Governments are squashing freedoms like never before. History will show that those on the side of freedom will always be on the right side.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak tonight on freedom. On many occasions in the last year I have addressed the Senate in regard to freedom as a counterbalance to medical tyranny. And I recently addressed the Canberra Freedom Rally, remotely. The side that is locking people up for the crime of being healthy, arresting protesters, pepper spraying kids, beating up grannies, banning books and electronic messages, censoring social media, sending threatening letters, forcing small businesses to close, urging people to dob in dissenters and banning safe drugs that have worked for 60 years are all on the wrong side of history.
In a frightening development, New South Wales has called in the troops to keep innocent, healthy citizens locked in their homes in what can only be called martial law. Recent freedom marches showed what happens to citizens who exercise their democratic right to protest. People are demonised, hunted down; the media vilifies them to discourage others from questioning the control state. If the government can decide who is free and who is not, then that is not freedom and no-one is free. A crisis will always be found to justify measures designed to protect the government, not the public—a crisis that is as is easy to create as turning up the PCR test from 24 cycles to 42, where a false positive is the most likely outcome, as has occurred.
Actions such as these have created a crisis of confidence in government, and that, fellow citizens, is on the Senate. We are the house of review. We’re tasked with a duty to ensure honesty, transparency and accountability in the government of the day. We have failed in that solemn duty, our duty to our constituents. We have failed those who are yet to vote, our children, who are now being injected with a substance that has not undergone meaningful safety testing. The Liberal, National and Labor parties have colluded to waive these measures through this place, reducing the Senate to the status of a dystopian echo chamber.
Each new restriction, although met with rightful public opposition, has not led to a re-evaluation but, rather, has led the government to crack down even further. The Morrison government is behaving like a gambling addict who loses a hand but doubles down instead of admitting error and walking away. With troops now on the streets, it’s frightening to contemplate where this will end. Everyday Australians are being deliberately demoralised to extract a higher degree of compliance. When COVID first arrived, there were few masks, and the experts and authorities told us masks were not necessary. Now, those same medically ineffective masks are used to condition people to fear and obedience. Crushing resistance crushes hope, and without hope we have no future.
Is it any wonder that small businesses are closing permanently? Every small business that closes is a family that was being provided for through hard work and enterprise. Who will look after those families now—the government? With whose money? The Reserve Bank, using electronic journal entries, can only create fiat money out of thin air for so long before it runs down our country. The government can only sell bonds until buyers stop coming forward. Then what happens? We will have no tax base left to pay government stipends to people who were once able to pay their own way.
Since when has the Liberal Party, the supposedly party of Menzies, been dedicated to making huge sections of the population totally reliant on the government for survival? The bad joke here is that the excuse used to justify the sudden rush to Marxism—public health—is moot. Death from all sources, including coronavirus and the flu, are at historic lows. Australia’s death rate in 2020 was less than in 2019, and 2021’s death rate is lower again. We’re strangling Australia’s economic life and future for no reason. Power has gone to the heads of our elected leaders and unelected bureaucrats, who are exercising powers yet do not feel the consequences themselves.
Never in history has Lord Acton’s famous quote rung more true: ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ It’s been calculated that the civil disobedience tipping point—which is the maximum capacity of the police to arrest people, of the jails to hold people and of the courts to process people—is in Australia around 100,000 people. Anything more than that and the system comes crashing down. Attendance at the freedom rallies last month shows we’re almost there.
No wonder the Morrison government has been scared into resorting to the refuge of tyrants—using the military to intimidate civilians into compliance and to mandating injections and threatening to rip away people’s livelihoods.
Everyday Australians are seeing through the smokescreens of fear and intimidation. People now see that the costs of the restrictions to family and community exceed the medical cost of the virus. Everyday Australians have spoken. We will not be divided, we are united, we are one community, we are one nation.
The politics of today seek to turn Australians against each other. We must resist this division as it only serves the interests of multinational companies and power-hungry politicians.
Transcript
The architect of our Parliament House, Romaldo Giurgola gave the Australian flag pride of place in his design.
A flag the size of a double decker bus, atop an 80m flag pole with supports that bring together the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The symbolism is clear, the Senate and the House of Representatives hold up our flag.
Not the other way around.
Any person who comes into this place, who does not then look up and feel awestruck with where we work, and with the responsibility we have, as Senators has no place being here.
The Australian flag flies above us for direction, not decoration.
