President Trump recently called on vaccine manufacturers to support their claims regarding the safety and efficacy of their products. It was these assurances that led him to launch Operation Warp Speed to develop the COVID vaccine and has defended the product in the years since.
It now appears President Trump is open to reconsidering his position on vaccine safety. I hope he does. A critical review of the claims made by vaccine manufacturers is likely to show a very high level of data tampering, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
This will mostly be around vaccine quality, not design. Many of our vaccines are produced as cheaply as possible and contain high levels of heavy metals, such as aluminium, which act as a preservative. These are causing harm to our children.
I hope the President reaches the same conclusion I have – that the mRNA platform is dangerous and should never have been used as the basis for the COVID vaccines developed under Operation Warp Speed.
Transcript
The significance of this is stunning. President Trump has been misled on the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines for a very long time. From this post it sounds like he has been kept in the dark and fed lies. I look forward to the president realising that and taking action to defend the health of all Americans by banning the mRNA vaccine platform.
In further developments last week Robert F Kennedy Jr, the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced significant changes to the authorisation of mRNA COVID-19 so-called vaccines. It’s important to understand this was not a banning of mRNA—not yet anyway. It’s important to clarify the new measures. The Food and Drug Administration, the FDA, approved updated COVID-19 shots for the autumn season in America and imposed new restrictions, effectively ending their emergency-use authorisations. This is only a partial victory for mRNA critics such as me. The measures did terminate emergency-use authorisations that had allowed this dangerous, killer product to be given to anyone over six months of age.
What some claiming victory may have missed is that mRNA shots for COVID were given normal approval for a limited range of people. This includes anyone over 65 and anyone from five to 65 with an underlying medical condition. Moderna was approved for children over six months with an underlying medical condition. Is it a massive reduction in approval? Yes. Is it a ban? No. President Trump’s statement overnight suggests there are more developments to come.
Last week I spoke of many new peer reviewed studies which show how this harm is occurring right through the human body. Tonight I will talk about the data, which shows this harm is occurring. We have proof of the harm, and we have the science showing causality. The Defense Medical Epidemiology Database is part of the United States Defense Medical Surveillance System. It enables queries of de-identified medical data coded in the International Classification of Diseases classifications for active duty personnel, filtered on demographics and occupational categories. In 2021 whistleblowers reported significant increases in medical conditions compared to 2016 to 2020 baselines, prompting congressional scrutiny and resulting in a finding of data-handling errors. In 2023 outdated 2021 DMED data confirmed elevated diagnoses, including hypertensive disease up 23 per cent, ovarian disfunction up 35 per cent, pulmonary embolism up 44 per cent, Guillain Barre syndrome up 15 per cent, oesophagus cancer up 13 per cent and breast cancer up seven per cent. Myocarditis was up 151 per cent. Remember the sample set here is millions of people of the United States military. These are—or were—healthy, fit individuals and their families.
The harm is getting worse. Data for 2023 to 2025, using the same pre-COVID baseline, shows persistent elevations, terrifying elevations, over pre-COVID levels. Myocarditis is up 154 per cent; digestive organ cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and up 43 per cent in 2024; brain cancer up 16 per cent in 2021 and 43 per cent in 2024; and blood coagulation defects up 25 per cent in 2021, 58 per cent in 2022 and then 32 per cent in 2023 as injection rates fell. That’s pretty damning. It shows that those who call this poison the clot shots are not entirely wrong. It gets worse, much worse. Conditions which may be potentially vaccine related and are certainly COVID-response related are up. Suicidal and homicidal ideation was up 46 per cent in 2021 and 86 per cent in 2024. Obesity was up 27 per cent in 2021, 69 per cent in 2022, 162 per cent in 2023 and 262 per cent in 2024. It’s okay though. Novo Nordisk has Ozempic on the market to fix that obesity problem. Who owns Novo Nordisk? Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, Vanguard and Norges. I call them ‘BlackRock Inc.’. This gaggle of rapacious wealth funds invest the wealth of the world’s predatory billionaires.
Who owns Pfizer, the cause of this obesity epidemic? You guessed it, BlackRock. They own the problem and the solution. Did someone say COVID was just a— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/hDtj01FBV-o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-28 09:56:102025-10-28 09:56:18Is Trump Finally Seeing the Truth About mRNA Vaccines?
This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.
The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.
My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.
The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?
In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.
I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?
Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?
Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?
Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?
Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.
Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?
Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.
Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.
Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.
Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?
Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?
Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.
Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.
Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?
Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.
Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?
Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?
Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.
Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?
Prof. Lawler: Whether these—
Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?
Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.
Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.
Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?
Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.
Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?
Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.
Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/uj4SbhAiGMU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-22 18:08:302025-10-22 18:08:37A Case Study in Avoidance
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ojUay2EUVuE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-14 17:50:472025-08-14 17:50:50Patients First – Not Profits or Mandates
They promised safe and effective. What they delivered was sudden and unexpected.
