Posts

The Hidden COVID Reality

, ,

Newly declassified US evidence and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s released records show COVID-19 was a man-made, lab-engineered virus from Wuhan. Alternative treatments (like Ivermectin) were suppressed to force uptake of rushed mRNA vaccines, which financially benefited NIAID through patent royalties.

Citing data from the McCullough Foundation and epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, mRNA injections cause “turbo-cancer” (aggressive cancer), which did not exist before COVID. 35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. These key mechanisms include DNA repair impairment, chronic inflammation from lipid nanoparticles and immune suppression.

Published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbo-cancer cases across 27 countries, involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. 86% of these cases occurred following vaccination, while 14% were following SARS CoV-2 infection. Preventions appear worse than the disease!

On population evidence, USA cancer deaths since the injections in 2021 is between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4% in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5%. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4%, small intestine cancer is up 15.5%, ovarian cancer is up 12.8%, stomach cancer is up 7.3%, and female breast cancer is up 3.6%. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23% higher risk of cancer hospitalisation.

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia – however there is none. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis. After four years, why is that simple data not available? Perhaps because they don’t want you to know!

Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing — substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did.

COVID-19 vaccines received expedited testing compared to standard multi-year clinical trials – while the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) “allegedly” persecuted truth-telling doctors and medical professionals.

One Nation again calls for a comprehensive royal commission to investigate COVID-19 origins, mandates, vaccine safety and regulatory actions.

Transcript

Last Senate session, I presented the Senate with the latest evidence from the United States on the COVID scandal—the crimes and homicides and, in particular, the role of the former director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, Dr Anthony Fauci. This was evidence declassified through the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy, who at the time was the inspector general of the US Department of Defense. This information was corroborated using Fauci’s own diaries and phone released under freedom of information just a few weeks ago. The unavoidable conclusion is that the world was brought to its knees using a man-made engineered virus developed through gain-of-function research to create a weaponised virus candidate which then escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China, and infected the world. 

What followed was a cover-up on the origin and suppression of effective early interventions to make the impact worse. Why? To sell vaccines—injections—that were rushed through and are now killing and maiming people. Who benefits from that? Well, Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID. NIAID under Fauci had a direct, well-documented institutional role in vaccine research, patenting of key technologies, licensing to companies and receiving of royalties. NIAID conducted the foundational work in the development of the mRNA platform and held patents on stabilised prefusion spike proteins—yes, those spike proteins. This means that the organisation that owned the patent related to spike proteins acted to ban alternative therapies such as Ivermectin, which was proven, and Fenbendazole, which is proven, so the world had no choice and was forced to use the COVID shots, which contain spike proteins, which then earned NIAID half a billion Australian dollars in royalties. All this was at the same time—as records show—that they knew the injections caused myocarditis and were next to useless. This is in their own words in their own diary, text messages and emails. All of this is public record, even if you have not heard about it. My other speeches on this subject are available on my website. 

Tonight, I’ll expand on my comments that the injections are now killing and maiming people. As always, I use peer reviewed science, facts and data. I thank epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and the McCullough Foundation for the work I’m referencing tonight. The link between mRNA vaccines, injections and cancer is mechanistic, clinical and evident in population studies—scientific studies. 

To the mechanistic evidence—35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. I will post a link to the literature review on my website. Key mechanisms include impaired DNA repair allowing damaged cells to become cancerous; presence of SV40 cell division enhancer that enhances cancer growth—that one was criminal; LINE-1 reverse transcription, DNA segments left over from the growing medium incorporating into a person’s DNA; frameshifting leading to cell damage and random mutations; chronic inflammation due to the lipid nanoparticles holding the messenger RNA strands; immune suppression through the ACE2 receptor, amongst others; and cancer stem cell expansion. The McCullough Foundation proposes a concurrent hit model. These processes do not necessarily operate independently or sequentially. Multiple cancer-promoting hits overlap in the same susceptible host person, compressing the time required for dormant, indolent or microscopic disease to become clinically aggressive. This is commonly referred to as ‘turbocancer’, which is just a layman’s term for an aggressive cancer, which did exist before COVID. 

On clinical evidence, the published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbocancer cases across 27 countries involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. Eighty-six per cent of these cases occurred following COVID-19 injections, and just 14 per cent were following SARS CoV-2 infection. This is because 14 per cent of cases are from COVID; the rest are from the COVID injections. Was the prevention worse than the disease? That’s a matter for a royal commission. Most likely the answer is yes. 

