get you an answer. Because it seems to me that there there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Malcolm] Twice.

I think adjunct professor Skerritt has indicated he would provide what you’ve requested. So we will endeavour during a break to be able to get to the bottom of that and respond to you today.

Quite sure somebody is listening to us at the moment that we’ll be able to follow that up for us.

Minister, can you follow up my questions from October as well too, please? ‘Cause I’ve got like lots of questions outstanding.

I will certainly have a look at that, but-

Yeah, we have a huge number outstanding something like generally there are 61 of a 136 questions on notice outstanding from the last Senate estimates. That’s around 45% of the questions we’ve asked. We’ve asked a lot of questions, but that’s our right because we do it not only for ourselves but on behalf of our constituents. 45% of the questions have not been answered. So if-

[Woman] If you could leave that with me Senator-

Sure.

And I’ll respond to the committee as soon as I’m able to get an answer.

[Malcolm] If that’s the last question chair on this round and then we’ll come back later. If vaccine injured people are from identifiable subgroups say due to specific health conditions, why did you not proactively allow medical exemptions from these groups, for these groups? For example, those with comorbidities?

The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s not involved in provision of vaccine exemptions.

Well, who the hell is because we’ve had so many doctors tell us personally and nurses that it’s almost impossible to get an exemption. And I know of someone who got his first shot and then had a severe reaction to it and was required by his employer to have a second shot. We’ve heard this so many times.

[Man] Senator-

Senator innit?

The chair of ATAGI will be here at 10 o’clock and ATAGI is responsible for determining the conditions under which people would, vaccines contraindicated a very small list of conditions, that the chair ATAGI would be happy to answer that I think when he comes.

[Malcolm] Thank you.

[Woman] Okay. Thank you.

Part 2

Doctors and other health professionals feel great pressure to not report adverse events or sentiment which could undermine the vaccine rollout. Health Bureaucrats continue to deny such pressure exists despite official guidelines saying that Doctors could be de-registered for opposing supposed public health measures from the government. AHPRA threatens to deregister Doctors but is a private corporation with no accountability to the Senate or the Australia Public.

Transcript (click here to read)

Chair, Can I just ask something that I forgot to ask before I noted rather than interrupt Professor Skerritt? You mentioned that of the reports that you received from doctors about deaths, some explicitly say, it’s not due to the vaccine. Are you aware and what are you doing about the fact that have been told by a number of doctors that they are afraid to report vaccine deaths? Are you aware of that and what are you doing about that?

I’m not aware of that and any doctor or individual, or even you on behalf of a constituent with the relevant information can report a vaccine adverse event, doesn’t have to be a death, it can be a sore arm. Any individual can report directly to us, so–

Do you do any auditing to make sure that process is being followed or that you’re getting reasonably accurate numbers?

So as I’ve indicated, the reporting is two things. Firstly, it’s mandatory within a majority of states, but not all states. Although quite interestingly, the state that is the most active in reporting adverse events for their health system is Victoria and it’s not one where in law is written down it’s just seen as part of their medical practise. There is no force of law that says if Dr X out in the suburbs sees an adverse event that they must report. Reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in Australia. It would require this place to change a therapeutic goods act.

Senator, can I just point out, I feel I need to say something here. There there’s been over 11 billion doses of vaccine given around the world, 11 billion doses. The risk benefit profile of all of the vaccines that are in common use and the ones certainly that the TGA has regulated here in Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of benefit. There is no conspiracy here.

[Senator Roberts] Do we have the numbers on that list?

11 billion doses have been used? We would’ve seen problems in 11 billion episodes of doses if they were there.

Why did you use the word conspiracy because in my experience, most of these kinds of derailments are due to incompetence or gutlessness in terms of not looking at the figures. I’m not accusing you of either of those, I’m just saying that’s my experience but you raised the word conspiracy. Now,

I do realise the word conspiracy–

Are you aware that some doctors here and overseas have done the research and they say that as few as 1% of adverse events are being reported. Some are saying as few as 10%. So you multiply the deaths due to the vaccine. You multiply the adverse events due to the vaccines by in one estimate by a hundred or by other estimates by 10.