For years, I’ve defended the doctor-patient relationship against bureaucratic overreach and pharmaceutical influence. The COVID response exposed regulatory failure, destroyed trust, and harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians who trusted the medical establishment.
One Nation will shut down the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and its related crony committees, end the revolving door between regulators and industry, and demand a royal commission into the COVID response.
Australians deserve truth, justice, and a health system free from corporate control.
Transcript
‘They promised you safe and effective; instead, they delivered sudden and unexpected.’ So reads the billboard erected by NZDSOS—a group of 9,000 New Zealand doctors, health professionals and academics. There are 9,000 of them; courage is contagious. Their byline is, ‘It’s time to remove the government from the consultation room.’
For many years, I’ve spoken about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. I’ve spoken against the insidious influence of health bureaucrats creeping into that relationship—influence exerted to benefit the pharmaceutical industry over the interests of everyday Australian patients. I’ve spoken about the abuse of power and regulatory capture of Ahpra and health regulators. In recent months, I have joined the fight against the Queensland health department’s decision to destroy biological samples taken from 10,000 volunteers and used to test the safety and efficacy of COVID injectables. A bad decision that, I’m happy to say, has been overturned. Thank you, Premier Crisafulli from Queensland. I always say ‘injectables’ because these dangerous, killer products are not vaccines; they’re a biological experiment which failed. Tens of thousands of people died, and many more live with adverse reactions, which is bureaucrat-speak for them having their health and lives destroyed.
One Nation will close the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its related crony committees, filled as they are with personnel that pharmaceutical companies employed, funded, educated and now seek to regulate. Australians were healthier and safer when the health department made these decisions with the benefit of close parliamentary scrutiny. We must go back to that system. One Nation is preparing legislation to prevent the revolving door between parliament, the Public Service and private industry, so a person cannot go from regulating big pharma to working for big pharma. We continue to call for a royal commission into our COVID response. We must understand how the disproportionate, homicidal response to a bad flu killed many tens of thousands of people and maimed many more. Justice must be served or more people will die. (Time expired)
I spoke with Brent on 2SM about to the recent and concerning medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots and the disturbing lack of accountability from CASA regarding the impact of vaccine mandates on aviation safety.
We need proper cardiac screening and transparency about potential vaccine injuries among pilots. The public deserves to know the truth about what’s happening in our skies.
CASA’s wilful blindness to these serious safety issues must end.
Transcript
Brent: I said we were going to be talking to Malcolm Roberts this morning. He is on the phone. Two recent medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots, one who collapsed in the cockpit, another who suffered chest pains mid-flight, have sparked fresh questions around aviation safety and pilot health post-Covid. Now, pilots, if you remember, were required to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Remember, no jab, no job. That’s what they were saying. No jab, no job. But could there be lingering medical issues going undetected? And are the regulators doing enough to stay ahead of it? Senator Malcolm Roberts raised the matter during Senate’s estimates. He joins me now. Good morning, Malcolm.
Malcolm Roberts: Good morning, Brent. How are you?
Brent: I’m well. Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule. We really appreciate it. Okay?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome. Pleasure.
Brent: When you asked about these incidents in Senate estimates, what was CASA’s response and did you get the sense that they’re really taking it seriously?
Malcolm Roberts: No, they’re definitely not taking it seriously. Their response echoed or exuded the word indignant. They’re indignant. I’ve asked them many questions about the vaccine injuries, the jab injuries, Fred, and they have been willfully blind, in my opinion. That’s my honest opinion. They have given me nothing. When I first asked about the jabs being mandated by Qantas and Virgin, they said, “Well, that’s their business.” They are responsible for any new medication coming into the airline sector to be tested at low altitude. That has not been done. When I asked them on whose advice they ignored Qantas and Virgin’s jabs, they said, “The experts.” On whose advice did you basically approve the vaccines? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The international experts. I never got a name. They will not take responsibility, that’s why I say they’re willfully blind. And we know from pilots, Fred, that there are many with serious problems.
Brent: Pilots already undergo regular medical checks, but is there a case for adding cardiac screening now, just as a precaution, given what we know post-Covid?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, and we know that in states, the United States of America, the screening levels were increased considerably just to get more people through. I know from talking to a lawyer who’s helping a whistleblower prosecute Pfizer, that he was told by a Southwest Airlines pilot and Southwest Airlines is the biggest domestic carrier in the United States with about 23% of the market, almost a quarter. They tell me that 1,000 Southwest Airlines pilots failed their medical.
Brent: A thousand?
Malcolm Roberts: A thousand. We worked that out on back of envelopes stuff to be about 5%.
Brent: Gosh.
