Proven over thousands of years and once America’s most prescribed medicine – until Pharma realised the profits it could make from patented products – medicinal cannabis has much to offer in terms of health and well-being. With 820 varieties growing in the Australian cultivar database, there’s a cannabis strain for many individual health conditions.
The Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA) however, insists on tight control of the industry. This inevitably has enabled criminal gangs to provide much of the domestic medicinal supply, leaving the public vulnerable to potentially narcotics-laced products in the black market.
One Nation has advanced legislation to down-regulate medicinal cannabis so that any doctor can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with a medical need and have that prescription filled by a chemist on the PBS. The goal here is to remove the industry’s criminal elements while providing the widest range of quality, whole-plant and natural cannabis for individual patient needs.
The TGA has authorised a range of cannabis products for prescription under its restrictive pathways program, yet there’s no reason not to offer these products in schedule 4, for any doctor to prescribe — truly safe and effective products that have already been prescribed successfully for many years.
By restricting these products using an approval system that has buried the TGA in paperwork they never check, the TGA is just looking out for the pharmaceutical industry and ignoring the needs of everyday Australians.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people in our one Queensland community, I was pleased to accept an invitation from Isaac Balbin, founder of cannabis.org.au, to attend last Thursday’s national cannabis industry roundtable. What a pleasure it was meeting Isaac, Rhys and their team in Melbourne and speaking with other members of parliament who, like One Nation, believe medicinal cannabis is long overdue for sensible downregulation. Medicinal cannabis is marvellous. Proven over thousands of years, in the 1920s it was America’s most prescribed medicine before Big Pharma realised it could not make as much money from a natural plant. There are now 820 varieties—and growing—in the Australian cannabis cultivar database, many developed to suit specific health conditions or needs.
Victorian MP David Limbrick made sensible comments about where the line between government regulation for the good of society and personal freedom should be—and it’s nowhere near where it is now. Legalise Cannabis Party MLC from Western Australia Sophia Moermond spoke to the need for some level of personal growth. While we may not agree on personal growing, there was so much commonality in views being expressed. I’m excited for the potential of the cannabis industry uniting behind a sensible cannabis downregulation.
United Kingdom member of parliament Crispin Blunt updated us on how this is progressing better in the UK than here and provided a framework for evidence-based drug policy. Now, that’s an idea I can get behind: evidence based policy on medicine.
One of Australia’s leading cannabis doctors, Dr Nic Guimmarra, Vice President of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians, raised his concerns that the current licensing schedule has led to a situation where some disreputable cannabis clinics are pushing patients through so quickly that the resulting prescription and instructions for use are counterproductive for the patient. It’s One Nation’s belief that the heavily regulated and restricted pathway system is burying the Therapeutic Goods Administration in paperwork that it’s not checking, causing suboptimal care and, likely, patient harm as conditions worsen instead of being treated.
This is why One Nation advanced legislation to downregulate medicinal cannabis so that any doctor can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with a medical need and have that prescription filled by a chemist on the PBS. Our legislation harmonises the THC level below which a planet is hemp, not cannabis, to one per cent. This aligns with changes made in all states. The bill further adds a level of THC and CBD below which a pharmacist could sell the product to an adult without prescription.
I was pleased to hear Michael Balderstone, President of the Legalise Cannabis Party and a legend of the Australian cannabis industry, warn that new hybrid cannabis strains with THC of up to 35 per cent were a concern needing some regulation. Thirty-five per cent THC is insane. It would suit the treatment of chronic pain and palliative care and very little else. Michael called for some commercial growth activity as otherwise development of new strains will be compromised. This is the problem with free growing without a commercial option. The plant works best when the profile of THC, CBD, terpenes and flavonoids are set to the needs of a person with a specific health condition. Unlike pharmaceuticals, with natural plant cannabis, one size is not expected to fit all. For this development to continue, it needs a commercial market presence. Consensus in the industry may ultimately fall on some level of licensed free growing. One Nation will cross that bridge, in consultation with our members, when we get there.
Last Thursday I heard an analogy for free growing. It was the belief that, just because people can brew their own beer, it doesn’t mean people will. In fact, almost nobody does, because people can readily buy what’s needed commercially. The challenge is to take out the industry’s criminal elements while providing the widest range of quality Australian whole-plant and natural medicinal cannabis at an affordable price.
It’s a scandal that regulatory authorities insist on tight volume controls that enable criminal gangs to provide much of the domestic medicinal supply. These are gangs that lace cannabis with narcotics and then deliberately target kids at events like Schoolies. The TGA is driving practices hurtful and dangerous to children. It’s a scandal that the minister could downschedule cannabis today yet has not done so; scheduling is regulatory, not legislative. It’s a scandal that some in the cannabis industry, including pioneers, have developed their business under the current regulatory regime environment and see downscheduling as a threat to their nice little money-earners.
There’s no reason the entire cannabis product offering that the TGA has authorised for prescription under their restrictive pathways program could not be offered in schedule 4, for any doctor to prescribe—products that have already been prescribed successfully and safely for many years. The minister could use a regulatory instrument to make it happen today, yet he will not, because predatory billionaire owners of pharmaceutical companies pull the strings in Canberra. Australians with a medical need for cannabis don’t get a look-in. This government is saying to everyday Australians, ‘Your needs don’t matter.’