We are directed to remember those who were here first and the millions who have come since. Immigrants who have come to this beautiful country to make a better life for themselves and to lift up all Australians in the process.
Including the Italian born architect of Parliament House – which I imagine explains all the marble.
Mr President we are directed to remember that we represent people not corporations.
Yet the winners from 18 months of COVID crony Government are not everyday Australians. The winners from croney govt are foreign multinationals. Big Pharma.
Never in the history of this beautiful country of ours has government policy so comprehensively abandoned those we represent, in favour of those we do not.
When Government needs to deploy the military to maintain control of our own people, to effect a social outcome rather than a medical one, there is only one description for that.
Martial law.
How this government acts in the coming months will decide if a second description should be added.
Treason.
Dividing Australians by any arbitrary measure including vaccination status flies in the face of everything our flag stands for, of everything this nation stands for.
We will not be divided!
We have One flag, we are One Community, we are One Nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/OC2LrwafflU/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-03 14:20:322022-06-21 14:01:54Under one flag we stand undivided.
What letting the government enforce vaccines means
There are far-reaching consequences of letting the government get away with their new enforcement of vaccines in aged care workers. We must fight against it.
Transcript: (click here)
When it comes to vaccines in our bodies, we must always have access to informed consent and freedom of choice. In August, 2020, Prime Minister, Scott Morrison said, “It’s not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine.” On Monday 28th of June, 2021, he went back on his word and stated that it will be mandatory for all aged care workers to have the vaccine.
No one can argue the vulnerability of those in aged care. No one can argue the vaccination is not yet proven and everyone who is having the vaccine is part of the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial, which is exactly how our health minister Greg Hunt describes it. My office put out a call on Facebook for any aged care workers to contact us if they have concerns around the vaccine. We were swamped with phone calls and hundreds of emails just within hours. In summary, there are many workers distraught, anxious and terrified of being forced to get the jab. These concerns are raised from fears about the known and unknown side effects, religious beliefs, pregnancy, allergies and having pre-existing conditions.
If that isn’t enough, those that haven’t had the vaccine are harassed and intimidated by colleagues. We had people sobbing over the phone. We know many are casuals within the aged care sector. When they cannot afford to be without work, their concerns around the vaccine are so profound, they know when the September deadline comes, they will have to leave their jobs. The aged care sector could be challenged by increased staff shortages and standards of care will slip.
Aged care residents are at risk of losing the stability of those long-term care relationships with staff. Our aged care workers have had their rightful freedom of choice around the vaccination stripped away from them by the Prime Minister. Aged care workers are losing their fundamental worker and human rights. Some unions are by default, supporting the mandatory vaccinations.
In the words of Sally McManus, Secretary of the ACTU, “Just get the job done and support the casualization workforce so that they are not out of pocket if they get side effects.” Nowhere in that, does she advocate for workers’ rights to not get the vaccine. And a statement of side effects is an admission there are problems with the vaccine. All Australians must be able to make their own informed choices on whether to have the vaccine and not be rammed into it.
Mandatory Vaccines – Unconstitutional?
Mandatory Vaccination is against the federal constitution. That means Scott Morrison can’t enforce them, but, State Governments can. It’s an unethical backdoor around the protections in the constitution, and Premiers look set to bow to Scott Morrisons demands on mandatory vaccination.
Transcript: (click here)
During these COVID 19 times, the government messages are getting more and more confusing. It was only a few months ago that the prime minister, Mr. Scott Morrison, said that he would not make COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory. Yet, that is what he has recently said would be necessary for aged and healthcare workers and for those drivers working in the quarantine sector. If he gets away with this, it will be just the beginning, before spreading Australia wide across our industries and nation.
Can he do it? Well, the Australian constitution states in section 51, paragraph 23-A, that the Commonwealth government cannot impose mandatory medical treatment on a person. That would include vaccination. The states though can do it. If they pass legislation to that effect. Now Victoria and Western Australia have legislation in place that could force a person to be vaccinated. There’s nothing to prevent other states and territories from passing similar enabling legislation, to be in line with Victoria and Western Australia.
The result of that, is that if the prime minister can persuade the states and territories to follow his line, they can enable the Commonwealth demands. Is this ethical? Well, that’s another question, but absolutely not. It would be a backdoor way for the Commonwealth to sneak around the constitutional prohibition on enforcing vaccination. On this issue, the Commonwealth government is behaving like an authoritarian dictatorship. Acting in an unethical, unjustified and unprincipled way.