Malcolm Roberts: 1/20th. So there’s a serious issue, and we’ve heard from Australian pilots that there are people who are damaged who are flying, but they won’t report because they could lose their jobs.
Brent: The U.S. Defence study back in 2021, it raised concerns about myocarditis in young fit people including pilots. Shouldn’t that have been a trigger for more action here? Malcolm?
Malcolm Roberts: Definitely. But no matter what we raised with CASA, they just ignore it. They ignore the regulations about testing, requiring testing of new medications at low pressure, low and [inaudible 00:03:25] high altitude. These are significant rules that they’re just ignoring. They’re not taking responsibility for doing their job. I find CASA and in particular, it’s chief expense to be uncaring, and I don’t think they’re doing their job properly. That’s my honest opinion. They just seem to run away from their responsibilities. She is the top of the heap when it comes to airline safety in this country and she, in my opinion, she’s not behaving responsibly.
Brent: U.S. flight surgeon, Teresa Long sounded early warnings about health, heart risks with these mRNA vaccines. Malcolm, has there been any similar discussion or concern raised by aviation doctors in Australia?
Malcolm Roberts: Pilots have raised it with me. Former pilots who refused to get the jab who still stay in touch with their former colleagues have raised it with me. They’re very, very concerned about this. Very concerned. There have been doctors and pilot officials who’ve raised it with me, as well.
Brent: Do you think the public would be reassured if little word, big meaning, CASA simply looked at a short-term cardiac screening programme for pilots just to be on the safe side of things?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And what’s the fear about this? If a pilot is found to be liable or more prone or has a heart problem, then the public is going to be safe, safer by giving him treatment. That’s the first thing. If they find no one at all, and I don’t think that’ll be the case, then at least we’ve had that confirmed and the public can be at ease. But one of the things is they’re afraid to the whole, when I say they, it’s not just CASA, it’s the whole health establishment are afraid to do that because once they find the data themselves, they can’t ignore it, then they’d have to admit to what they did was inhuman by mandating untested, not properly tested vaccines in this country. So people are just burying it. I mean that sincerely. People in the health departments there at state and federal level, health agencies like APRA they’re burying this. They don’t want to.
Brent: So is it fair to say that CASA-
Malcolm Roberts: I hope we’re not going to be burying passengers soon.
Brent: Is it fair to say that CASA is just deliberately covering up myocarditis cases?
Malcolm Roberts: I would say that they’re in group think, they don’t want to admit it and it’s willful blindness. So you interpret that as deliberate in my view, they’re being deliberately negligent, which is deliberately not wanting to look at it because of what they might find, and I don’t think they know it, but medical authorities know that there’s a lot of heart problems with the vaccine with those vaccinated with the Covid shots.
Brent: Senator, this isn’t about panic, is it? It’s about trust.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely. It’s about trust, responsibility, and accountability. And the federal government, state government, we have got a problem in this country. The number one issue in this country, Fred, is that there is very low level of accountability. When I square up at Senate estimates, I’m holding them accountable and the liberal and labour governments, which I’ve had experience with both, they’re not on the side of the public. The number one problem in this country is shoddy governance that is based on ignoring the hard data, the hard evidence,
Brent: Trying to dust it away, hide it under the rug, as they say. Look, more transparency and a few extra checks would go a long way in keeping people confident when they simply step on a plane.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, we’ve had senior pilots telling us that they admittedly retired rather than face the mandates or who voluntarily just refused to accept the mandates. They are very, very concerned and we know that the heart injuries globally from these shots, and it’s not just Astrazeneca, it’s also Moderna, also Pfizer. They have seriously raised a sign, raised the incidence of heart problems.
Brent: No jab and no job. That was the saying during this whole thing. No jab, no job, so we lost lots of excellent pilots. May I ask you, in your experience and the people that you talked to, have you found that because pilots lost their jobs, there’s a shortage of good pilots? Are pilots that didn’t take the jab, are they now getting their jobs back?
Malcolm Roberts: I don’t know. I make statements only based on data and I haven’t got the data with me on that, but I do know, I know the data that we have lost many, many fine nurses, paramedics, ambulancemen, doctors, firees, police officers. We have got some people who deliberately avoided the mandates and stood down or resigned or worse, stood down. We had a bloody nurse pregnant, stood down in January. Some of these places have still got mandates on and it’s basically inhuman. They didn’t test the shots properly, Fred, we know that they didn’t test them, yet, they mandated them and they said basically to people employed in all those industries and services that I just listed, they said basically, “If you want to feed your kids, you’ll get the shots.” That is inhuman. That is just disgraceful.
Brent: Did you say you had a nurse? I just want to repeat this, you had a nurse in January of 2025, she lost her job. Is that right? Because she hadn’t had a jab in 2025.
Malcolm Roberts: Sorry, January, 2024. My mistake. January, 2024.