The TGA monitors impacts of cannabis and has found that medicinal cannabis has a lower adverse event rate than prescribed pharmaceuticals. Sensible downregulation will save lives. It will provide hundreds of tailored strains of medicinal cannabis designed to ease suffering and improve the health of our society, while taking the profit and control away from crime gangs. I look forward to working with cannabis.org.au to make this happen.
A cheap, safe, award-winning, generic medicine, one that has been around for decades and was readily available, was shown to save people’s lives during an outbreak of a virus. Do you think it was a good decision for Australia’s Therapeutic Drug Administration (TGA) to arbitrarily ban its availability and off-label prescription in order to save it for skin conditions? Why not just buy more of it?
Despite substantial bodies of evidence from around the world, Australia did not recognise the available proof supporting Ivermectin’s use because no ‘sponsor’ (read pharmaceutical company) brought it to the TGA. What they did do was convene a Commonwealth-funded Clinical Evidence ‘Kangaroo Court’ which declared Ivermectin had no value in the treatment or prevention of COVID19.
This completely ignored a generation of evidence that Ivermectin was an effective early stage treatment for coronavirus.
The TGA continued to ignore the new data that showed Ivermectin was an effective and safe early treatment for COVID until the jab rate was over 95%, then they allowed its use. Here’s the kicker — the TGA admits in this video they made this decision because they were worried that people would not seek vaccination if they believed Ivermectin could help them.
Regulatory capture by pharmaceutical industries is a well known concept but I’m reassured that this “doesn’t happen at the TGA”. Yet in the same line of questioning, the TGA admits that if a pharmaceutical company sponsor does not promote a drug with them, and pay the fee of course, they don’t bother to show the initiative themselves.
This is purely a transactional process, as the TGA itself admits in this senate estimates. It’s clear that there is something very wrong with the system.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA. In the last Senate estimates, I asked Adjunct Professor Skerritt if the TGA was inquiring into the opportunity presented by albicidin, a natural antibacterial derived from a sugarcane virus that does not cause antimicrobial resistance. Dr Skerritt’s response was: We are very closely monitoring the science. In fact, I’m the keynote speaker next Thursday at the Australian Antimicrobial Congress…We haven’t had a submission relating to that product because it’s still very early days, but we are monitoring…antimicrobial resistance because…it’s a serious threat.
I was concerned that was a non-answer, so I asked the minister about it, in question on notice 1449. His response was: ‘The department of health is not conducting a review into albicidin.’ Can you clear this up, please? Are you treating albicidin as a prospective revelation in the battle against antimicrobial resistance, thoroughly deserving of active research and development?
Dr Langham: The normal manner in which the TGA evaluates and assesses a product for use is through a process whereby a sponsor brings us a product, with all of the relevant research, clinical trials and a dossier of its safety and quality, and that has not happened at this stage. Until someone comes to us with this, we’re not able to do anything in terms of furthering what could potentially be a really important treatment; we’re not able to further that, in terms of making it available to the public.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the department of health have any role, ability or authority to sponsor?
Prof. Murphy: Generally, no. Occasionally, we have taken the role of sponsoring in very difficult circumstances, when there’s a drug that’s registered and available and the sponsor doesn’t want to sponsor it. But with an experimental new drug, we would never take that role. Occasionally, there are avenues for us to support drug development through MRFF and NHMRC research. There have certainly been programs that have looked at therapeutic advances in that space. But with a new agent or a new molecule, it would be quite inappropriate for us to take a role as a sponsor.
Senator ROBERTS: The TGA is 96 per cent funded by pharmaceutical companies through fees. Albicidin is a naturally occurring substance. Can it be patented? I would say not.
Prof. Murphy: We’d have to take that on notice. It depends on the use, and patent law is quite complicated. I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is: would it get a sponsor to make an application? Drug companies rely a lot on patents and making excessive profits.
Dr Langham: You would expect so, absolutely.
Prof. Murphy: If it were proven to be highly effective, I would imagine that a drug company would be very interested in pursuing it, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Drug companies have shown that they’re only interested in profits—the major ones.
CHAIR: Please put that as a question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is a question.
CHAIR: What was the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that the case?
Prof. Murphy: No. Private companies all make a profit, but profits can often come by sponsoring highly effective new agents; that’s where they make their biggest profits. This is all highly speculative and I don’t know that we can progress it much further.
Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has produced a guide to controlling antimicrobial resistance that assumes massive government power, including close monitoring and regulation of homes, pets, agriculture, waterways, new vaccines against diseases that used to be controlled by antibiotics and, of course, conferences. Antimicrobial resistance is being set up to be a massive government and pharmaceutical company gravy train. Why are you ignoring a probable solution to antimicrobial resistance? Do you want the power to order more vaccines, to wield more intrusive powers and to make more sales for big pharma, which is the history of the last few years?
Prof. Murphy: We reject that assertion. We completely accept the assertion that antimicrobial resistance is a significant problem. One of the ways that we have been, for many years, trying to combat it is to try to encourage prescribers in the use of antibiotics to reduce their use of antibiotics, which is not in the interests necessarily of the pharmaceutical industry. We are very keen to make sure that we limit the use of antibiotics to those situations where they are absolutely essential. There’s a lot of unnecessary prescription of antibiotics, and some of that is a real problem. We certainly have a lot of interest in antimicrobial resistance, and any new agent would be of interest to us. But we are not in a position to sponsor something like that.