Forcing vaccinations represents an attack on bodily integrity and without a valid consent, they may well constitute an assault. People should be able to freely choose what will be injected into their bodies. These vaccines remain unproven and the long-term prognosis are unknown. On that basis the vaccines are unjustified.
We should be able to trust our prime minister when he makes promises. It’s clear that we can’t.
Lockdowns again? That’s so 2020
More than 18 months into COVID19 State Premiers are still using the same old trick, lockdowns. It shows they have got no idea how to manage COVID.
Transcript: (click here)
The cities of Brisbane and Townsville have only just come out of yet another brutal lockdown and Sydney is in the middle of a three week lockdown. The only time a lockdown is justified is when the virus is so out of control, the government needs to buy time to reorganise and regroup resources and protect exhausted health workers. Using lockdowns 18 months later is a sure sign that our political leaders are yet to master living with COVID. It seems that their only trick is to grind the towns or states to a halt over a handful of cases, while they madly scramble for testing and tracing.
My message has been consistent, quarantine those unwell and waiting on tests and allow the rest of the state to get back to work. Other countries have found a way to balance both the health and the economic priorities. Yet, after 18 months in Australia, we are still unable to find that balance. The Premiers and the Prime Minister may say that we can’t have any further deaths from COVID as justification for these brutal lockdowns.
What they aren’t saying is that deaths from loneliness, social isolation, suicide, and unchecked medical conditions such as missed cancer diagnosis are okay. Apparently those deaths don’t matter because they aren’t COVID deaths. We’re at the mercy of our Premiers and their insatiable need to appear to be looking after the people. They want to look good, not do good. They tell us, “We’re keeping you safe from COVID,” while what they do is wreck our businesses, take away our jobs, devastate our livelihoods, isolate us, and let our loved ones die alone.
Internet searches for loneliness have increased, as have rates of self-harm, eating disorders, anxiety, and domestic violence. Meanwhile, the government tracks every shop, supermarket, stadium, pub, and government office we enter. After 18 months of collecting health data, learning from national and international experience and knowing the costly economic and mental health concerns, we would have hoped that Australia’s approach would have evolved past brutal capricious lockdowns.
It’s a shame on these power hungry politicians that it hasn’t.
Vaccine Safety
Since 2020 the number of concerned Australians “very unlikely” to get the vaccine has increased 10% and there’s good reason for this. The government gave vaccine manufacturers immunity so vaccine makers will not be liable for adverse effects. If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe there can be no trust.
Transcript: (click here)
Many Australians are hesitating about getting a Covid injection. Since 2020 the number of concerned Australians “very unlikely” to get the vaccine has increased 10% and there’s good reason for this. People are recognising that our safety, liberty and personal freedoms are at stake, and asking many questions about the safety of these injections. The government gave vaccine manufacturers immunity so vaccine makers will not be liable for adverse effects. If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe there can be no trust.
The federal health minister said this is the world’s largest clinical vaccination trial. The Chief Health Officer, head of the Health Department and head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration all refused to say the vaccines are 100% safe. We have no idea what these products will do to our body months or years from now. How will it affect pregnant women? The babies they’re carrying? Infertility?
We know the vaccine can make people unwell, that 60% experience tiredness, 50% experience headaches and 30% might have chills and there are more serious complications including vascular deterioration and death. No one knows the dosage. Nor the number of injections. Nor the frequency of injections. Will they be annual? Twice a year?
There’s been no public debate among health officials, scientists or in parliament. People with questions or contrary opinions get silenced and healthcare workers are being intimidated not to step out of line. COVID’s first victim was free discussion. The Morrison government is mandating vaccination for aged care workers yet many are afraid of the vaccine and afraid they will lose their jobs.
Yet despite all this, people having the vaccine can still get the virus AND still spread the virus. We all deserve to have access to the facts so we can make informed decisions. The simple legal fact is that a death associated with a government approved injection is different in legal status from a death due to an accidental infection.
Further details on the Constitutionality of Mandatory Vaccines
I oppose vaccines being made mandatory and so do many Australians. There are some incorrect claims being made about sections 109 and 51 of the Constitution, the Biosecurity Act and the Nuremberg code. Some people may not like the information I’m about to tell you, but I assure you it is accurate. I wish it wasn’t, but there is nothing to gain in misleading you and giving you false hope. Please watch this video or read the transcript in full on my website.