Brent: Okay.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And she was basically suspended at work, off work suspended at various times in the previous three years since the jabs came in, the mandates came in and then they sacked her.
Brent: Gosh, we’ve just got to get rid of these mandates.
Malcolm Roberts: And the injections that were approved provisionally for people in this country, the medical authorities in this country are now saying healthy infants, children’s and adolescents aged less than 18 years of age are not recommended to receive Covid-19 vaccine.
Brent: Absolutely. They’ve changed their mind.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah, so we’re going to see the TGA, we’re going to see APRA blacklisted from social media like I was suspended for saying exactly that healthy infants, children, adolescents should not be given the shots, I was blacklisted, suspended from social media. Are they going to be suspended? There’s not even a fuss about it. We know that Astrazeneca’s been withdrawn because of the court decision in the United Kingdom.
We need a royal commission. We need a royal commission to get to the bottom of this because there is a lot of lies being told, a lot of inhuman decisions, and now we find out that so many things, the premiers are telling us so many things in the Covid response, a fraudulent Covid response, are wrong and they’re not based on the science. They’ve admitted that, and we knew that because the different states had different approaches and some states had different approaches from one day to the next. They didn’t follow the data. There is no scientific evidence, empirical hard evidence. There’s been no serious testing. Pfizer cancels its tests early because they were killing people in their own test group who’d got the shots, and I asked the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration responsible for provisionally, approving the shots in the first place, what testing they did. Oh, Senator Roberts, we didn’t do any testing. We relied upon the FDA in America, the Food and Drug Administration, which does America’s approvals.
And we knew at that time, Fred, at the time, the TGA told me that, we knew that the FDA had not done any tests and relied purely on Pfizer’s evidence. Pfizer’s evidence, and Pfizer is now being questioned seriously about the efficacy of the test. We’ve had tens of thousands of, let’s be blunt homicides, they are homicides, in this country and millions worldwide homicides because the testing has not been done properly at all. What testing was done was not proper at all. It was very, very brief.
Brent: All right, Malcolm Roberts, we’ll leave it there today. As always, thank you for making yourself available to talk on the Chris Smith morning show. Chris will talk to you again. No doubt. Keep up the good fight, Malcolm.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vWM0fq7VzI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-06-26 17:34:402025-06-26 17:34:59Time for Transparency: Aviation Safety Demands Answers from CASA
Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?
In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.
We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.
To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.
With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.
A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.
Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.
https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/15/s8/6/A/l/w/4/Alw4x.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-27 14:33:182025-03-12 15:49:06Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman
During my session with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at Senate Estimates in November, I questioned them about a number of concerns.
Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic in COVID-19 vaccines? Professor Langham clarified that the spike protein is not pathogenic and is designed to trigger an antigen recognition and antibody response.
Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse events related to the spike protein? Professor Langham responded that no such events have been observed, as the spike protein is quickly degraded by the body once it’s introduced s part of the mRNA vaccine.
What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the spike protein’s suitability before vaccine approval? Professor Lawler agreed to provide detailed information on notice.
It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system? Professor Langham explained that while the spike protein attaches to receptors, it does not cause harm on its own.
Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians? Professor Lawler responded that there is no accepted evidence to confirm such a link.
Has the TGA received any applications for treatments to remove spike proteins from the body and has the TGA engaged with research institutions on this matter? Professor Lawler clarified that the TGA has not received such applications, does not commission research, and focuses on regulating therapeutic goods.
The TGA emphasised that the overall risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic?
Prof. Langham: Thank you for your question. The spike protein is not pathogenic. It does not contain any of the other parts of the COVID-19 vaccine that brings about a pathogenetic state. The spike protein is really there to encourage an antigen recognition and an antibody response by the body.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse effects of COVID vaccination that may be associated with the likely effects of spike protein?
Prof. Langham: As I said, the spike protein is not pathogenic. We’ve not seen any adverse events related to the spike protein, because—and we’ve discussed this previously—the spike protein is rapidly degraded by the body once it’s introduced as part of the mRNA vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Really? Okay. What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval? Could you please provide me with that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m taking that question to be: what did the TGA know about spike proteins prior to approving the COVID vaccines? Is that a fair—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what analysis you did regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval, and I’d like that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to respond to that question on notice. We have responded to similar questions previously.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the analysis?
Prof. Lawler: As I said, I’m happy to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know about the analysis now? The question on notice is only if you don’t know something now.
CHAIR: Senator, the official is well entitled to take a question on notice. It’s not about not answering the question; it’s about taking an answer on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, as I understand it, the guides to the witnesses include that if they want to take something on notice it’s only because they don’t know the answer now.
CHAIR: Yes, or they need to qualify or check the information or they don’t have the extent of the information.