Ms Duffy: We are in collaboration with the CSIRO in advancing their work and we have been involved in a number of CSIRO roundtables on this project that they’re going through, so we are working in lockstep with them.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to medical or medicinal cannabis. My office is getting reports that prescriptions of dried medical cannabis issued under the pathways scheme are being endorsed with the phrase ‘for vaping’, and that requires patients to also buy and use a vape. A doctor that my office spoke to has advised that this is a TGA instruction; is that correct?
Dr Langham: Medicinal cannabis products, with the exception of two of them, are not regulated as ‘medicinal products’ by the TGA. They are available under a special access scheme, and it’s a condition of the special access scheme that the practitioner who is approved to prescribe adopts all of the undertaking to ‘consent’ patients, to understand the research, to advise on side effects and so forth. The TGA does not regulate any of the medicinal cannabis products in Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you require someone who uses medical cannabis in dried form to purchase a vape— the device?
Dr Langham: It’s not our advice, no, and it would be coming from the medical practitioner, if the medical practitioner felt that there was a substance that was better done as an ointment, a tablet, a spray or a vape. I don’t know whether you’re able to add anything on vaping devices for that.
Ms Duffy: In terms of the method of delivery, it would be up to the treating practitioner to identify the most appropriate method for that patient.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Langham: I’d need help on what’s in the act and what’s in the regulations.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I didn’t understand all elements of that question.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat it?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I don’t know that’s an entirely accurate statement. Some of the process is set out in primary legislation and some of it is set out in delegated legislation. But, yes, there are some administrative policies that support the administration of the act.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the suspension of these processes by the minister and/or the secretary during COVID prove that the ARTG—the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods—process is whatever the secretary or the minister says that it is?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: That’s simply not the case. The secretary’s powers are bounded by the act and instruments made under the act, including regulations, which are made by the Governor-General.
Senator ROBERTS: COVID vaccines were not manufactured under good manufacturing process, GMP, so even this basic requirement for the approval of a drug is just a preference and not a legislated requirement, is it not?
Mr Henderson: For the provisional approvals of the vaccines, they needed to provide evidence that they were manufactured under good manufacturing practices.
Senator ROBERTS: But they weren’t. Could you get us a copy of that evidence, please?
Mr Henderson: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, fine. Referencing section 26BF of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, this ‘allows the minister to direct the operations of the secretary in respect of the scheduling and listing of products’. Minister, isn’t it true that the minister could down-schedule medicinal cannabis to schedule 4 and move the products approved for prescription under the pathways program onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods right now, if he wanted to? He might not intend doing that, but it is within the minister’s power, isn’t it?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the minister could regulate right now to move medicinal cannabis to schedule 4. Thank you, Minister.
CHAIR: I believe that the witness is taking that on notice; is that right?
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes. We can take it on notice, but I’ll just add that I don’t believe that power supports that. The usual process is that there has to be a legislative instrument, made under a power much further down in the act, to amend the Poisons Standard.
Senator ROBERTS: The way that I’ve been advised, I’m pretty confident that it’s just a ministerial regulation.
Dr Gilmour-Walsh: We can consider that further, but that’s not my general understanding.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, my office checked all the state legislation on prescribing and found much commonality. There is the use of a simple statement such as ‘prescriptions can be issued for anything listed in schedule 4′. There is no separate state list of drugs. If medicinal cannabis were down-scheduled federally, the states would need to introduce legislation to over-rule that decision and then get that legislation through their own parliament; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, could the bill introduced by Senator Hanson to down-schedule medicinal cannabis be regulated right now, today, if the minister chose to do so? In other words: the legislation is not needed and the minister could just regulate.
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s come back to today. Today is a wonderful day to celebrate. Today is 1 June 2023. From 1 June 2023, the prescribing of oral ivermectin for off-label uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists et cetera. It’s back and can be used off-label. I must note, to keep the secretary calm, that the TGA says that it does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. It doesn’t do that, but it can be used for that. Craig Kelly, a former member of parliament, contacted the office of the chief minister in Uttar Pradesh—Uttar Pradesh is a state in India—and asked for guidance on how Uttar Pradesh had successfully used ivermectin to control the COVID virus in Uttar Pradesh. He received great information on their success. If a member of parliament, at the time, could reach out like that to be better informed, why didn’t the TGA reach out and be better informed on ivermectin?
Prof. Murphy: The TGA relies on the body of scientific evidence. Professor Langham can talk about that. We rely on the published scientific evidence and not the statement of a politician in India. Professor Langham, do you want to comment?
Dr Langham: Thank you. I guess it comes back to my earlier point that a drug, a medicine or a product that is on the ARTG is there for a specific indication. In this case, the specific indication for ivermectin—for which there’s been a dossier provided, evaluated by the TGA as robust, good clinical science—is that it is useful for the treatment of certain parasitic illnesses, be they gastrointestinal or skin based. No evidence has been presented to the TGA by the sponsor to demonstrate in any way, shape or form that ivermectin is useful in treating COVID-19. If the sponsor would like to do so, we’d be happy to consider that, because that’s the only way that the TGA is able to expand that indication.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I table these for discussion, please, Chair.