Senator, we don’t believe that that’s a relevant comparison.

You don’t believe it, but that’s what doctors are telling me.

Senator Robert please let witnesses respond.

So I’ll pass it to John in a moment. But I think, just to be clear I’m not accusing anyone of conspiracy here but that there are conspiracy theories around. I think we have all heard them and they have affected, particularly in some of our more vulnerable parts of our population and I’m referring here to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In a way that has caused harm and I feel it’s my role as the chief medical officer to look at that from the Australian perspective. I’ll let John answer about the issue, Professor Skerritt about the the issues you’ve raised in terms of reporting. We do know there is under reporting of a range of matters in many countries, but one of the main reasons that the statistics you and Senator Rennick, have both mentioned about the number of reports that the TGA has looked at extraordinary number, but the vast majority, almost all of those have been shown to have another explanation. And that is not hiding things, that is a totally transparent the TGA reports on every week, regularly. So that’s why I mentioned that word, but please to be clear–

I’m gonna go clear Senator Grogan–

But just to… Sorry, Paul, just to explain. I do agree that for some other medicines you might only have 10 or 5% of adverse events reported but for the COVID vaccines to use that cliched word there’s been an unprecedented communication approach to doctors, hospitals, health systems and the public about coming forward with adverse events. We want people to report adverse events. So firstly, there’s been a lot of awareness. So for example, among the doctor networks we have a video conference, it was every two weeks and there’s other video conferences that are held even more frequently. It’s now every four weeks. In fact, there’s another one tomorrow. And that has the heads of the IMA the heads of the College of General Practitioners, many leading doctor and communication groups. And again, one of the consistent messages is report adverse events even if you don’t think that there’s a likelihood of them being associated. So I would say for the COVID vaccines there’s greater awareness than there ever has been for any other medical product. The states and territories, as I’ve said, either have mandatory adverse event reporting for vaccines or they have pretty well old systems such as in Victoria. And thirdly, there’s been a tremendous investment in what we call stimulated and active reporting. So through AusVaxSafety a proportion of people who get vaccinated get SMSs at regular times and are contacted. So you’re not requiring men to say, “I don’t feel well,” it’s an adverse event they’re asked and followed up. Do you have any ill feeling, any adverse events how you going? Taken together, I think we have probably the most comprehensive picture of safety of these products and we have had for any medical product ever on the market in Australia

Professor Skerritt, I’d urge you to have a look at the systems for reporting because I’ve had a number of reputable credible doctors tell me that they are aware of adverse events not reported because the AHPRA is intimidating doctors. Professor Kelly, if I could just mention that the word conspiracy used to be used quite a bit in the past for exactly that. Vague claims. But the word conspiracy now is used as a defence to ridicule someone who’s raising a genuine issue. So that is quite often when I see the word conspiracy. It’s used to deflect so that’s why I brought up–

Senator I think that… Frankly, AHPRA wouldn’t know if a doctor reported an adverse event to us for name of a reporting doctor is anonymous and confidential, they cannot take action. So how on earth could AHPRA sanction a doctor who reported an adverse event to the TGA? They wouldn’t know.

Well, how can we get AHPRA here and ask them directly? Because they’re away from our scope they’ve been taken away from our scope by understanding 2017. They’re giving headaches to doctors in this country and doctors are looking me in the face in massive groups, groups of 40 or more, in suburbs in Brisbane, telling me, that they’ve lost the doctor-patient relationship. They have to abide by health directives and AHPRA is doing that.

Senator, I simply do not believe that AHPRA has told doctors not to report adverse events. I think that I’d believe a flat earth policy before that.

We’re gonna go–

How do we get AHPRA here?

Senator Roberts has jumped in after I was about to hand to Senator Grogan–

Chair, how do we get AHPRA here? Because they’re not accountable to the–

We have tried that before, and that’s a separate issue. We’re not gonna discuss that right now. We’ve taken that to the government before.

Part 3

The TGA has been morally deficient in their blind acceptance of overseas data provided by the pharmaceutical companies to approve COVID vaccines. Despite this, they bat away any criticism or safety concerns as simply a conspiracy theory. As I said, conspiracy theory is “used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question” and what did one of our Chief Health Officers respond to that? “It is and I’ll be using it that way”. The contempt these bureaucrats have for openness and transparency is palpable.