Senator Gallagher: They don’t have the information with them to provide you a comprehensive answer, which is not unreasonable.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have you received any reports, data or discussion from your pharmacovigilance system highlighting concerns about spike proteins following the introduction of the COVID vaccines? If so, could you please provide that information?
Prof. Langham: Again, I’m at a loss to understand the specifics of your question as to how our pharmacovigilance would relate to the specific aspect of the vaccine which is the spike protein. I think we can answer very clearly what our pharmacovigilance results have been for the vaccine itself. But as to the specific aspects of the spike protein, the reason the mRNA vaccines include the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus results from many years of research that had been undertaken in the US by the National Centre for Vaccines to develop mRNA vaccines.
Prof. Lawler: And I’d just add to Professor Langham’s answer that the purpose of our pharmacovigilance and the way in which it monitors for and identifies to enable us to respond to emerging safety signals and trends is that it’s based on adverse events.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s all it’s based on?
Prof. Lawler: These are clinical events. So, there’s an expectation—indeed, an encouragement—that adverse events are reported, and these are reported on the basis of clinical nature. We also, as I mentioned previously, work with international partners on a network of pharmacovigilance activities that Dr Larter might like to speak to.
Dr Larter: We continue to engage with our international regulatory counterparts to look at not only spontaneous adverse event reporting but also linked data, and many of the rich datasets that are available globally, to inform our safety monitoring. These processes enable us to identify emerging safety concerns well before we understand how they might be occurring, before the mechanisms of action are identified. That’s a strength. We don’t need to know exactly how they’re being caused to take regulatory action to ensure that the safety profile is up to date and available for treating health professionals.
Senator ROBERTS: There has been a multitude of papers about potential health impacts from spike protein on the renin-angiotensin system in the human body. It appears to be basic to human health—if not the key system then certainly one of the key systems to health. Is it your testimony today that the COVID vaccines containing spike proteins are still perfectly safe.
Prof. Lawler: We’re aware of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Professor Langham is a nephrologist. The reality is—I’m happy to come back if I’m wrong, but I don’t know whether we or any other regulator has ever said that a medication is perfectly safe. There are a number of processes that we follow in the assessment and market authorisation of a number of medicines. We have product information that clearly states the risks and potential adverse events—
Senator ROBERTS: Who is that from? Who is the product information from?
Prof. Lawler: The product information is produced—I guess, to the question, I’d like to say that we don’t maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe. Every time we come here, we discuss with you the adverse events and the recognised and accepted potential adverse events. So, no, it’s not our position that the vaccine is perfectly safe. It is our clear position, and this is the clear scientific consensus, that the risk-benefit of COVID vaccines has been shown to be very safe and, in fact, the risk-benefit is significantly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I won’t explore that any further. It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2, leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?
Prof. Langham: It’s well known that the angiotensin receptor is important in how the virus exerts its effects on the body. As to what you are describing with the spike protein itself, on its own, it’s not able to cause any problems. It connects to the receptor, but there is nothing else there behind the spike protein. It’s the virus itself that does cause problems, and the receptor that that virus attaches to is absolutely the angiotensin receptor.
Senator ROBERTS: Was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines? I’d also like to come back again and ask: on whose advice do you take the product safety?
Prof. Lawler: There are two questions there.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, there are.
Prof. Lawler: I’d like to answer them in turn. Which one?
Senator ROBERTS: The first one is: was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: The process of the market authorisation and evaluation of medicines, including vaccines, is a comprehensive process that is based upon a significant dossier of information that goes to the safety, quality and efficacy of that particular medicine. In terms of whether that was a specific issue, I’m very happy to have a look at that and come back to you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice—are you taking it on notice?
Prof. Lawler: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Recently, German doctor Karla Lehmann, in her peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal of the European Society of Medicine commented that spike protein is ‘uniquely dangerous’ for use in vaccine platforms—and this woman is generally pro-vaccine—because of the effects of spike protein causing ACE2 inhibition, leading to excessive angiotensin 2 and harmful overactivation of AT1R, the angiotensin 2, type 1 receptor. This analysis is supported by other research providing clear evidence of the pathogenic nature of spike protein and its unsuitability for use in vaccine platforms. Is the TGA aware of this review and analysis conducted by Karla Lehmann and her damning conclusions about the dangers of spike protein based vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t have that article. It would be useful, obviously, to review that. I think it’s also worth noting that a lot of the theoretical conversations around spike protein are mechanistic in nature rather than supported by phenomenological or observational studies. So there are a lot of inferences drawn between a cellular mechanism and a clinical scenario that is very difficult to distinguish from the disease itself. Professor Langham, is there anything you would like to add?
Prof. Langham: I guess I would just support those comments that, when the vaccine with the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus is trialled in clinical trials, the sorts of physiological derangement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system that might be described is not seen. So we do not see activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the clinical trials in terms of understanding the specific safety signals that have come from them. It has been quite widely demonstrated that the vaccines themselves are very well tolerated.