CHAIR: You can submit them to the committee for consideration. It’s going to take a while to work through them, by the look of it.
Senator ROBERTS: What is being distributed is an affidavit from Dr Pierre Kory in the United States. He has gone through this for many years and he has compiled many references—I think it’s over 96—that praise ivermectin’s use in treating COVID. It’s been used in many countries and has stopped COVID in its tracks. It has been not only a treatment but also a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of the disease. This is my last question: are you aware of any successful programs overseas that used ivermectin to control the pandemic? Now you’ve got the evidence, Professor Langham.
Dr Langham: Obviously, there’s a very dense article here and a lot of different publications are being referenced. For me to pass judgement on this particular body of evidence, I’d need to take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear you say that, because I wouldn’t want it done on the spur of the moment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/792LxTu1Tgs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-09 10:19:212023-10-09 10:21:57TGA is Risking Your Health to Act as a Sales Agent for Big Pharma
One Nation supports the general principle that students should be able to finish their studies without breaking the bank. The real conversation needed though is the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
At a time when Australia is desperate for trained health professionals, medical colleges punitively restrict the amount of places available for students, denying Australians a proper supply and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. A second look into this practice is needed.
While we’re at it, students that chose not to take the COVID injections need to be allowed to complete their studies or have their HECS debt refunded.
Transcript
One Nation supports the general principle that this MPI proposes, that students should not have to go broke to finish their studies. The medical colleges currently rely on huge numbers of students paying their own out-of-pocket costs and even making thousands of hours of unpaid placements in addition to their studies. The real conversation we need to have, though, is about the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
Australia is crying out for health professionals, and the fees to see them are too high for some people. While this is happening, the medical colleges putatively restrict the amount of places available to students, denying Australians a proper supply of trained professionals and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. We need to have a second look at the medical colleges. And we need to have a look at the universities, who are punishing some people who have completed their academic studies and just need to do their practical courses. The universities are forcing them out because of mandates for COVID injections. That’s inhuman—three to four years work and a contract broken.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/DthftGT3j4M/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-06 14:47:312023-09-06 14:47:35What does Big Pharma Have to Gain?
We know COVID injections contain spike proteins that instruct human cells to make spike proteins for extended periods of time.
I asked these questions in the Senate:
What is the biological function of the COVID spike protein?
Are COVID injections fundamentally safe?
Could the COVID injections be instructing human bodies to make a substance which is making them sicker not healthier?
Moderna has told us that spike proteins are the same whether derived from COVID or the injections. Spike proteins fuse cells together.
Big pharma tried and failed for 20 years to use spike proteins as an antigen so they’re nothing new. COVID was just an excuse to finally use them without the usual safety net of robust regulations and trial data, and make obscene profits.
The spike protein has an unknown impact on the body’s complex mechanisms involving laminin. These large cross-shaped proteins are often called the ‘god molecule’ for their shape. They are part of the body’s healing processes.
Another problem with the spike protein in these injections is that the virus mutates rapidly, making the injection lose any effectiveness very quickly. This is why the so-called ‘vaccine’ was not an immunisation and did not stop infection or transmission.
The COVID injections did not offer protection against new strains. There was no valid independent science to support that statement. That was a lie. The TGA would normally prosecute any pharma company making such claims, and yet it was the TGA itself making that statement!
Spike proteins are also able to trigger cell fusion in brain tissue, possibly causing brain dysfunction and damage leading to ‘long COVID’. As Moderna has revealed, there is no difference between spike proteins from COVID or the COVID injection.
The West has spent the past three years injecting people with the very thing that causes long COVID. Spike proteins.
How this has happened is the scandal that must be investigated immediately.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I ask a question tonight: what is the biological function of the COVID spike protein? This question asks whether COVID injections are fundamentally safe, because we know that COVID injections contain spike protein that embed into our system a genetic instruction for human cells to make spike proteins for extended periods of time. Could COVID injections be instructing human bodies to make a substance that’s making bodies sicker not healthier? Let’s review the latest data.
First point: spike protein may replace a protein molecule called laminin. Laminin is found in the extracellular matrix, the sheets of protein that form the substrate of all internal organs. Laminin is critical to how our cells hold together. Interfering with laminin can cause our organs to fail. Laminin is shaped like a crucifix and is widely known as the ‘God molecule’. When I met with Moderna in my office a few months ago, they were happy to admit that their spike protein was identical to the spike protein molecule in COVID. So, when studying spike protein, it does not matter what the source is. What matters is that, with the new study on the effects of that spike protein on the body, COVID injections are instructing body cells to produce spike proteins.
What we do know is that the spike protein is fusogenic, meaning its job is to bind cells together—think velcro. It does the same job that laminin does. Big pharma has tried to use spike proteins as an antigen for 20 years, and for 20 years they failed. The COVID injections were not a sudden success. Pharma simply lied and cheated on the clinical trials to use this thing they had spent billions on in an injection arranged to be rushed through approvals, and they made obscene profits in the process.