Across these cases, recurring patterns include rapid cancer progression, short latency recurrence, reactivation of previously controlled disease and tumours involving the injection site or nearby lymph nodes. The platform can distribute systemically, forcing vulnerable tissues, including the heart and brain, to express mutated tumour proteins. This raises the risk of off-target immune attack, cardiac injury and neurological damage. As I pointed out previously, health authorities in the USA knew the risk of myocarditis as early as March 2021 and covered it up. The information in this study puts the science behind the clinical observations of increased myocarditis, pericarditis and Alzheimer’s adjacent diseases. 

Even more concerning, the liquid lipid nanoparticle delivery vehicle itself promoted metastatic growth in mice even without mRNA cargo. This suggests that some oncologic liabilities reside in the platform itself not only the encoded antigen. This confirms emerging research showing that the more COVID boosters, the more lipid nanoparticle and the more spike protein, the greater your risk. 

On population evidence, there have been excess USA cancer deaths since 2021 injections of between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4 per cent in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5 per cent. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4 per cent. Small intestine cancer is up 15.5 per cent. Ovarian cancer is up 12.8 per cent. Stomach cancer is up 7.3 per cent, and female breast cancer is up 3.6 per cent. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23 per cent higher risk of cancer hospitalisation. We have the mechanism, we have the science, and we have the data.  

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia. There is none. Data showing cancer rates moderating through 2023-25 are actually projections—not real data—made in 2022. Some graphs show the dotted lines to indicate projection; others don’t. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. This is not acceptable. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis, and that can be marked provisional until normal processes are followed through. After four years, why is that simple data not available? It’s because they don’t want you to know. 

This is not a history lesson. The first randomised test of mRNA as monotherapy in residual cancer commenced in 2021 and is still underway, with the result expected in 2030. While Moderna advise wonderful outcomes, their data has not been made public nor shared with researchers, so I guess we’ll have to wait until 2030 to find out the truth. The point here is simple: this is a properly conducted mRNA trial, and it’s taking nine years. Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing—substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did. The question for a royal commission is this: why was next to no safety testing—two months instead of nine years—accepted for a substance which was then injected into hundreds of millions or even billions of people? Surely the larger the cohort, the more care that was needed, not the reverse. As I showed last sitting, the American CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, knew almost straightaway the injection was only slightly more effective than natural immunity, so urgency was not the reason. 

Those following this scandal will find much of tonight’s information is familiar. Papers have been available for years on some of these pathways. I referenced some as far back as in 2022. It turns out those qualified epidemiologists and public health luminaries who opposed the official story were right. Many have paid dearly for their principled stand. Some doctors here in Australia are still debarred as a result of showing character when so many displayed cowardice and silence. The pharmaphiles at AHPRA still insist on persecuting the truth-tellers, the doctors of courage and principle, to send a message to the industry that truth will not be tolerated and that acting in the best interests of the patient will not be tolerated. 

Because we did not intervene as strongly as needed back then, AHPRA are doing it again—this time with transgenderism and doctors opposing medicalisation of a psychological condition, a mental health condition. According to AHPRA, the job of a doctor is to keep the pharmaceuticals flowing. If this sounds extreme, you haven’t read the amount I have read on our COVID scandal and you haven’t spoken with the famous medical names from around the world who have given me advice from mid-2020 which has turned out to be accurate. To ensure this never happens again, tonight I repeat One Nation’s call for a royal commission into the COVID scandal, the COVID crimes and the COVID injection homicides. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Silencing the Oath

,

Recent scientific papers, including one by Dr. Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge and another by Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney, reveal high rates of severe adverse events such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and cancer links following COVID-19 vaccination, which were censored or downplayed by authorities.

Australian health authorities ignored these risks.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) silenced dissenting doctors, forcing practitioners to violate the Hippocratic oath. According to AHPRA’s own data, 16 doctors under AHPRA scrutiny have died by suicide.

Doctors’ registration fees have skyrocketed fivefold — not to keep standards high, but to fund Ahpra’s mounting mission creep.

With a growing appetite for complaints and power, AHPRA lack the ability to manage processes fairly or swiftly. When a regulator’s actions lead to serious distress and suicide risks, it’s no wonder they had to convene an “incidents of distress” review.

This isn’t regulation anymore; it’s harming our medical community.

A One Nation government is committed to calling for a royal commission into the COVID-19 medical response and convening a conference of state health ministers to review and reform AHPRA’s regulatory model.

Australians deserve to know who knew what and when regarding the COVID-19 medical response.

https://youtu.be/-HmexHho1zk

Transcript

Senator Roberts: In the week since I spoke about the huge volume of scientific papers on the COVID scandal, more new papers have been published. After years of censorship, Dr Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge published an excellent paper in the EXCLI Journal titled ‘Real-time pharmacovigilance and cardiac risk communication during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Israel’. The paper included the Israeli Ministry of Health’s actual internal pharmacovigilance dataset, showing that, far from being rare and mild, adverse events from the COVID jab are dangerously high. From March to May 2021, immediately after injection started among males under 20, 85 per cent of the hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Among females under 20, 68 per cent of hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Two thirds of these patients had no medical history of heart disease, and 46 of these young people died. 