Transcript: (click here)
I want to address some claims in relation to mandatory vaccines. I completely oppose mandatory vaccines, but there are some false claims about their legality. Some people may not like the information I’m about to tell you, but I assure you it is accurate. I wish it wasn’t, but there is nothing to gain in misleading you and giving you false hope. Can the Commonwealth Government make Covid vaccinations mandatory?
The Australian Constitution in Section 51(xxiiiA) does not provide an authority for mandatory medical treatment on a person. That would include vaccination. It does allow the Commonwealth to fund treatment but not to compel it. Because the power to mandate treatment was not given to the Commonwealth under the 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution, the Commonwealth cannot mandate treatment under this provision. There are provisions in the Biosecurity Act 2015, made under the Commonwealth’s quarantine power, that in limited circumstances may authorise directions for individuals, but not groups of persons.
The States, on the other hand, can mandate treatment if they pass legislation to that effect. s.51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth constitution does not restrict them. At the moment, Victoria and Western Australia have explicit legislation in place that could force a person to be vaccinated. There is nothing to prevent the other States and Territories from passing similar enabling legislation to be in line with Victoria and Western Australia.
The result of that is that if the Prime Minister can persuade the States and Territories to follow his line, they can enable the Commonwealth demands. Is this morally right? Absolutely not. It would be a backdoor way for the Commonwealth to sneak around the Constitution on enforcing vaccination. Scott Morrison can’t do it because of the Constitution, so he’s getting the State Governments to do his dirty work.
Another issue that requires some explanation is the effect of s.109 of the Australian Constitution. This says that if there is a conflict between a valid Commonwealth Act and a valid State Act, the Commonwealth Act shall prevail to the extent of any inconsistency. Some people believe this makes mandatory vaccinations illegal even if the state does them. The Constitution however is a special document, not being a Commonwealth Act, and s 109 does not apply in the context of mandatory treatments.
If there was a Commonwealth Act saying vaccinations are not to be mandatory, and a State Act saying that vaccinations are mandatory, the State Act would be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Act and the State Act would fail under s109. However, there is no Commonwealth Act that says vaccinations cannot be mandatory so s109 does not apply. There may be a number of human rights protections against forced vaccination but these have not yet been fully tested under Australian law.
Some people have raised the Nuremburg Code, which is an international agreement that says that people should not be subject to experimental treatment unless they have consented to it. It is only enforceable in Australia if it is in legislation, which is not the case apart from the ACT, where s.10(2) of the Human Rights Act 2004 provides the right not to be subject to medical treatment or experimentation without free consent. The Nuremberg code is a principle that should be adhered to ethically, but it is not a guaranteed legal requirement generally in Australia.
Forced vaccinations represent an attack on bodily integrity, and without a valid consent may well constitute an assault. People should be able to freely choose what will be injected into their bodies. In Queensland, the Chief Health Officer has made several directions based on her emergency powers under the Public Health Act 2005, applicable in Queensland. These emergency-based powers are proposed to be extended out until 30 April 2022 and apply while there is a declared public health emergency.
The powers are very broad and recently included student nurses being excluded from a Restricted Vulnerable Facility if not fully vaccinated, having not had both planned injections. Currently this directive applies for a period up to 6.00pm on 16 July 2021. A Restricted Vulnerable Facility includes hospitals, a residential aged care facility, disability accommodation and correctional centres. These Directions are all supposed to be temporary.
If an employer tries to force an existing employee to be vaccinated this may well constitute an unreasonable direction and the employee may refuse unless the employer has a particular authority. If that employee is fired or is threatened with being fired if they do not comply with the request this may constitute unlawful dismissal and can be fought in court. The proximity of the employee to vulnerable people may be a factor the court would look at when considering if the request to vaccinate is reasonable.
The court would also consider the risks to the vulnerable people and the risk profile of the employee through being exposed. The greater the risk, the more likely the direction to vaccinate would be considered reasonable. If before being hired an applicant is told this is a condition of employment and the applicant does not wish to be vaccinated, the employer is legally able to hire someone else. The decision in these circumstances is really a legitimate choice by the applicant.
In summary, although it is unethical, unjustifiable and a shocking intrusion on people’s bodily integrity, the States have the technical legal power to mandate vaccines. The only solution is to tell them you oppose it, and if they don’t listen vote the wannabe tyrants out of power.
Confused about the government rules on vaccines?