Transcript (click here to read)

Your office obtained de-identified clinical data, patient data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. And did that data form your decision on the vaccine, or did you just accept what the manufacturer said?

So Senator, of a long established process is that we receive an aggregate submission looking at the analysis of a patient data. And then during the review both our clinicians who review that data carefully and also our advisory committee for medicines which is composed of eminent clinicians across various disciplines, we do go back and ask a series of questions to the company, but of the global regulators only the US Food and Drug Administration, obtains individual patient data as a course of practise, so-

[Malcolm] So the answer is no?

So we do not obtain individual patient regulator. We’re simply not resolved to do so.

[Malcolm] Okay, that’s fine, I just needed the answer. So the TGA with all of it’s resources didn’t take the opportunity to review you the approximately 44,000 records on the vaccine testing. Yet you improved it to inject into millions of Australians?

I don’t agree, but we didn’t take the opportunity to review the results for trials. We spent many person months. In fact, probably several person years, you aggregate the size of a team of clinicians and others looking at that data. We looked at that data on 44,000 people and the trials was very carefully.

What clinical testing was done in Australia on the COVID-19 vaccines.

So for there were some vaccines that have had early stage trials done in Australia but it is not a requirement, but medicine or vaccines are clinically trialled in Australia, if it were a requirement we’d have far fewer medicines and vaccines on the market. We look for trials done in comparable populations. So we assume a trial done on an American is gonna be transferable to the Australian population. However, if there are trial groups missing such as we have a lot of Australians of Asian descent we’ll look at that in a trial data too.

So you also assume then that a trial by an American pharmaceutical company done on Americans is just acceptable?

We Don assume it’s just acceptable. We look at, as I’ve mentioned, the total amount of data for Pfizer is over 220,000 pages. And so that would fill many pallets of paper if it were deposited in the middle of this room. So we scrutinise, we review that data at extreme length. We spend thousands of of man and woman hours reviewing that data.

But no testing here.

We test the vaccine here in a laboratories. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 105 laboratory staff.

So are those tests to make sure that the control batches comply with the current batches in this country, or are they actually testing the vaccine for its efficacy, for its safety?

The tests are looking, well they relate to safety because they check the vaccines composition. They check that there’s no contaminants in it. And they check that it aligns with the requirements of-

So you’re not testing the vaccines efficacy or safety or risk?

We are looking at safety in a post market sense. The data from FDA and Safety comes from clinical trials that are being conducted globally. And I would add the same approach is accepted by all world’s major regulators, including Europe. So the European Medicines Agency, which regulates for European Union does not require trials to be done within Europe.

Are you aware there are major concerns about the FDA processes in America and many of the health agencies in America being completely tainted by pharmaceutical companies, all fix for interest.

TGA makes independent sovereign evaluations of vaccines, the government expressly rejected, this government expressly rejected a possibility of TGA automatically accepting US FDA decisions. So government position, and it was the accepted in this place when a bill went through the house was for TGA to continue to make its own sovereign decisions. And we don’t always make the same decisions as FDA around medicines and drugs.

And you rely upon various committees-

Yes, we do.

For approval of different types of drugs, including vaccines.

We rely on them from advice. So we have an active advisory committee for vaccines and an advisory committee for medicines, for example, that will go to treatments.

Have you assessed that committee’s composition for conflicts of interest?

Oh, very much so Senator and, first of all-

[Malcolm] Can we get a copy of that?

Senator, there would be individual personal information we could provide, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, well, doctor so is X, but we could explain both the process and we could explain those candidates who were not considered-

[Malcolm] Yes, please.

So within those constraints, of course we would very welcome to-

[Malcolm] We’ll take from there.

It is absolutely important that the people on the committees do not have a conflict of interest.

I agree.

It would up the process.

Last question on this topic before I move on to a second one. Were the COVID-19 vaccines ever tested upon zero to four, four year olds? And could you please provide a copy of the data to prove that the vaccine is safe for young children and babies?