These are hospitalisations and deaths amongst healthy young people for whom COVID would not have been serious and certainly not fatal. This paper shows Israeli health authorities warned US and European authorities, ‘We are seeing a large number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in young individuals soon after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination.’ Yet the data behind that large number never reached the public. Instead, the warning was framed as ‘rare, mild and transient’—a lie—and the injection regimen was extended to even younger people. Australia did the same. Did we get the data Israel shared? Was our pharmacovigilance compromised? Only a royal commission can get to the bottom of who knew what and when. Only a royal commission can unpack decisions made and recommend changes for those who ignored the adverse events and acted contrary to the best interests of the public. 

Australian researcher Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney has published in the peer reviewed dedicated cancer journal Oncotarget. His paper shows a mechanistic link, which means the process that links, in this case, COVID injections with an outcome—in this case, cancer. I spoke last week of a paper from the McCulloch Foundation, which established a similar mechanistic link. The work in this area is now impossible to ignore. 

Why is this not big news? We have cause and effect, absolute proof of actual cases and hundreds of autopsies of people who should still be alive, and nobody in authority cares. Only One Nation will call a royal commission into a medical response that killed thousands—tens of thousands—of Australians due to adverse events, suicides, incorrect protocols or delays in medical treatment. That is criminal.  

What’s also criminal is the performance of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which is tasked with maintaining Australian medical standards. In Senate estimates hearings I’ve questioned Ahpra on many occasions. I’ve mentioned their jihad against any doctor who refuses to follow their self-determined medical truths and I’ve spoken about capable, sound doctors who are deregistered for the crime of providing their patients with the best possible medical care. Their actions during COVID and since show that Ahpra is dedicated to protecting orthodoxy, maximising pharmaceutical use and causing doctors to break the Hippocratic oath.  

I read an article in the Australian newspaper last weekend from obstetrician Dr Michael Gannon, former head of the Australian Medical Association. The headline correctly summarises the situation in which Ahpra has put us: ‘System to catch bad doctors is causing harm to the good ones.’ It’s killing good ones, and the regulator meant to protect patients has no filter on accepting complaints. Ahpra’s own data shows 16 doctors took their lives while under its scrutiny.  

Doctors’ registration fees have risen fivefold to pay for Ahpra’s mission creep, which is more reminiscent of a ministry of truth than a studious group of medical professionals ensuring their colleagues’ skill levels meet practising standards. In April this year, Ahpra convened the ‘organisational review group—incidents of distress’ to consider serious incidents relating to the suicide of people involved in their regulatory processes, and it’s no bloody wonder. This regulator has an appetite for more and more complaints, growing its budget and power. It’s lacking the ability to manage complaints in a morally fair and expeditious manner and it’s harming our society.  

A One Nation government will convene a conference of state health ministers to review the performance of Ahpra and explore alternative models of regulation based on correcting the balance between the practitioner’s standards and rights and the patient’s best interests. In doing so, One Nation will listen to doctors, nurses and health practitioners.

/0 Comments/by

Every Australian Was Lied To

,

The media tried to smear me to weaken One Nation and they failed.

Their pile-on was nothing more than a distraction from the truth now spilling out in the United States. Anthony Fauci’s — a primary face of the federal COVID-19 response in the US — own dairies and phone records expose the lies, the cover-ups, and the man-made origins of COVID.

These documents show exactly what I’ve been saying for years. COVID was engineered, the public was misled, early treatments were suppressed, and the injections were pushed despite known failures and risks.

While the media called me a “conspiracy theorist”, Nobel-willing scientists and US defence officials were confirming the same facts.

Every Australian was lied to, jabbed or unjabbed. Every one of us!

This is why we need a full royal commission into COVID.

No more cover-ups. No more corporate influence over public health.

Justice for those harmed and accountability for those who orchestrated this scandal.

Transcript

In the last few weeks, the media have tried to drive a wedge between me and Senator Hanson. The journalists’ plan was simple—take statements I’ve made over many years out of context, misrepresent them, falsely portray me as a conspiracy theorist, tell blatant lies about me and invite Pauline to sack me, thereby weakening One Nation and returning power to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, who have exercised that power to advance and enrich their benefactors for decades. They failed. In my adjournment speech last week, I detailed the reason why the media would behave in this manner. I invite everyone to catch up with that speech. I note Karl Stefanovic and now Kyle Sandilands have apologised for being sucked in with the COVID scandal. I thank Karl and Kyle for their honesty in apologising and note it only came after they ceased working for the mainstream media propaganda machine. Honesty is easy when it carries no cost. 