Now we’re seeing symptoms that can be explained with the discovery that the spike protein replaces laminin in the extracellular matrix. Does the spike protein interfere with laminin? The answer is: we do not know. This is what happens when we do not know yet insist on playing God. The reason using spike proteins as an antigen has failed is because the spike protein mutates in the wild every few weeks. A COVID injection loses any claim to effectiveness very quickly and needs to be updated. This is why the COVID injections are being retired and new ones are being released continually.
Do you remember when we were told that the vaccines offered protection against new strains and to keep taking them? That was a lie—a bloody lie. There was no valid independent science to support that statement. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, would normally prosecute a drug maker making misleading comments about their product without proof of the claim. In this case, though, it was the TGA making the misleading claims, so it’s the TGA who should be held to account.
COVID injection effectiveness was knowingly misrepresented, and here’s why. There’s no pathway for an antibody and a serum—blood—to get into the lung. While we can deliver a drug to the lungs and it will get into the serum, it can’t go back the other way, from serum to the lungs. The problem is that, in order to stop infection and transmission, the injections had to get into the lungs and the nose. The COVID injections simply never made it there. People who took the injection had levels of IgG antibody in the nose and lungs that were 1,000 times less than the levels in their blood. This is why the injections did not stop infection or transmission and never could have. The TGA knew, or should have known. This was the science, and they bloody well ignored it to promote injections that failed miserably and killed tens of thousands of people, melting down and exploding the database of adverse events.
Second point: spike proteins cause brain damage, leading to long COVID. Scientists at Macquarie University and the University of Queensland used mini brains infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus to discover that the spike protein could trigger fusion in cells in both mouse and human brain tissue. The host brain cells are fused, possibly causing brain dysfunction, said Professor Lars Ittner, director of the Dementia Research Centre at Macquarie University. The discovery could explain chronic neurological symptoms such as headaches, brain fog, exhaustion and loss of taste or smell—even long after the initial infection.
Of course, spike protein from the injection was not included in the study, and yet, as Moderna themselves say, there’s no bloody difference. The West has spent three years injecting people with the very thing that’s most likely causing long COVID. Big pharma never researched the effect of their spike protein on the human body yet received approval for their sickening products anyway. How this happened is a scandal that must be referred to a Senate select inquiry immediately.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Jy0cao96Mzw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-18 13:49:552023-08-18 18:52:32Spike Protein Scandal Should be Referred to Senate Select Inquiry
Minister Gallagher seemed to misunderstand the last question on both opportunities to answer it. She did not answer what happens with other medicines. She and others present around her made faces and lipreading Minister Wong would be interesting.
Minister Gallagher’s unguarded expressions give viewers the impression that she felt the question was inappropriate. She only wanted to talk about COVID emergency and repeat the tired pharma marketing messages.
Who does the batch testing? Not the safety testing which is part of vaccine approval.
Who is responsible for testing batches of medicines for quality when they are imported into Australia?
These are questions the Australian public are entitled to know the answers to because our lives depend on it. They are not impositions on ministers. They are part of the job of serving the best interests of the people.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the minister for health, Senator Gallagher. Minister, the COVID batch release assessment for each COVID vaccine batch is produced after testing each batch. Who performed the test?
Senator Gallagher: This would have been work led by the TGA, but I will see if I can find further information about whether or not they were assisted by other laboratories. I imagine they were, as part of that work, but I will check and see if there’s anything further I can provide to Senator Roberts.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: If an Australian laboratory acting on behalf of the Australian government has not tested the COVID vaccines, we could be buying adulterated product, mislabelled product or saline. How do the people and how does the Senate know what’s in the vaccines?
Senator Gallagher: It’s because it will go through the TGA’s established processes—that’s why. There would be significant checking of those arrangements with laboratories doing that work. This isn’t something that would be just left to a laboratory saying, ‘I’ve done it,’ and it being ticked off. The quality and safety measures that would be put in place by the TGA in getting those approvals are thorough. As we have seen through the rollout of the vaccine, the vaccine is safe and effective. We’ve seen that over the last three years after it was rolled out and millions and millions of vaccines have been provided through the vaccine rollout program, including the fact that we are now seeing significantly less severe disease or loss of life from— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: How many other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs are being imported into Australia in a situation where the safety testing was on the honour system, allowing the drug company or manufacturer to provide their own safety testing?
Senator Gallagher: For a start, I don’t accept that it was done on an honour system. I do accept that in relation to the COVID vaccine process it was a shortened process because of the urgency and the crisis that the world was in, as the pandemic rolled through. It required the vaccine being created, and then—
The President: Senator Roberts, a point of order?
Senator Roberts: Thank you, President. My question was about other vaccines or schedule 4 drugs, not the COVID vaccines.
The President: I think the minister went to that, but I will remind her of that part of your question.
Senator Gallagher: I guess the point I’m making, Senator Roberts, is it was a highly unusual situation to be in. I think everyone’s acknowledged that the process around the approvals for the COVID vaccine were different and had been shortened, when compared to the approvals for other drugs. That is reflective of the fact that we were in a global pandemic and millions of people were dying from the effects of COVID and that we needed a vaccine in place to protect the community, and that’s actually what happened through the TGA’s approval processes.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZpFxx0z8jIA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-08-08 10:52:292023-08-08 16:35:34How bad is my batch just morphed into how bad is my Minister for Health!
