Posts

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?

/2 Comments/by

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.

While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.  

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates  

Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?  

Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects. 

/2 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

The Question TGA Won’t Answer

,

The U.S. CDC has changed its guidance on vaccines. The new guidance states that it is not possible to declare vaccines safe because there is no proof that they are. I asked the TGA whether they had changed their own position as a result. The ensuing discussion was pure semantics, as the TGA tried to avoid agreeing with the CDC.

For the record, the theory of logic states: “An outcome that has not been proven impossible may be possible.” To avoid what comes next—a simple question—the TGA had to deny basic logic. That question was: If it MAY be possible, shouldn’t you take a fresh look?

In previous Estimates hearings, I have presented the TGA with peer-reviewed, published papers showing that adjuvants (preservatives) in vaccines can cause autism. These papers actually show causation—the damage to the brain caused by adjuvants used in vaccines.

The testimony from Professor Lawler was simply wrong, and I will revisit this question in the February Estimates.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Now, I’d like to turn to vaccines and autism again. In America, the CDC have changed their guidance on vaccines and autism. The guidelines now read:

… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended for … the first year of life do not cause autism.

The American FDA has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there is no study to show they are safe. Yet I’ve sat here repeatedly, including earlier tonight, and been told by the TGA over and over again that they are safe. You can’t be right. Either there is proof they are safe, or there is not. Which is it?

Prof. Lawler: I discussed this at length with Senator Antic. The policy decisions and announcements of the FDA are matters for the FDA, and those questions should be directed to them. I would just highlight a couple of your question.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.

Prof. Lawler: That’s not what they said.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct.

Prof. Lawler: They’ve not said that vaccines cause autism.

Senator ROBERTS: They’ve said:

… there are still no studies that support the claim that any of the 20 doses of the seven infant vaccines recommended … do not cause autism.

Prof. Lawler: I think you went on to say at the end of your question—and please correct me if I’m wrong—that the FDA is thereby saying that vaccines cause autism.

Senator ROBERTS: No. I said the FDA, though, has accepted that vaccines may cause autism because there are no studies to show they are safe.

Prof. Lawler: Again, the three-point statement that appeared in November on the CDC’s website, which replaced its previous guidance on vaccines and autism, was of a particular wording. It seemed to me to quite
clearly say that, in its view, it cannot be said that vaccines do not cause autism, because no studies have shown that they do not cause autism. As I mentioned previously in my response to the question by Senator Antic, there is a fundamental scientific challenge in stating that something exists because you haven’t been able to prove that it doesn’t. The scientific process is that an individual or a party that makes a scientific claim holds the onus to provide the evidence that supports that claim. For instance, if you’re claiming that vaccines cause autism, the obligation is on you or another person who’s claiming that to demonstrate the evidence that supports that claim. The challenge that we have in that space is that a significant amount of the initial conversation around vaccines causing autism arose from a 1997 article by then doctor Andrew Wakefield that was published in the Lancet and subsequently retracted and thoroughly debunked because there were personal, professional, ethical and methodological conflicts and flaws. Since then, there have been multiple studies over decades involving millions of children and adults who have received different types of vaccines over different years, and, in that time, there has been no demonstrated causal or associative link between vaccines and autism. So, as I say, if there is a claim there, it has never been substantiated by rigorous and dependable evidence, and all of the evidence that we have is supportive of the view that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

Senator ROBERTS: In my view—and I think this is probably correct—the approver has the onus to say that something’s safe. The approver is you, the TGA. According to FOI No. 1345-01, you had 43 sudden, unexpected deaths reported on your Adverse Event Management System following injection of the Infanrix hexa vaccine. Are none of those caused by the vaccine?

Prof. Lawler: I’ll throw to Dr Dascombe, who’s online, to respond to that. I will just say, initially, as I have said in response to your questions and the questions of others and indeed in the conversation that we had
previously this evening around mesh, the role of the regulator is to ensure that the risks are managed appropriately such that there is an effective balance for the community between access to a therapeutic product and the benefit derived from the product, and the risk that’s presented. As we’ve discussed on a number of occasions, overwhelmingly, for the COVID vaccine and for other vaccines, the risk-benefit profile is positive. Dr Dascombe, I’ll ask you to respond as well.