CHAIR: Senator, I’m due to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have two more questions on this thread.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe there’s accepted evidence to confirm that that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the TGA received any applications for treatments or protocols to remove spike proteins from the human body? Have you asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to advertise a grant for this purpose? Are you working with any university around this topic—anything at all—either to cure spike protein damage for long COVID, if it exists, or for vaccine injury?
Prof. Lawler: The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. The answer to the second question is that it’s not the role of the TGA to commission research from the National Health and Medical Research Council. And the answer to the third question is it is not the role of the TGA to generate knowledge; it is the role of the TGA to regulate therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of my questions on COVID spike protein. I have two more sets of questions.
CHAIR: Do you mean for the TGA?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, for the TGA but on other topics
The New South Wales government recently withdrew and intend to refund over 23,000 COVID fines, in addition to the 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. These fines were unlawful and should never have happened.
I criticise the Albanese Government’s whitewash COVID “review” for ignoring state government actions, including these unlawful “fines”. There is so much about the State and Federal Government actions during COVID that must be examined immediately by a Royal Commission. Only a Royal Commission has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to appear and testify truthfully.
Senator Wong responded to my questions that the fines are a state matter and then defended the government’s approach, saying that they were focusing on learning from the pandemic rather than assigning blame.
I questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, pointing out the lack of a royal commission into COVID-19 despite a promise of transparency. Senator Wong reiterated the government’s focus on preparing for future pandemics rather than prosecuting past health policies.
There is a need for accountability and justice, especially for those affected by vaccine injuries, and I question why the government is reluctant to call a comprehensive COVID royal commission. What do they have to hide?
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn’t say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won’t you commit to calling a royal commission now?
Senator WONG: Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can’t comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That’s a matter for the relevant state authorities. I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I’m sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government’s response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It’s now 30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government’s transparency promise only apply when it’s politically convenient to you?
Senator WONG: I’d refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn’t do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It’s an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that’s what we’re focused on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We’re not interested in blame. That’s for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments’ COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?
Senator WONG: I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They’re not shared by the government. I don’t think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they’re not shared by many people in the public health space. You’re entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia’s economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. ( Time expired )
This inquiry was initiated to address one of the most pressing issues of our time: the federal and state governments’ responses to COVID-19. Our witnesses include Senator Ron Johnson (USA), Tanya Unkovich MP (New Zealand), Christine Anderson MEP (EU Parliament,Germany), Professor Angus Dagleish (UK), Dr Peter Parry, Professor Ian Brighthope, Dr Raphael Lataster, Julian Gillespie (former barrister), Dr Melissa McCann (via YouTube video) and Professor Gigi Foster.
The challenges we faced over the past few years highlighted severe shortcomings in our governments’ responses to COVID and weaknesses in our democracy. To ensure justice, accountability and financial compensation, it is imperative that a comprehensive Judicial Inquiry into the government’s handling of COVID-19 is called. This could take the form of a Senate Commission of Inquiry or a Royal Commission. Investigations that must be robust, independent and based on data and facts, with the power to subpoena witnesses and documentation.
The handling of COVID affected us all in profound ways. To fully understand the scope of these effects and to prevent this happening again in the future, we need to establish an accurate and detailed timeline of events and associated facts. Placing the most up-to-date information on the record will uncover the truth behind the decisions made and their consequences. These are essential for restoring accountability and trust in governments, and health services and departments.
We must make this issue a federal election matter, with the goal being to awaken the public with clear, understandable facts. The public needs to become aware of the magnitude of the problems we faced. The mishandling of this crisis is not a matter of minor errors. It involved significant failures that demand accountability and serious repercussions. That is the only way to restore trust in our medical systems and in our government systems and processes.
This issue is far from over. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations—especially our children and grandchildren—to address these failings directly, clearly and bluntly. We must hold those responsible accountable and ensure that such lapses are never repeated.
https://1a-1791.com/video/s8/6/j/o/o/O/jooOv.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 18:10:002024-12-19 18:13:06COVID Under Trial: Uncovering the Truth
The government’s COVID inquiry: * No power to compel witnesses * No ability to take evidence under oath * No power to order documents * Only talked to people who volunteered for interviews
Australians deserve a full COVID Royal Commission with: * Power to compel testimony * Evidence under oath * Full document access * Complete transparency
Even Health Minister Butler admitted there was ‘lack of transparency’ and ‘lack of evidence-based policy.’ Australians deserve real answers and accountability, not a toothless inquiry.
It’s time for a proper COVID Royal Commission so that charges can be laid.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Going to the government’s COVID-19 response inquiry, the panel only talked to people who volunteered to talk to it, didn’t they?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Senator, there was no compulsion. People weren’t compelled to talk.