One Nation attempted to refer “gender affirmation” treatment to a Senate inquiry to expose the harm that is being done to our children.
The gender cult is hell-bent on confusing our kids and leading them down the path of irreversible changes for no medical outcome. We must protect our children from these predators.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Hanson’s motion to refer the issue of treatment options for young people with gender dysphoria to an inquiry. It’s a simple fact that the model of gender affirmation is completely experimental, and that’s at best. More likely, it’s mutilation and debasement of children. Gender affirmation treatment is putting children who feel confusion about their gender at a young age on the pathway to life-altering hormone blockers and irreversible surgery. It’s butchery when children need something else.
People seem to have difficulty accepting this, but some feelings of confusion are completely normal as teenagers make their way through puberty and experience many new changes to their bodies. Left alone or dealt with by counselling and therapy—and love, in the severe cases—these feelings almost always resolve themselves. That is fact. Children need love, compassion, support and respect.
I have a relative who had gender dysphoria much of her life. She contemplated gender surgery. She decided to start the process. She made the decision, and, before doing so, she decided she would not adopt chemicals or surgery. She and her doctor wife came to accept her dysphoria. They are now proud parents of a lovely young child, and we accept and love her regardless of her decision. I have a friend who did change gender the opposite way, from male to female—another lovely person. These people need to be accepted, but children need support, counselling and love, not chemicals and scalpels.
As I said, the alternative to this gender affirmation is leaving kids to work through their issues lovingly, with support, counselling and therapy. The alternative is gender affirmation. Gender affirmation involves telling children that sex is just an arbitrary concept—that’s a lie—and that you can choose to be a boy or a girl whenever you want; with a click of the fingers, you can change teams with little to no consequence. Introducing this idea around the time of puberty and of other feelings of confusion is a dangerous, risky cocktail. Right at the time children are feeling most confused, they’re told that nothing is real and that everything will be fixed if they simply switch teams. The gender affirmation witchdoctors won’t tell children that fully committing to pretending to be a boy or a girl, if they weren’t born that way, simply isn’t simple. Basic biology gets in the way.
The only way to try and eventually effect this change is through a potent, permanent and dangerous cocktail of drugs, they are told, often prescribed off label in addition to permanent, irreversible surgery to lop off bits of people’s bodies. Gender affirmation advocates claim these treatments are reversible. That is a lie. Many children who were pressured into the gender affirmation pathway are coming to regret those choices as adults. De-transitioners are a growing community of adults who now find they will never fully embody their target gender yet are unable to return to the gender they were born due to the irreversible effects of gender affirmation drugs and surgeries. Instead, they’re left dependent on expensive cocktails of gender hormone drugs for the rest of their lives.
The real winner out of the gender affirmation pathway is big pharma, being delivered waves upon waves of medication-dependent consumers for life. It’s worth billions of dollars, despite the small number of people. The victims of the gender affirmation pathway, though, are left destitute, with no accountability for the outcomes that extremists in the gender cult pushed onto them from an adolescent age—extremists like senators in this chamber—for whatever reason.
It’s important to keep in mind the issue that’s trying to be fixed here: feelings of confusion or stress in children going through adolescence. There’s no longitudinal evidence that the gender affirmation pathway leading to gender reassignment fixes the core issue. There’s much evidence that it does not and that it does enormous harm. In fact, the transgender community is at the highest risk of suicide of nearly any community in the world. Why? Because so many young people come to regret their change and are trapped—trapped for life, in being unable to change back to their birth gender, which they’ve come to accept. They are trapped for life, unable to have children themselves, unable to live a normal life and regretting their decision for the rest of their life because they made their decision as an impressionable child. Whether they’re simply predisposed to psychological distress or that distress is created or compounded by the failed gender affirmation pathway is difficult to say. What can be said, however, is that if reassignment surgeries and drugs are meant to be a cure for psychological distress in children, they have absolutely and obviously failed. They’re failing many, many children.
The truth is that putting children on the gender affirmation pathway is a pathway to butchering people for no healthy clinical outcome. Many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns. I’ll say that again: many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns, yet have been shouted down by the powerful big pharma and transgender cult that holds power at the moment. The United Kingdom has seen this problem and lived this problem. After whistleblowers blew the lid on medical abuse happening at Tavistock gender clinic, the entire clinic was shut down—the entire clinic that was once held up on a pillar and treated as a god. Now it’s facing class action suits and people are recognising the hideous crimes that they have committed.
At the very least, these issues need to be referred to a committee for inquiry. Those who support the gender affirmation pathway shouldn’t be afraid of the truth through an inquiry. What’s wrong with knowledge? If I’m wrong, then an inquiry will prove you right. Of what are you lot afraid? Greens use labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest or the fearful. They support big pharma. Please stop demonising children with gender dysphoria and those who have a different view. I suspect the gender cult knows that the truth is not on their side and that’s why they’re running scared of looking underneath the hood on this issue—an issue affecting children.
One Nation will stand against sending children down a path of drug dependency and body mutilation to appease the gender cult. I’m never caught up in gender, race or national heritage. Every human, regardless of skin colour, for example, and regardless of heritage, has red blood running through their veins—every single human.