Dr Dascombe: To go to both of your questions, Senator, Professor Lawler has comprehensively answered on two occasions now tonight questions around the updated guidance from the US CDC. There are a couple of things that I’d reaffirm there, particularly from a post-market regulation of vaccines perspective. The TGA, like our international counterparts, takes an evidence based approach to the regulation of vaccines registered in Australia. This means that our regulatory decisions are based on the weight of available scientific evidence. There are a couple of key points worth confirming. There is no scientific evidence of a causal link between autism and any vaccine or vaccine ingredient. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence to refute the claim that vaccines are linked to autism. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed a safety signal for autism in any vaccine. Those are key points to reiterate, to your first question. To your second question, around reported adverse events with the Infanrix hexa vaccine on our Adverse Event
Management System, as you know, this is a system that relies on spontaneous reports from healthcare professionals, consumers, states, public health units and medicine sponsors. The existence of a report in that system and a report made to us doesn’t necessarily confirm that the vaccine has caused that death. We encourage reporting of all adverse events, even if there’s only a small chance that the vaccine is related to that death.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Prof. Lawler: Thank you for that, Dr Dascombe. I would also just reflect on your comment earlier about the onus on the approver to ensure that something is safe. That is correct. The challenge that every regulator in the world faces is that the only way to ensure that there is no risk in a product is to not approve any product for supply in the country. That’s the only way, and then the public would be quite rightly clamouring for access to goods that are enjoyed by populations around the world. So the role of the regulator here in Australia, as in other countries, is to appropriately assure itself that the evidence indicates that the risk-benefit profile is positive. As Dr Dascombe’s indicated, there’s no identified causal link between vaccines and autism.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t here, but I asked Professor Skerritt a question about the testing of the COVID Pfizer shots in Australia. He said, ‘Oh, no, we didn’t do any testing; we relied upon the FDA in America.’
At that time, it had been already been stated that the FDA did no testing itself and relied on Pfizer, and Pfizer cut short its trials because of the number of people who died. So we had a failed study that led to the approval of vaccines—of COVID injections—in this country, and no-one knew about it, yet it was open public knowledge in the United States. Let me continue. A Korean study published in Biomarker Research in September this year followed up 8.4 million Koreans and found as follows: within a 12-month period following their COVID jab, the vaccinated group had a 27 per cent greater chance of being diagnosed with cancer when compared to an unvaccinated group. This was a massive study. This does not prove causation, although many studies I have shared with you prove how these products cause cancer. It does prove correlation. Do you still maintain that COVID vaccines are safe?

Prof. Lawler: I do not recall, Senator, an article that you shared with me that does prove causation between these vaccines and cancer. Also, given the need to analyse the documents, I don’t have the article that you’re
describing in front of me, so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it specifically.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll check that. On 28 November 2025, Dr Vinay Prasad, director of the American FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, sent an email first reported by the New York Times. It
described findings from a recent internal FDA review of paediatric deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, VAERS, between 2021 and 2024. According to the memo, an analysis of 96 reported
paediatric deaths among people aged from seven to 18 concluded that at least 10 were causally linked to COVID 19 vaccines, primarily due to vaccine induced myocarditis. Prasad describe this as a ‘profound revelation’. Professor Kidd, do you acknowledge that paediatric vaccines can cause death?

Prof. Kidd: I’m going to have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t acknowledge it or you can?

Prof. Kidd: I’m going to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: The FDA analysis—

Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to provide some comment on that if you like, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Sure.

Prof. Lawler: We did respond to questions about Dr Prasad’s announcement earlier this evening when questioned by Senator Antic. As far as I’m aware—Dr Dascombe, please feel free to correct me—we have not at
this stage been provided with information regarding that. As we have indicated previously, we rely not only on our own information that comes through our own adverse event monitoring system but also on signals that come from other regulators. This is not a signal that has been replicated, to my knowledge, in other regulators. As I say, we have not had detailed information regarding Dr Prasad’s claim shared with us.
In terms of the question that you posed to Professor Kidd, one of the reasons we have robust postmarket vigilance in place for medicines, devices and, in fact, all therapeutic goods that we regulate is that we recognise
that individuals sometimes react to medicines. To give you an example, we have a number of other medicines—non-vaccine medicines—to which individuals can have allergic reactions. So it would be inappropriate, I think, for either Professor Kidd or me to say that people can’t react to these things. Our role as the regulator is to ensure that appropriate systems are in place to identify safety signals as they arise, to analyse them, to understand them and to respond to them in an appropriate way.

/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

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

Is Trump Finally Seeing the Truth About mRNA Vaccines?