The vaccines are not approved for zero to four year olds. So they have not been approved in this country or in any major global regulator areas, there is an approval in China for a Chinese made vaccine, I think down to age three. But when I look at the US, when I look at Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe they are not approved in that age group.

When will they be approved?

It depends on the date of it’s submitted to us and whether it’s accessible.

Are you expecting at any time in the next three months before the new parliament comes in?

I can’t predict that we may receive an application midyear but it is really dependent on the completion of trials, and on the quality of the data.

Thank you, let’s move on then to the next topic. Can a COVID-19 vaccine enter and affect human DNA? Now a Swedish study and I’m gonna table this. A Swedish study has demonstrated that it could and while the paper, which is being distributed, at section four states, and I’ll quote, “At this stage we do not know if DNA reverse transcribe from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.” So they’re acknowledging that, “the fact is that the Australian government may have not independently confirmed whether it does or not.” So the question is, have you done so, have you kept us safe?

So we are familiar with this paper. It is actually quite widely discredited in the medical community for a number of reasons. Firstly, reverse transcriptase of the type required are not commonly found within cells, are not commonly found within the nucleus. And if this were plausible, you’d argue as I mentioned earlier, probably all of us sitting here have 20,000 genes and 20,000 mRNAs that are making various proteins on time. You’d have all those proteins clogging up the nucleus. The second issue is that the amount of messenger RNA used in this study was not the physiological levels. It was a very high level of messenger RNA. So this paper was published in a second or third tier journal and it’s been fairly widely discredited. And again, I’m happy to provide a bit more information on what experts in the field have said about this particular study.

Yeah, I’d welcome that. But my question was not whether the paper was good or not. The question is, has the Australian government independently confirmed whether the material does transcribe or not? So my question was, have you done that? And have you kept us safe from the possibility of that?

We do not believe it can plausibly-

[Malcolm] So that’s a belief?

For scientific evidence does not show-

[Malcolm] Can we see that scientific evidence, please?

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you.

[Malcolm And John] If could take that on notice.

Yes.

Thank you. Secondly, did the TGA issue authorization solely based upon the basis of the manufacturer’s data?

To which for vaccine, are you talking about?

[Malcolm] Pfizer?

So every medical product is submitted on the basis of, sorry is reviewed on the basis of a submission that a company or other sponsor makes. In every case, there are questions sometimes in the case of one of the COVID vaccines but I think questions numbered in the hundreds. There are many questions where we go back and request further data. We also look at data from studies if that vaccine is for example, already on the market as professor Murphy mentioned for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, where there was already use overseas, we look at that data, but the process is that the data does come from the organisation that submits it, but we don’t take it at face value. We drive pharmaceutical companies crazy by asking them dozens and quite often hundreds of questions and ask for more things.

Why did the TGA just refer to the manufacturer that and take their word for it? I know you just said-

Well, as I said, we don’t take their word for it. Otherwise we’d just be a rubber stamp. You might as well bother having a-

[Malcolm] That’s my concern.

We are not a rubber stamp. What do those people do all day? And I think it’s fair to say. When you’ve had, at the time we were reviewing the vaccines we had teams of people working seven days a week. So they were extremely busy reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data-

[Malcolm] My concern-

And these are very highly qualified people Senator.

My concern professor Skerrit is that there have been so many contradictions so many reversals of data, so many denials, so many orders, so many instructions, so many absurdities throughout this whole COVID and I call it a mismanagement.

[John] That’s your assertion?

That is my assertion. And there have been so many absurdities so many contradictions we’ve got one state predicting another state. We’ve got one state contradicting itself within over a period of weeks. We’ve got so many of these that people are rightly very very suspicious and concerned.

Well, I would also add the fact that Australia of course has a very high vaccination rate. And while there are some individuals who are suspicious or concerned about the data, a massive majority of Australians have chosen to become vaccinated. I’d also add that there is one national medicines regulator who has a role of looking at the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines.

Okay, my next question goes to, is from constituents, many constituents. And I’d like to tell over these, please. I’m not tabling the questions. I’m tabling handout, listing reports and scientific publications on the toxicity of graphene oxides to living organisms.