Senator ROBERTS: You must be a mind reader; that was my next question. It was an inquiry that had no ability to compel witnesses, order documents or take evidence under oath—correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The then government put in place the largest economic response in history, dropping money from helicopters. We had some of the worst invasions of Australian civil liberties, between surveillance, vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The supposed health advice relied on to do this has still not been published, yet Australians are meant to just accept the results of an inquiry that can’t even take evidence under oath. Is that right?
Ms Hefren-Webb: The inquiry had excellent cooperation from a wide range of people. They spoke to nearly all the state premiers who were premiers at the time of COVID. They spoke to nearly all the chief health officers. They spoke to groups representing people impacted by the pandemic in particular ways—for example, aged-care groups, people with disability, CALD groups. They spoke to and received submissions from people who were not supportive of the use of vaccines et cetera. They received evidence from and spoke to a wide range of people, and their report reflects a broad set of views that were put to them. They have assessed those and made some recommendations in relation to them, and the government is now considering those recommendations.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I had the opportunity to listen to Minister Mark Butler, the health minister, discuss the report. He said there was a lack of transparency on rationale and evidence around decisions that have profound impacts on people’s lives and freedoms. He said that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary principle at the start of the response to the COVID virus—which we accept—and that there was a lack of a shift from precautionary to evidence based; it never occurred. There was no balancing of risks and benefits. There was no taking account of non-health impacts of decisions imposed on the community and in a non-proportionate way. He said this was compelling insight from this report. There was a lack of evidence based policy, yet we were told repeatedly at state and federal level, ‘This is all based on evidence.’ The evidence changed from day to day, week to week, within and between states. We were lied to, and there was a lack of transparency—as the minister admits. Then he said it’s driven a large decline in trust and that the measures are not likely to be accepted again. This is a serious problem. Health departments across the country are in tatters, yet there’s no recommendation in this report that says we should establish a royal commission; correct?
Ms Hefren-Webb: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How are we going to restore accountability, Minister, and trust without holding people accountable for the tragic errors they made?
Senator Wong: This was a very comprehensive inquiry into the multifaceted aspects of Australia’s response. Whilst I’m not the minister responsible, it was something we considered. I think it is a very good piece of work that is very honest about the things that Australia did very well—and we did do some things extraordinarily well. We didn’t see the overwhelming of our hospital systems and the death tolls we saw in some other developed countries. There are also things which we didn’t do as well and things which we weren’t set up to do. Where we differ from you, in terms of the last part of your question, is that we want to be constructive about the failings as opposed to simply pursuing those who might have made the errors. The inquiry goes through, as you said, the precautionary response in a lot of detail. There is a question about whether some of the findings about what was evidence based or partially evidence based—that is perhaps not as black and white as your question suggests.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m paraphrasing the minister.
Senator Wong: Yes, but that’s a matter for discussion. I think it’s also true to say that you don’t get a global pandemic of that ilk very often in most people’s lifetimes, and so, understandably, you are going to make mistakes as a nation as well as do things right. That’s what the inquiry shows. The minister has been clear that we need to learn from this, and the Centre for Disease Control was one of the key recommendations which the government responded to.
Senator ROBERTS: I wrote to the then prime minister and the then premier of my state, Premier Palaszczuk, and said, ‘We’ll give you a fair go in the Senate.’ I said that with their response in March and their second response in April, for JobSafe and then JobKeeper—and I told them I would hold them accountable. I wrote letters to the Premier and the Prime Minister in May. I got no evidence back at all.
I wrote to them again in August and September, and, again, no evidence; I was seeking evidence. The Chief Medical Officer gave me evidence in March 2023 that the severity of COVID was low to moderate. When you figure in the overwhelming majority of people, it was very, very low when you removed the people who had high severity. We did this all for a low-severity virus. There was no pandemic of deaths. We’re expecting Australians who have lost trust in the health system and who see no accountability to just accept it. This is dancing away from responsibility and accountability in the health system.
Senator Wong: I think it’s a very accountable report, with respect. It’s many hundreds of pages, which go through in great detail a lot of the aspects of the nation’s response to the pandemic—Commonwealth, state, territory, the medical sector, how we handled borders, how we handled hospitals, the community. I think it is a very comprehensive report, so I don’t know that I agree with the assertion about the lack of accountability. I also would say to you, if you want to talk about evidence bases, that I don’t think the evidence supports the proposition that this was simply—I can’t recall the phrase you used.
Senator ROBERTS: Low-to-moderate severity.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some who say that it was—
Senator ROBERTS: That was the Chief Medical Officer.
Senator Wong: I don’t share the view of some that look to what happened in the US, what happened in Italy and what happened in Spain in terms of what we saw there and the hospital systems and the consequent rates of death. I don’t dismiss those as made-up news. The fact that we averted that kind of scenario in Australia is something we should reflect upon.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree.