,

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) 

/1 Comment/by

Update 7: COVID, Control and the Cost of Compliance

,

This is my seventh update on the fallout from our ill-considered, dangerous, and criminal response to COVID-19. The truth is becoming clearer with every new study and every new piece of data.

Australia and New Zealand responded to COVID with measures designed to force mass vaccination, resulting in enormous financial gains for pharmaceutical companies. This money flowed through to shareholders—the world’s most predatory billionaires.

It’s terrifying that the entire situation—from the development of the COVID virus to the implementation of COVID measures, including the vaccines—was one giant fundraiser for the world’s wealthiest individuals. Yet that IS the truth!

Let me be clear: those who died from COVID died from a man-made virus. It was developed using gain-of-function research to be more deadly and more contagious than the original SARS virus, which was the starting point for the development of COVID. The virus was then “sold” to the public as the unfortunate result of human interaction with pangolins at a wet market in Wuhan, China.

It’s concerning that so many believed that fanciful story—an over-trust in authority resulting in a medical tragedy that’s still unfolding, as shown in new peer-reviewed and published studies.

Transcript

The New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned invited several former ministers in New Zealand responsible for the damaging, inhuman and fatal COVID response. These were Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister; Chris Hipkins, the former health and COVID-19 response minister and current Labour leader; Grant Robertson, the former finance minister; and Ayesha Verrall, the former health minister. All four refused to testify, instead choosing to provide the Hollywood version of their actions in writing, avoiding cross-examination. Jacinda Ardern went so far as to call the royal commission a witch-hunt. One Nation calls it accountability. To refuse to be held to account for their actions is a signed confession of wrongdoing. Australia and New Zealand reacted to COVID with measures designed to force mass vaccination at huge financial benefit to pharmaceutical companies. This money flowed through to shareholders who are the world’s predatory billionaires. It’s terrifying that this entire thing, from the development of the COVID virus to the COVID measures, including the vaccine injections, was one giant fundraiser for the world’s wealthiest people. Yet that is the truth. 

We know COVID itself is a man-made virus developed under Anthony Fauci with funding from the United States’s NIH, National Institutes of Health, administered through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The research was conducted first in the USA and then moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from 2014, where it escaped in a lab leak in September 2019 before development was completed. Documents released through the FBI and others prove these facts. This is why the amazing United States secretary of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, announced the opening of a criminal investigation into Anthony Fauci and his cronies. I wonder if Ms Ardern considers that a witch hunt. The wheels of justice turn slowly, though they do turn. Ms Ardern can stare down a royal commission now, yet the truth is coming out. 

It’s important to note that in its 2020 press release Australia’s own CSIRO confirmed it was involved in this gain-of-function research. Last February, a new paper was published through CSIRO Publishing entitled ‘Impacts of long COVID on disability, function and quality of life for adults living in Australia’. It found that people with long COVID reported worse disability than 98 per cent—almost 100 per cent—of the general Australian population. A total of 86 per cent those with long COVID met the threshold for serious disability compared with nine per cent of Australians overall. Complex areas like housework and socialising were badly impacted. People could often meet basic needs, yet their ability to contribute to their homes, workplaces and communities was limited. Quality of life was badly affected. Energy levels and social life were the most impacted, reflecting how fatigue and brain fog affect activities, relationships and connections. It is without a hint of irony that the CSIRO published a study showing health damage resulting from the virus they helped create through their support for gain-of-function research. All the evidence we have at the moment suggests long COVID can come from exposure to COVID or from the vaccine, the injections, the shots, and from some batches more than others. This is because for the first year the COVID shots were not made using good manufacturing processes, so batch variation was enormous. 

Almost immediately when the virus appeared, we knew that COVID was the product of gain-of-function research. Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier sequenced COVID in April of 2020 and found unmistakeable evidence human intervention, including the inclusion of a large segment of the HIV virus. Luc should know; he won his Nobel prize for discovering the HIV virus. The bat virus was spliced in to confuse the human body’s immune system into producing in the wrong immune response to make the virus more deadly, deliberately. Then, for good measure, they spliced in most of the HIV virus to make it more contagious. Let me be clear. Those who died from COVID died from a manmade virus developed using gain-of-function research to be more deadly and more contagious than the original SARS virus which was the starting point for the development of COVID. Then the virus was sold to the public is an unfortunate outcome of human interaction with pangolin animals in a wet market in Wuhan in China. It’s concerning that so many believe that fanciful story and overtrust in authority, resulting in a medical tragedy that continues to unfold in new peer-reviewed and published articles. 