We are one. I am very, very pro-human.
Send this to an inquiry and get to the facts and find out what will actually help children. Until then, leave our kids alone.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Lpi3_fVYIS4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-22 11:38:422023-06-22 11:38:45Leave the children alone!
The politics of today seek to turn Australians against each other. We must resist this division as it only serves the interests of multinational companies and power-hungry politicians.
Transcript
The architect of our Parliament House, Romaldo Giurgola gave the Australian flag pride of place in his design.
A flag the size of a double decker bus, atop an 80m flag pole with supports that bring together the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The symbolism is clear, the Senate and the House of Representatives hold up our flag.
Not the other way around.
Any person who comes into this place, who does not then look up and feel awestruck with where we work, and with the responsibility we have, as Senators has no place being here.
The Australian flag flies above us for direction, not decoration.
We are directed to remember those who were here first and the millions who have come since. Immigrants who have come to this beautiful country to make a better life for themselves and to lift up all Australians in the process.
Including the Italian born architect of Parliament House – which I imagine explains all the marble.
Mr President we are directed to remember that we represent people not corporations.
Yet the winners from 18 months of COVID crony Government are not everyday Australians. The winners from croney govt are foreign multinationals. Big Pharma.
Never in the history of this beautiful country of ours has government policy so comprehensively abandoned those we represent, in favour of those we do not.
When Government needs to deploy the military to maintain control of our own people, to effect a social outcome rather than a medical one, there is only one description for that.
Martial law.
How this government acts in the coming months will decide if a second description should be added.
Treason.
Dividing Australians by any arbitrary measure including vaccination status flies in the face of everything our flag stands for, of everything this nation stands for.
We will not be divided!
We have One flag, we are One Community, we are One Nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/OC2LrwafflU/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-03 14:20:322022-06-21 14:01:54Under one flag we stand undivided.
[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning Marcus, how are you?
[Marcus Paul] All right, as a Queensland Senator, are you going to welcome the 2032 Olympic games to Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast with open arms?
[Malcolm Roberts] If they ever get here, mate, once the decision is made that’s it. Of course I welcome people here, but I abhor the decision from Annastacia Palaszczuk. It’s an absolutely terrible decision. We’ve got productive capacity, needed investment across our state, and across our country, and they’re gonna blow it on a festival? To get her votes? No this is rubbish, it’s nonsense.
[Marcus Paul] All right. So, but you concur with what the boss says, Pauline Hanson, that’s you know, we could do without spending the billions of dollars that it’ll cost to run the 2032 games in Brisbane. Well, I mean, they’ve been announced, they’re coming to Queensland, so I guess I dunno, we need to just make sure the government doesn’t blow out the cost, I guess, I dunno.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, Marcus, how did Brisbane win anything? How did we win anything? No one else wanted these damn games. We’ve got, the Commonwealth games was a flop, because of the way the labour state government mismanaged it in this state. Again, they made Beattie in charge of it, Peter Beattie in charge of it, and he turned it into a disaster, a public relations disaster. It was a disaster for the Gold Coast, the way he mismanaged that. We’ve got, I was in Julia Creek, not long ago in the Northwest of our state. And they had recently had a hospital open there, a new hospital, but they can’t find any staff to run it. And you know, what that means is people who are in aged care there, have moved out of town. So they’ve lost their family as well. I mean, this state is being so terribly mismanaged. We have got a $130 billion loan, sorry, debt. That’s what our debt is. We’ve got a mismanaged economy. The state government is just running this state into the ground. It’s just telling lies, and it’s just running from one catastrophe to the next. The COVID mismanagement. We have, I was in North, I’m in North Queensland now. I’m calling from Bamaga. We went through Moreton Telegraph, or Moreton Telegraph station just a couple of days ago. They had, the people who are running that business, lost their business in Cairns, a major touring company, tourist company, because of mismanagement. They can’t put up with the state government. It’s just destroying our state.
[Marcus Paul] All right, just on vaccinations. I know that Scott Morrison hasn’t ruled out at all, the possibility of a so-called vaccine passport. We know in France, the president, Emmanuel Macron, has introduced the vaccine passport system. Without a jab, people can’t go to restaurants, or cafes, get on planes, or trains to travel. Look, obviously there’ll be, you know, different countries around the world, where we’ll basically ask people to prove that they’re vaccinated, before they get access to so-called privileges. Look, I don’t know. I know you’re dead set against them, but I have a sneaking suspicion mate, that this is what’s on the way, a vaccine passport system here in Australia, as well.
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s a vaccine prison. It’s not a vaccine passport, it’s a vaccine prison, because it locks people out of everyday activities, travel, services, and mixing with their fellow humans in their own communities. It’s a vaccine prison. Scott Morrison promised, that there would be no vaccine prison. And now he’s trying to push one in, through the aged care facilities. We’ve had thousands of people contact us, deluged, with really serious concerns. Some of my staff have been crying with them on the phone. These people love working in aged care. They love servicing the guests in aged care facilities. They’re going to be leaving them, abandoning them, because they don’t want their own health compromised. We’ve got, in America, as of the 7th of July, it’s increased since then enormously, there were 9,000 deaths due to vaccines, and that’s not even counting AstraZeneca, I don’t think they do that over there. And they’ve had a thousand miscarriages. They have had no testing on the female reproductive systems. And that is possible, because they use rats and to do it, if they did the test, but they haven’t done the test on these vaccines. it’s just disgraceful. This is the first time in human history, where a government has knowingly injected something that can kill you into healthy people. And it’s also the first time in human history, that a government has willfully ignored a proven cure, ivermectin, and let people rot and die, because of COVID when they can’t get Ivermectin even though it’s proven, safe, affordable, and effective.