The timing of this failed media pile-on was designed to distract from revelations in the United States relating to the COVID scandal. This includes the role of former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci. The worm has turned against Anthony Fauci. His formerly private work diaries have been subpoenaed and released. His government-issued phone has been subpoenaed, and the contents have been released. The result is a very clear picture of his lies to hide the man-made origin of COVID. Even worse, it proves a criminal conspiracy to cover up adverse events from the COVID vaccines, the injections. Note that in order to call these injections ‘vaccines’ they had to change the definition of ‘vaccine’. Changing the name doesn’t change the outcome. Death, injury, misery—crimes which may never see Fauci before a court of law, given that President Biden granted him a full pardon for all the crimes he committed going back to 2014. There are, though, many others who could and should be charged. 

The Fauci papers prove COVID-19 was a man-made virus whose development commenced in the United States against the law and then moved out of the public eye to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, with American funding from Fauci. The final product, SARS-CoV-2, combined the original and man-made SARS virus with elements of the AIDS virus and a bat virus that was previously unseen in humans. The zoonotic origin of COVID—suggesting a bat virus somehow jumped to humans in the wet market in Wuhan—was made up to mislead the public, frontline health officials and professionals. This was known publicly almost from the start. Many scientists rejected the theory including the late Luc Montagnier, a Nobel Prize winning virologist, who sequenced the COVID DNA in April of 2020. He concluded the presence of a furin cleavage site and the inclusion of segments from the AIDS virus could only be the result of human intervention. 

For those without a crash course in virology, I’ll explain. Furin is the name of the protein used to cut a DNA sequence in order to insert a new piece of DNA. A furin cleavage site is the location of the cut. These can occur naturally. Montagnier, though, concluded the nature and location of the cut and of the material inserted was not natural. He’s right, and I was right to call COVID man made from the start. The number of lowly qualified health professionals and journalists with no medical training who did no research of their own and who tried to debunk the theory is a frightening indictment on the medical profession and on journalism. They ignored the work of a man who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the AIDS virus. I listened to the one man on the planet most qualified to sequence and analyse the COVID DNA. Why didn’t our health professionals and the media? 

The man-made nature of the virus was proven when the US defence department released a report into COVID in August 2021. The author was Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy. He was formerly a fellow at America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, and was the inspector-general of the department of defence at the time—someone else that I listened to. The report states the virus is an American created, deliberately humanised virus that was developed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with the developer being American Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, who received financial grants from Anthony Fauci. For saying exactly that and for telling the truth the media called me a conspiracy theorist. 

The report shows why non-medical interventions like masks and medical countermeasures—that is, vaccines—do not work well against coronavirus. That’s something else I’ve been criticised for saying. America’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, rejected funding this project for ethical reasons, so Anthony Fauci funded the research, and the rest is history. The US military document confirms the date of the COVID virus’s escape: August 2019. This was prior to three researchers at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology presenting to Wuhan hospital with a previously unseen respiratory virus. I was right about COVID being a lab leak and about when it escaped. 

What that means is that Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum ran Event 201 in October 2019 to simulate the outbreak of a deadly virus three months after the virus escaped. That’s something they must have known. They lied about that and still do. Plus, it’s interesting to see the defence report, inter alia, say: 

The reason the disease is so confusing is because it is less a virus than it is engineered spike proteins, hitching a ride on the virus part of the disease. 

COVID-2 was a delivery mechanism for spike proteins. The report continued: 

COVID is readily resolved with early treatment that inhibits the viral replication that spreads the spike proteins around the body. 

Those spike proteins cause a harmful interactive overactive immune response to try and clear the spike proteins from the ACE-2 receptors. 

The spike protein in the COVID virus and in the deadly vaccine stop the ace 2 receptor from doing its job, which is fighting cancer. So they leave us vulnerable to cancer. The source of the spike protein can be from the virus or from the injections. The more injections there are, the more spike protein there is in your body and the lower your defenses are against cancer. It’s no coincidence that Pfizer released a new cancer drug in 2020 and then engaged in a massive scale-up into cancer and cardiovascular portfolios, with the $43 billion acquisition of Seagen in late 2023. They created the problem; they created a solution from the same bloody company. What a great business strategy. It’s a shame about the ethics. It’s a shame about the people who died—who had their health destroyed and their lives destroyed. 