Here are the latest such articles. Chen and others say mRNA injections cross the placenta and reach the fetus. mRNA-1273 crosses within one hour, accumulates in fetal organs, translates into spike protein and persists after birth. Thorp and others say CDC and FDA safety signal thresholds were breached for 37 adverse events following jabs in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth and fetal arrests. Karaman and others say mRNA shots destroy 60 per cent of a woman’s egg supply, known as primordial follicles. Manniche and others, on a sample set of 1.3 million women, found 33 per cent fewer successful pregnancies in women who had the shots. Freiberg and others, on a sample of 493,000 people—almost half a million people—found a 23 per cent increase in autoimmune disease post shot. 

Did anyone hear about this study conducted from the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Dr Feldstein, published in the Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal, an Oxford University Press peer-reviewed publication? Amongst children aged six months to four years with no prior COVID infection, those who received the Pfizer-bioNTech mRNA shots were 159 per cent more likely to get infected and 257 per cent more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection. This study from the US’s own CDC clearly shows that a COVID shot in young people has negative efficacy. It makes children more likely to get COVID, and, when they do, they experience worse symptoms. That study has resulted in the FDA and now Australia’s TGA at long last announcing the end of COVID vaccination for children, after they told us it was essential. Add that to the mental health damage, developmental delays and academic damage done to children during lockdown, and the picture is scandalous. This is criminal. This is inhuman. 

In O’Keefe Media’s recent hidden camera video, Johnson Johnson’s lead scientist in regulatory affairs, Joshua Rys, admitted the typical clinical process was abandoned for the COVID-19 vaccine. J J knowingly bypassed standard testing protocols under pressure from the Biden government. Joshua said: 

This was just, ‘let’s test it on some lab models … and just throw it to the wind and see what happens. 

He acknowledges that the public was not informed about the shortcuts, which were not acknowledged. Did the TGA know that there was no proper safety testing on the J J product before it was given approval in Australia? While public officials claimed the vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, Rys pushed back saying: 

There’s no proof. None of that stuff was safe and effective. 

He added that the industry relies on a benefit-to-risk trade-off to justify product launches. What this means is that the product is justified if it helps more people than it harms. In that scenario, harm is tolerated. If the pharmaceutical company has its thumb on the scale, making harm less and benefit more, then the faulty product makes it to the market. That’s exactly what happened with the COVID products and 20 other products, like Remdesivir, that were approved in Australia. 

Now the latest instalment in Frankenstein science is upon us. Listen to this. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines—saRNA—are being tested. These are shots which replicate inside the human body after injection, turning our bodies into genetic material production units which shed on those around us. This is uninformed consent to vaccination taken to a whole new level. A paper published in the peer reviewed Journal of Clinical Medicine found that the COVID-19 replicon saRNA injections caused severe blood abnormalities in 93 per cent of trial participants. Symptoms include increased risk of internal bleeding and suppressed immune cells, which raises infection risks. Renowned American cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough last week commented on saRNA technology, saying: 

Vaccinologists have made a critical error in the design of genetic vaccines. Injection of the genetic code for any foreign protein including parts of viruses causes the body to respond with an immune attack against its own cells. 

This leads to intense vaccine injury syndromes all through the human body 

He said: 

Giving the vaccines their own ‘life’ with the ability to reproduce themselves is inhumane, reckless, and from the outset, should be flagged as dangerous and potentially lethal to the recipient. 

COVID vaccines were released without proper testing and caused 1,200 deaths in testing alone, in Pfizer alone. Pushing COVID shots killed tens of thousands of Australians—homicide. If saRNA shots are pushed, it will be genocide—deliberate. Those responsible for COVID have not been held to account, yet now they plan to turn every person and every animal into a genetic material production facility. I have now given seven of these COVID updates, 70 minutes of proof—scientific proof, medical proof—that we must investigate this criminal enterprise, or this next generation of Frankenstein science, the saRNA, will kill and maim huge numbers of Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

Patients First – Not Profits or Mandates

✅ 100% agree!

Sourced from Secretary Kennedy on X @SecKennedy:

Medical decisions should be made based on one thing: the wellbeing of the person—never on a financial bonus or a government mandate.

Doctors deserve the freedom to use their training, follow the science, and speak the truth without fear of punishment.

/3 Comments/by

When Trust is Betrayed

, ,

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) 

/1 Comment/by