[John] Oh, yes, it’s toxic.

My constituents have asked me to ask you about a recent UK study, which has formed the basis of criminal charges in that country. “Due to the presence of compounds including, graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines.” Graphene oxide is not on the ingredients list. Have you tested specifically for graphene oxide, or other unlisted chemicals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

We have and other regulators have assessed the vaccines. There is no graphene oxide in any of the vaccines.

Have you tested?

I would have to take that on notice but we have no evidence, we do-

You have no evidence, but have you tested for that?

I said, I’d have to take that on notice but I am absolutely confident. There is no graphene oxide vaccines, why on earth would you put it in there?

That’s what people want to know?

Yeah, why on earth would you do that?

[Malcolm] But we talk about that-

That probably sounds like some conspiracy theory again, Senator.

That’s usually used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question.

[John] It is and I’ll be using it that way.

Okay.

But to think that someone, and it’s not directed at you Senator, but to think that someone would put graphene oxide into a vaccine would amount to a conspiracy theory.

We may have some interesting material for your next sentiments.

[John] Thank you Senator.

Yes, you’ve already explained that graphene oxide is toxic to humans.

[John] Oh, yeah.

Professor Kelly, your response to Senator Rennick’s questions about the denial of people wanting to go overseas, from going overseas because of their global commitments. I’ve heard that so many times, minister whether it be from the leader in the senate, previous it was on the senate, Senator Corman, in answer to my request for data as to why we’re complying with UN requirements and UN policies, I get told because we have to comply with our global commitments. I understand that the Omicron variant entered Australia at a time when only vaccinated people were allowed into the country?

That’s correct, Senator.

Thank you, that’s all for me right now. And I’ll come back with the target.

Part 4

AHPRA is an unaccountable private organisation that holds the threat of de-registration over the head of any Doctor who dares give advice against vaccination counter to the Government line. They must be held accountable and the primacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship must be restored.

Transcript (click here to read)

[Roberts] Through this quickly then, I’d like to table this. My questions are for ATAGI because that’s where I was directed by the gentleman at the table now. Thank you. It’s in regard to AHPRA, this is from their website and I’ve also got another page on their website. Which I’m not tabling, but I’m happy to do so if needed. Dr. Crawford, are you there?

[Dr. Murphy] Here’s for AHPRA question might not be relevant, it’s ATAGI, senator. So let’s ask you a question and we’ll see…

Okay we’ll ask a question to everyone then. Well, some, this is on ATAGI and national boards. Position statement goes back to 9th of March, 2021 right from the start, pre-vaccine. While some health professionals, practitioners, sorry, may have a conscientious objection to COVID 19 vaccination. All practitioners, including students on placement must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID 19 vaccination national boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Down the bottom of this notice, it says, any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation programme, including via social media, is not supported by national boards. And the doctors read this, may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. So that was very, very clear. Then there’s a social media guideline which I won’t go through now. So I, is anyone aware of John Larter, who is a experienced paramedic who took a vocal stand against mandatory vaccination in his industry against mandatory vaccination. AHPRA moved swiftly on him and Larter told the media that he was not even given an official reason for his suspension when it happened. Ros Nealon-Cook is a psychologist who took it upon herself to warn Australians on social media of the severe and widespread harm being caused to child development and mental health by prolonged lockdowns. She was instantly suspended for her trouble. The more concerning one, these are all of concern in August of 2021, the COVID medical network published an open letter titled “First Do No Harm”. The COVID medical network’s open letter did not list any authors. So APRA went to the Australian securities and investments commission ASIC, and found out the names of the three directors of the COVID medical network. Two were doctors and their medical licences were immediately suspended. The COVID medical network was formed in 2020 to provide the public with informed evidence based advice concerning lockdowns and other matters that differs from that of the government and its bureaucratic instruments. The organisation runs a weekly video conference that is tuned into by hundreds of Australian health practitioners, professionals, sorry. The other, one of these doctors who were suspended, Robert Brennon was given written reasons for his instant termination. APRA accused him of spreading, quote, Medical Misinformation, unquote via the COVID medical network open letter because this is the words that APRA used, the content of both the letter and the video contrary to New South Wales public health orders because I’ll say that again, the content of the letter and the video are contrary to New South Wales public health orders enforced at the time and have the potential to undermine public health strategies by potentially influencing medical practitioners and the community not to be vaccinated. Then they go on, APRA, to say, it is not our role to evaluate the scientific validity of the letter. Our concern is that the letter strongly argued a highly polarised position contrary to public health order. In other words, the position argued by Dr. Brennon and the COVID medical network might be scientifically correct. And the position of the Australian government scientifically incorrect but as far as APRA is concerned. The crime lies in contradicting the government’s position.