Senator Wong: You and I have different views on the vaccines. I’d say to you that there were mistakes made, yes, and people have to accept that and front up for that. But I hope we can use this to make sure we equip the country better because, given the more globalised world, we know from most of the experts—WHO and our own experts—that pandemics have become more likely.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to New Zealand. We had a Senate inquiry as a result of a motion that I moved in the Senate that developed the terms of reference for a possible future royal commission. The terms of reference are wonderfully comprehensive. Nothing has been done. The Prime Minister won’t even share them with the people.
The terms of reference were so comprehensive that they were adopted, largely, by the New Zealand royal commission. The New Zealand royal commission that was underway thanks to Jacinda Ardern was a sham. It had one commissioner and very limited terms of reference. The terms of reference developed by the Senate committee in this country have now been adopted by the New Zealand royal commission. They have expanded it to three commissioners. That came about because Winston Peters—who initially was in a coalition with the Labour Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern—went and listened to the people in Wellington at a large protest, and he realised that so many people had died due to the vaccines and so many people were crippled due to vaccines. He also realised that so many people were gaslit, saying, ‘It’s not a vaccine injury; it’s just a mental health issue.’ He then formed a coalition with the current National Party government, and the condition was that they have a proper, fair dinkum royal commission. The terms of reference have been expanded, broadened, extended and detailed; they’ve now brought vaccines and vaccine injuries into that. Isn’t that the least that we can do for the people who’ve been injured? Tens of thousands have died as a result of the vaccines; we know that from the statistics and the correlation. We also know that hundreds of thousands have been seriously injured, and they’re being laughed at. No health department in this country—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts—
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t we get justice for those people?
CHAIR: I don’t think that’s a question.
Senator ROBERTS: I just asked a question.
Senator Wong: If you want details about vaccines, Health would probably be the place to go in terms of the estimates process.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re going there, Minister!
Senator Wong: I’m sure you will; I think you regularly do! I’d make this observation: I know you don’t accept the medical evidence, but that is the medical evidence both governments have received—
Senator ROBERTS: On the contrary, I do accept the medical evidence.
Senator Wong: Well, I don’t think you accept the weight of the medical evidence. The second observation is that I am concerned—I think the inquiry might have gone to this. We’ve had a pretty good history in this country of vaccination across measles, whooping cough et cetera, and the concern about vaccines means that we are dropping below herd immunity for diseases which we had largely won the battle against. I don’t think that is a responsible thing to do.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s another matter altogether.
Senator Wong: I would say we have a responsibility in this place to understand where our words land, and I don’t think it’s a good thing if we’re not vaccinated against whooping cough or measles—
CHAIR: Or HPV.
Senator Wong: or, frankly, COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: The fact is that people were vaccinating their children for whooping cough and so on. The fact is that so many people have lost complete trust in the health system; they’re saying, ‘Stick your vaccines.’ That’s why it’s so important. How will you restore accountability?
Senator Wong: How will you? If you said to them, ‘You should get your kids vaccinated for whooping cough’, that might actually cut through.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve done some research on that.
Senator Wong: You don’t want them vaccinated?
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that. It should be the parents’ choice.
Senator Wong: I disagree with you. I think parents always choose medical treatment for their children, but I disagree with you that people can choose their facts. The facts are—
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: that we know what whooping cough does, and what it does to kids.
Senator ROBERTS: I think it’s fundamental—
Senator Wong: Alright. We’re not going to agree.
Senator ROBERTS: that parents have responsibility for the health of their children.
Senator Wong: Fair enough, okay. We’re going to disagree on the issue of vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian people deserve transparency and answers. They deserve a COVID royal commission now, and some people deserve to be in jail for the overreach and damage inflicted on Australians. How is your government going to restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I think we’ve just been discussing this, haven’t we?
Senator ROBERTS: I raised it earlier on, but you didn’t answer the question.
Senator Wong: Which bit do you want? We don’t think we need a royal commission because we’ve had a—
Senator ROBERTS: How can you restore trust without accountability?
Senator Wong: I’m inviting you to help us restore trust, but you don’t agree with many of the vaccinations. My point is—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that.
Senator Wong: That is what you said. You had your own views on whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I said parents have the right to choose what to do. Parents are responsible for their children. That’s fundamental.
Senator Wong: Yes, that is true, but what I meant was that parents should not be given incorrect facts by people in a position of authority.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree entirely.
Senator Wong: I’m saying to you that I think it is not responsible to be telling people that they shouldn’t have their children vaccinated for whooping cough.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that; I said that it’s the parents’ choice. I recommend a book, Fooling Ourselves, written by a statistician in Queensland. That’s evidence. I give that to parents and say, ‘Decide for yourself.’
Senator Wong: So you don’t think the medical evidence and—