And the report clearly states Daszak knew in 2018 that ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine and interferon inhibited viral replication. Did our health authorities promote these treatments from the start of the outbreak? No. They banned these safe drugs they knew to be effective treatment. When doctors around the world used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to successfully treat COVID, they were threatened and many had their registrations revoked and their livelihoods taken away. In Australia, these included courageous doctors Mark Hobart, My Le-Trinh, David Currie and Paul Oosterhuis—doctors of courage who put their patients’ welfare ahead of their own. Their hero, Anthony Fauci, explained the reason our health officials took a decision that can only be described as criminal malfeasance. According to his diary at 12.30 pm on 27 July 2021, Fauci advised President Biden: ‘The level of virus in the upper throat of vaccinated people with a serious infection was the same as the level in unvaccinated persons.’ The only conclusion from that statement is the vaccine did not stop ‘serious breakthrough cases’ any more than natural immunity did, and they knew it in July 2021, based on research from Israel. Nonetheless, Australian health authorities kept lying to you. On 25 August 2021, Fauci secretly admitted the truth—mRNA COVID jabs failed against hospitalisation and not just infection. Why was this failure not made public? Fauci’s diary from 13 August 2021 states: ‘The CDC’s statement the vaccines were not effective at all in preventing infection and transmission must be rescinded because it would undermine the Department of Justice’s efforts at mandates for vaccines.’ There you have it. The CDC then actually wound the statement back. 

So there you have it. They lied and they covered up a vaccine which at the time they publicly accepted caused myocarditis and was killing people—in order to prevent critical scrutiny, to enable compulsory vaccination and to protect their power, their credibility and their jobs and to avoid the inevitable legal action for malfeasance. There’s so much more to the Fauci papers. They’re public and I’ll put the link on my website. The world suffered because of our health professionals’ self-interest. Jabbed or un-jabbed, we’ve all been lied to. This is why we must call a royal commission into COVID, to ensure public health is never again sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits and industry self-interest. Those who died and those harmed or bereaved must be granted justice. 

/by

COVID Lessons Learned?

, ,

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. Although the report included substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in its response, it did not give them prominence. Instead, the report focused only on process errors—specifically process, rather than medical, errors—especially advice failing to reach decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did receive. It turns out they were not following the science after all.

Specific criticisms of the response included youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission among under-18s were “insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule” and that it may “add unnecessary risk of myocarditis.” The politicians did it anyway.

The bureaucrats who gave this advice kept their mouths shut. The former Director-General of Health, Ashley Bloomfield, was subsequently knighted and is now at the World Health Organisation running the International Health Regulations. The knighthood was obviously not for services to honesty and transparency.

Furthermore, Auckland was kept under Alert Level 4 for 32 days longer than the Director-General of Health advised. These 32 days were over the Christmas period, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families, which is a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community, and Christianity.

Finally, there was a failure to clearly communicate the risks surrounding COVID injection harms—especially myocarditis in young people—which eroded trust in both the government and the medical profession. No kidding!

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr. Helmut Sterz, Pfizer’s former European chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission. He stated that the carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine were never conducted, and that reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled an untested mass rollout, yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in anyway.

One Nation will not stop until we get a Royal Commission into Australia’s response to COVID.

Transcript

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned was handed down last week. The royal commission that New Zealand’s prime minister during COVID, Jacinda Ardern, started was a cover-up until the new government made it slightly more fair dinkum. The report was framed politically, praising all involved as running one of the world’s best COVID responses. To say they didn’t harm people as badly as most other countries is not a compliment, and even that’s unsupportable, based on testimony to the commission. One Nation is not letting go of this issue, because there is another pandemic on the way, just as soon as the gain-of-function research is completed and the inevitable lab leaks occur. Australia is running gain-of-function research at the CSIRO facility in Geelong, including on new strains of Ebola—insane. 

The report did include substantial criticism of New Zealand’s mistakes in their response, although the report did not give it prominence. The report focused only on process errors—not medical but process errors—especially advice not reaching decision-makers and the repeated failure of politicians to follow the advice they did get. It turns out they were not following the science after all. The commission examined so-called vaccines, lockdowns, testing and economic responses from February 2021 to October 2022 to assess decisions taken on the basis of information available at the time. Many decisions that we know today were wrong were not investigated, because that information was not available at the time, nor did the commission hold politicians accountable for making decisions which clearly flew in the face of decency and common sense. 

And the royal commission failed to address the COVID injection’s long-term medical outcomes. Massive increases in cancer rates, myocarditis, brain function, permanently elevated mortality levels, harm to children’s emotional education and development—none were subject to rigorous inquiry. Nothing in this report would stop a future government from repeating key steps of their failed response, because the true extent of the harm was not subject to detailed longitudinal medical study during the inquiry. 