[Lady] Senator Roberts, so you have a question?

Yes I do, why is AHPRA allowed to do this? And what are you doing to make sure AHPRA is held accountable? Because they’re not as far as I know, to the parliament.

So APRA is a creature of all governments. So it’s a creature of all state territory governments and the Commonwealth government. It has its, and it has a range of boards of experts. So there’s a medical board and there are boards of nursing and paramedicine. And I think the message really is in that that final statement that said that promotion of statements or advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seek to actively undermine the national immunisation programme has been determined by APRA and by its expert boards as being unprofessional conduct. And we would support that contention by AHPRA.

So can I get access to that evidence from a AHPRA?

What evidence?

That it’s the best scientific evidence.

[Doctor Murphy] Well, I think the best I think professor been giving you the best scientific evidence all morning, about the the benefit of vaccination. And I think that’s just, there are scientific standards that are well established in the literature.

Can I get the evidence? Not statements and opinions about the evidence. Can I get the evidence?

We can give you lots of evidence?

[Roberts] No can I get AHPRA’s evidence? They’re touting, but remember Dr. Murphy, it’s not only, what might be scientific, it’s also about the contradiction of the public health statements

Senator, if you would like to provide that information to us, we can investigate it on notice and go back to AHPRA

[Roberts] Provide what to you?

And understand what you…

[Roberts] This information?

Yeah, yeah. If you can provide it to us,

[Lady] Senator Roberts.

We can follow it up.

[Roberts] Final question.

[Lady] I’m just conscious of time. Cause I’ve got four other senators now, asking to ask questions.

I’d like to know why ATAGI is not here in person. And also I’d like to know…

Professor Crawford is here online. He’s actually based in Melbourne, senator, so…

[Roberts] Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. I’d like to know the relationship between, Dr. Murphy, between the boards, APRA and the AHPPC. And the final question, public health is quite often used these days in America and in Australia as a catch-all for the community, public health, when, and that’s why orders are given and people are supposed to follow them. But public health is a nonsense. It’s not an entity. The primary public health goes back to the primary relationship between a doctor and a patient. In this country, now, are you aware that there is not a relationship between many doctors and their patients because the doctor has got a puppet master behind him telling him what him, what he can and cannot say.

The Individual relationship between a doctor and his patient is sacrosanct and APRA would not have any problem with a doctor.

[Roberts] Dr. Murphy, they have.

AHPRA would not have a problem with a doctor having an individual discussion with his or her patients around vaccination. What this is talking about is the public promotion of misinformed and wrong scientific evidence. So that’s what they’re concerned about, bringing the profession in to distribute and undermining public confidence.

But what I’m talking about is doctors who are very concerned.

[Lady] Senator Roberts your time has expired now we’re going to move on, I’m sorry.

Just one minute. What I’m very concerned about is doctors who are telling me personally that they cannot give advice because AHPRA is sitting behind them. So what they’re getting is a public health dictate when they go to the doctor, not advice.

Well if you can provide evidence of that

Yes, I will.

We’ll be happy to investigate.

[Roberts] Who do I provide it to?

[Physician] And Senator, I’m very happy to provide a definition of public health as a public health physician. Is it actually a recognised AHPRA profession? And that is me and there are others in the department that have that. And I would refer to my opening statement about what the definition of a public health physician does and how that works. It’s about protecting the population at the population level and preventing death at the population level. That is not in any way to take away the importance, absolute vital importance of the individual doctor, individual patient relationship. It’s a different part of the profession.

[Lady] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] Thank…