[Marcus Paul] Well it’s obviously not on the government’s radar. You and I have talked about ivermectin, and all the other options that are elsewhere available before, but it’s quite clear, the medical fraternity in this country, don’t wanna use it, otherwise we would be using it. And you’ve got to ask the question, “Why?” I’m not quite sure. What I do now-
[Malcolm Roberts] No, no.
[Marcus Paul] Hang on, hang on. But what I do know is that we rolled the dice. We went with the wrong jockey, if you like, in AstraZeneca, and we’re paying the price for it now.
[Malcolm Roberts] There are many medical practitioners, and allied healthcare practitioners in this country, who strongly support ivermectin’s use.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, but the government, my point being, the government’s not listening to them.
[Malcolm Roberts] Correct.
[Marcus Paul] And if they were listening to them, then as you say, ivermectin and others would be in the mix. The question is, why aren’t they? Maybe, you know, because Craig Kelly was on the nose. I don’t know. I know that those who have been pushing it, yourself, Craig Kelly and others. But I do have to wonder why, our medical experts at a federal and state level have shied away from it? They just don’t wanna know about it. Why is that Malcolm? You’re a Senator. You have the ability to ask these questions within the Senate. Why is it that they’re not using ivermectin, or other as you put it, so-called scientifically proven methods to control COVID?
[Malcolm Roberts] It’s very simple, in my opinion, Marcus. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party, National Party have run this country into the ground over the last 40 years. Even more, if you go back to the root cause in 1944.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, but you’re not answering the question.
[Malcolm Roberts] No, no, I am answering your question. What they have done, is they have played second fiddle. They’d been the lackeys for multinational corporations. Multinational corporations in this country, do not have to pay company tax. That’s a fact. That means you and I, and everyone listening is paying their share, the multinational share. Now multinationals behind these vaccines, have got a monopoly, while ever there’s no proven safe, effective, affordable alternative. So the government is not, that’s my belief, that they’re suppressing ivermectin, because if they passed ivermectin, and approved it for use for COVID, there would be no need whatsoever, whatsoever for these vaccines. Plus in addition, we’d be able to open the country up. And because it is known to cure people with COVID, known to already do that. It’s been demonstrated in many countries overseas. It’s been demonstrated also as a prophylactic to prevent you getting COVID. So this is insane.
[Marcus Paul] All right, so basically what you’re saying, is the government don’t wanna know, or our politicians don’t wanna know about the alternative treatments, because there’s nothing in it for them. I mean, we hear stories of certain MPS, and I, this is where I get really annoyed. We hear stories, I don’t know about how true they are. So I’ve got to be a little careful here, but you do hear stories of certain government MPS having shares in a number of the manufacturers of the approved vaccines. Now that to me is a concern, now.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s a big concern. I haven’t done that research Marcus, so I’m not gonna say too much about it. But if it’s true, that’s a very, very serious indecent thing.
[Marcus Paul] Well, there’s a lotta of rumours about it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well that’s the thing you know, there so many rumours on the internet about these things. And what we’ve gotta face up to, is the fact that this government has botched the delivery of the vaccines. It’s botched, and same with Labour Party, The Labour Party and the Liberal Party have refused to deal with the fundamental question, which is, should we be vaccinating, not how do we vaccinate. What they’ve done, is they’ve skipped the should we be vaccinating, and looked at that and had a serious debate about the pros and cons, and gone straight to how do we vaccinate? That’s a con job. And so what we’ve got at the very minimum, is a serious abdication of accountability and responsibility yet again, from the federal government in this country. Plus, as you point out, maybe serious conflicts of interest.
[Marcus Paul] Malcolm, good to have you on mate. We’ll talk again soon, appreciate it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, Marcus, little bit.
[Marcus Paul] All right, there he is, Queensland One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Wow, agree, disagree. Look, as I say, this programme is a broad church, and I allow all opinions. Even those that perhaps, you know, skirt the, well, the probability of almost being realistic. Look, I don’t know. You know Malcolm Roberts, a lot of people don’t like him, but he’s, you know, give him credit where it’s due. He researches, he looks into the issues. And you know, there are a lot of people who do support the use of other formulas or methods to deal with COVID. But it’s quite obvious that the medical fraternity here in Australia, and our politicians don’t agree with him. Otherwise, you know, we’d be using ivermectin, and all these other things that they talk about. But we’re not, we’re stuck with what we’ve got, and here we are, lock downs
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Capture-3.png?fit=1045%2C591&ssl=15911045Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-07-22 14:34:582021-08-19 16:28:51No-lympics, Vaccine Passports and ivermectin – 2SM with Marcus Paul