Here are the main findings and the main failings in the government response that the commission did find: Firstly—youth vaccine mandates for 12- to 17-year-olds. On 9 December 2021, the COVID-19 vaccine technical advisory group gave clear advice to the government that the risks of COVID-19 transmission amongst under-18s were ‘insufficient to justify mandating a two-dose schedule’ and that they may ‘add unnecessary risk of myocarditis’. This specific advice never made it to the right people. As a result, the injection mandates for education workers and children over 12 remained in place, wrongly. The commission called this a significant failing yet did not require those who received the guidance to explain why they chose to ignore it, nor why the advisory body that made the guidance chose to keep their mouths shut. The former director-general of health, Ashley Bloomfield, was knighted and is now at the World Health Organization running the International Health Regulations. How come? In the public service, silence is a golden ticket. 

Secondly—the Auckland lockdown extension in late 2021. Auckland was kept under alert level 4 for 32 days longer than the director-general of health advised. These 32 days were over Christmas, causing massive social harm during a Christian holiday. The commission notes that this contributed to unnecessary social and economic disruption for businesses and families. That’s a huge understatement. Jacinda Ardern clearly shares Prime Minister Albanese’s desire to break the bonds of family, community and Christianity in order to usher in their communist utopia of scarcity, censorship and control. 

Thirdly—communication of risks. The failure to clearly communicate risks around COVID injection harms, especially myocarditis in young people, eroded trust in the government and in medical professions. This is why the Albanese government is rigging the mis- and disinformation inquiry now underway—to prove the need for mis- and disinformation censorship laws, to ensure the government is the only source of information during the next emergency. 

Fourthly—vaccine mandates. The commission found that there was ‘insufficient monitoring’ of impacts around job losses and exemptions, although the commission did not scrutinise adverse effects from the deadly COVID shots. Their process was to accept the health department’s explanation of the adverse events documented on the New Zealand version of the Database of Adverse Event Notifications. The commission found that decisions to continue or remove mandates were ‘not well-informed by data’. No bloody kidding! Just not informed! 

And Australia has committed this grave mistake. Perhaps we did it even worse in this country. 

Tonight, I’m sharing with the Senate new evidence, published last week, using Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration’s own documentation, which suggests that the TGA may have committed malfeasance in office. Last week, Paul Rekaris presented this evidence, published on SSRN, the world’s largest social science research network, based on his four years of freedom of information requests and investigations, using the TGA’s own data. I’ll say it again: ‘using the TGA’s own data’. Titled Documentation gap analysis: independent audit of TGA COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan, the paper used thousands of pages of data, covering 68.4 million injection doses, and audit standards from the Australian National Audit Office and the international standard for auditing, ISO 19011. 

Here’s some background. The Commonwealth signed formal bilateral agreements with Australian states and territories that established governance frameworks requiring systematic reporting of vaccine safety and surveillance data, including adverse event monitoring via the TGA. These agreements implemented the Australian COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which National Cabinet endorsed in November 2020, and gave operational effect through the TGA’s February 2021 ‘COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring plan’. Remember that title. The states relied on that plan. The public relied on that plan. Yet the TGA did not properly implement that plan. They weren’t even close. 

This is at the heart of the cover-up of COVID injection harm. The monitoring, called pharmacovigilance, had to be done according to the plan. Monitoring was not done—and people died. 

The ministers are culpable. Under the Cabinet Handbook, 15th edition, paragraph 25, ministers must carry out policies that cabinet has determined, and, as recorded in cabinet minutes, portfolio agencies must act on cabinet decisions. This binds the TGA, as a portfolio agency under the Department of Health and Aged Care, to implement the enhanced monitoring commitments. 

This is a brief outline now of the evidence of their failure. Firstly, in September 2024, when the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner directed the TGA, the TGA identified no implementation records for the vaccine safety monitoring plan—a position the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner confirmed in Decision 2025 AICmr 54. Secondly, vaccine safety monitoring was managed through routine ‘day-to-day processes’, contradicting the enhanced monitoring requirement attached to provisional vaccine approval. Thirdly, of 19 audited plan outputs, only three have complete implementation documentation, 10 are partially documented and six have no documentation at all—only one-sixth compliance. Fourthly, the TGA investigated 148 safety signals, called adverse events, and took 57 regulatory actions. They have published no documentation linking specific signals to specific actions or explaining why they took or did not take action—none. Fifthly, ISO 19011 conformity assessment revealed systematic implementation failure by the TGA. Objective 2 was signal detection—the thing they were supposed to be monitoring closely. Across eight outputs, they achieved zero per cent full implementation, and, across two outputs in governance, achieved zero per cent. 

The evidence continues to pile up. Last week, Dr Helmut Sterz, former Pfizer Europe chief toxicologist, testified before Germany’s Bundestag coronavirus inquiry commission, saying that the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine carcinogenicity and mutagenicity tests were not done. Reproductive toxicity tests were defective. This violated standard protocols and enabled untested mass rollout. Yet billions of dollars in sales rolled in. Essential toxicity studies were sacrificed to speed, with no acceptable reasons, with the result that the approval led to prohibited human trials. Sterz cited post-marketing data showing over 2,133 German deaths in the first two months, estimating up to 60,000 German deaths after adjusting for underreporting, while noting that increased age-adjusted mortality from 2021 onwards contradicted claims of a positive benefit-risk ratio. 

It was wrong to inject people with these things. Pfizer’s management’s confession is damning. How much more evidence do you need? Call a royal commission now. Finally, I appreciate that some citizens want COVID as an issue put behind us. We can’t do that, because big pharma and their TGA will do it all again. We must hound down those responsible and hold them accountable. 

/5 Comments/by

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.

The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.

During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.

With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”

I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.

As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?

Transcript

CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?

Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?

Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.

Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?

Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?

Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?

Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?

Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?

Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?

Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?

Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.

CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?

/5 Comments/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.

I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.

Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.

Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event? 

Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?  

Ms Spence: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.  

Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?  

Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.  

Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?  

Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?  

Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?  

Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?  

Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

COVID Testing: The Truth They Tried to Hide

A peer-reviewed, published study has revealed some astonishing findings—though they come as no surprise to supporters of One Nation. The study found that only 14% of adults who were diagnosed with COVID using a PCR test went on to actually develop COVID, based on their blood antibodies.

This study is a slam dunk: PCR tests were misused to “show” a pandemic, when the actual infection rate was much closer to that of a bad flu outbreak.

There was criticism at the time about using PCR tests for this purpose from the man who invented them—Kary Mullis, whose invention earned him a Nobel Prize. The world should have listened, yet health authorities were more interested in manufacturing a pandemic that didn’t exist, to further their own power and sell products for the pharmaceutical industry.

This was criminal. The countless hours of work lost, the loss of income that went with that, the cost to small businesses, and the disruption and isolation caused by lockdowns and unnecessary isolation for false positives is a scandal that demands a Royal Commission. It was a deliberate decision to misuse PCR tests, followed by another deliberate decision to cover up the disparity between PCR test results and actual infection rates by claiming people could spread COVID without having symptoms. Shameful!

Another significant finding from the study: one year into COVID, just before the vaccine rollout, 25% of the German adult population already had natural immunity. A quarter of the population didn’t need the “vaccine” — and as the next year rolled on, the figure for natural immunity would have increased. We don’t have the data to prove this because the German government, along with other governments worldwide—including Australia—stopped collecting data to prevent their lies from being discovered.

We have enough evidence anyway. One Nation demands a Royal Commission into COVID now.

https://senroberts.com/4oSwb3D

/4 Comments/by

Lockdowns Next Time? Maybe Not

,

During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.

The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.

I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.

Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.

Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—   

Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?   

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.   

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.   

Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.   

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?   

Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.   

Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?   

Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?   

Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.   

Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—   

Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.   

Dr Hilton: So do I.   

Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.   

Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.   

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.   

Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.   

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?   

Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.   

Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?   

Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?   

Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.   

Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.   

Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?   

Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.   

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?   

Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.   

Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.   

Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.   

Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!   

Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.   

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.   

Prof. Sutton: Not at all.   

Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.   

CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.  

/by

Breaking the Silence: AHPRA’s Grip on Healthcare

I was invited to speak at ‘The Misdeeds of AHPRA’ conference held in Sydney on Saturday, 3 May 2025. As it was election day, I couldn’t attend in person and was asked to pre-record a video, which I happily did.

My brief video exposes the many serious conflicts of interest among Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) board members. The conference organisers used it to open the day.

AHPRA faced heavy criticism during the COVID period. Established in 2010, AHPRA was meant to be an independent body overseeing medical practitioners. Yet its board members are deeply intertwined with government and academia, raising questions about its independence.

Recent surveys by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) reveal that over 82% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency. Investigations drag on for years, causing significant mental and financial strain on practitioners.

AHPRA’s actions during the COVID period, including prosecuting medical professionals for speaking out truthfully to their patients and the public, have eroded public trust and severely crippled our healthcare service.

It’s time for a thorough review and reform to restore confidence in our healthcare system.

Transcript

Hello, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland with One Nation.

Thank you for the work you’re doing at this conference.

AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) was heavily criticised during the COVID period. And deservedly so. For those at home, I’ll give a quick background to AHPRA.

The national scheme for registration and regulation of medical practitioners that the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) administers, was implemented in 2010 under the Rudd-Gillard-Labour Government. The so called national law is not a Commonwealth law. Instead it is implemented by each state passing the same legislation, with Queensland acting as the host jurisdiction.

Any proposed amendment to the national law must be approved by the Council of Health Ministers, then passed by the Queensland Parliament, then other states. In 2010 the Federal Government legislated to recognise medical professionals licenced by AHPRA to prescribe under Medicare and the PBS.

AHPRA replaced state based powers with a national independent system of registration and standards for practitioners. AHPRA now hosts fifteen boards, each regulating one area of the medical profession.

AHPRA act as the independent administrator and the boards are the policy makers in their own area. Except that AHPRA is not independent.

AHPRA Chair – Miss Gill Callister – doubles as the Chief Executive Officer of Mind Australia, a commercial operation which provides mental health services, including under the bloated NDIS.

Mind Australia receives additional funding directly from state and federal governments. Board member – Miss Barbara Yo – doubles as Chief of Monash Health, a Victorian government department. In other words, a public servant.

Ari Freiberg is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Monash University, which receives half a billion dollars a year from the federal government. Linton Morris is on the board of Alfred Health, another public servant, as is Geoffrey Moffat, who’s on the board of WA Country Health. And so it goes on and on.

Everyone of the AHPRA board is an academic funded by the government, or is a bureaucrat funded by the government.

How can these people be considered independent? They are NOT independent.

As Kara Thomas pointed out in a January Quadrant article, the recent Bay versus Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency court judgement specifically noted that while the pandemic was “an extraordinary period of history,” it did not authorise AHPRA to “abrogate the right of persons to a hearing before an apparently unbiased tribunal.”

Or extend AHPRA’s role to “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.”

That’s exactly what AHPRA did.

The spawn of the medical establishment rushed to defend the medical establishment at a terrible cost to the public’s confidence in the medical industry.

The Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) recent survey of medical practitioners found 82.6% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency in handling complaints and 78.5 percent report unfair treatment.

Unfair treatment!

These numbers reveal and represent AHPRA damning failure. Unfair treatment includes investigations that last for years, career destroying delays and devastating financial and mental health impacts, including suicides.

Many health professionals contemplate leaving the profession entirely.

The acceptance of anonymous complaints and the punitive nature of investigations without proper vetting has created a culture of fear where doctors have said they now practise risk averse defensive medicine, which is not medicine.

This is not incompetent – it’s deliberate. The culture of fear has been created to rob medical professionals of their will to practise medicine in the best interests of the patient.

This is the opposite of care.

Instead, AHPRA has engineered a situation where doctors practise in the best interest of the pharmaceutical industry that AHPRA works for. One example of this is the way in which AHPRA looks the other way when 1500 Australians die every year from an overdose of a medication prescribed by one of Australia’s 88,000 prescribing medical professionals.

In the last 12 months AHPRA prosecuted 31 people. Only two of these relate to prescription drugs of any kind. And yet in Senate estimates, AHPRA advised me they had prosecuted 21 medical professionals for speaking the truth about COVID.

AHPRA prosecuted one practitioner in part for their anti trans position. AHPRA is fighting a rearguard action against the overwhelming shift in public attitude away from invasive medical procedures on children.

Why? Because this will be a billion dollar industry next financial year. If you want the best pronunciation of AHPRA, try this one: cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching – the cash registers tune.

During Senate estimates, I asked AHPRA about their cultural safety strategy, which requires all registered health practitioners to acknowledge colonialism and systemic racism.

This is politics, not medicine. Wherever power has been consolidated into a single body, their power has grown.

They become a beacon for every self interested pharmaceutical company, attracting staff prepared to behave in the most egregious way in return for power and a public service salary.

A Senate review in 2022 made fourteen recommendations, including an urgent, in depth review of their processes. That review has never happened. None of the recommendations have been actioned.

Kara Thomas’s article in Quadrant contained a set of sensible recommendations, including devolving these powers back to the States. One Nation supports each of her recommendations.

In short, AHPRA is a failed, corrupting and destructive experiment and must be shut down immediately.

I’ll give the last word to Ms Callister, AHPRA’s Chair, who reposted this tweet in 2018 – “Power comes at a price. Those in the top job have made many compromises to get there”.

Clearly those compromises include absence of professionalism, care, accountability, fairness, decency, transparency, honesty and independence.

/1 Comment/by

COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?

,

During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.

I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.

Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?  

Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?  

Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?  

Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?  

Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?  

Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice, please.  

Mr Turnbull: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?  

Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?  

Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.  

Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—  

Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.  

CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?  

Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?  

Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Because they—  

Mr Turnbull: They set the parameters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you 

/by