The government has been relying on fear and panic for the vaccine. When the government does that, they’ll just jump from brain snap to brain snap without a plan.
Transcript: (click here)
Did you know, after the AstraZeneca vaccine had already been approved in Australia, the Health Minister Greg Hunt said that the world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial in history? This government is just making it up as they go. In February the Government said AstraZeneca was perfectly safe and approved it. In April, they backtracked due to blood clots and said to avoid it if you are under 50. In June they backtracked further and said avoid it if you are under 60.
Then the Prime Minister announced that anyone under 40 can get AstraZeneca. The Queensland Chief Health Officer said that was wrong, and quote,
“We’ve seen up to 49 deaths in the UK from [blood clots]. I don’t want an 18-year-old in Queensland dying from a clotting illness who, if they got COVID, probably wouldn’t die”.
If you’re losing track of the advice, I don’t blame you. Despite saying the vaccines are completely safe, the government has given indemnities to vaccine makers and doctors who administer AstraZeneca to people under 40. This means that if something goes wrong and you need to sue someone, the taxpayer will end up paying the bill. Why would the vaccine makers and doctors need protection from being sued if the vaccines are so safe?
And if they aren’t safe, it should be the vaccine makers who foot the bill for any damage they cause, not us, the taxpayers. The government has been relying on fear and panic for the vaccine. When the government does that, they’ll just jump from brain snap to brain snap without a plan. You, and all of Australia suffers from the government’s brain snaps, and they’ve been non-stop lately.
There is a better way, with data, with honesty, and respecting freedom of choice. That’s what Australians want. That’s what I support.
Informed Consent
Informed Consent is vital to any medical procedure. I’m being told that many people receiving a vaccination in Aged Care are deliberately not being told which vaccination is being administered. This is in addition to it being made mandatory for Aged Care workers or they will lose their job.
Wherever there is coercion (you will lose your job and livelihood if you do not take this vaccine) it is impossible to have informed consent.
Transcript: (click here)
Every doctor, every allied health professional and every lawyer who works in the medico-legal field knows that for a consent to medical treatment to be valid, a necessary element is that the consent must be fully informed. If the patient has sufficient information about the proposed treatment that will provide the treating practitioner with a defence against a civil suit for assault.
However, if the practitioner is being sued for negligence, by way of breaching the duty of care owed to the patient, the consent from the patient must be by way of a fully informed consent. Sufficient information in the context of an assault action would be that the patient has been provided information in broad, general terms as to the nature of the proposed treatment and what it is intended to achieve. Informed consent in the context of an action in negligence requires a much higher standard of information provided for the patient.
This information should be detailed as to the nature of the treatment; what alternatives there are; what are the risks involved, in detail more than just statistics; what are the possible side effects and how they may be treated. I’m being told that many people receiving a vaccination are deliberately not being told which vaccination is being administered. I’m hearing that in some aged care facilities, the residents are not being told of alternatives that may be available such as Ivermectin, and deliberately kept in the dark about the actual treatment.
They are very frightened. Deadly side effects such as blood clotting and heart problems are being downplayed. Simple questions about long term effects of the vaccinations go unanswered because the answers remain unknown. How can a patient give a fully informed consent with all these unanswered questions? They can’t. The government has recently said they would indemnify doctors who administer the vaccine when something goes terribly wrong. This does not indicate the government has much confidence in the vaccine being administered and indicates they’re presuming something harmful will happen.
Vaccine Prisons
A vaccine passport is no different to a vaccine prison, saying you can’t go to the pub or join the rest of society unless you prove you are vaccinated.
That’s coercion. We must completely reject any form of vaccine passport in Australia.
Transcript: (click here)
You might think the government has gone quiet about their proposed vaccine passport, but they’ve just renamed it to something that sounds a bit more innocent, a “vaccine certificate”. That’s the government’s proposal to say that you can’t travel, go between states, maybe even go to the pub unless you’ve been vaccinated, and you carry something to prove you have been. Whatever they call it, it’s still the same tool of a dictatorship.
It doesn’t belong in Australia. Really it is a vaccine prison. It means that unless you are vaccinated you will have your rights taken away from you: rights to travel interstate, rights eventually to interact with society and community. That’s coercion. Informed consent, which is absolutely essential to any medical procedure, is not possible where there’s coercion. To be clear I absolutely oppose any form of vaccination passport or vaccination certificate.
I support vaccines being available and for people to have choice. I have concerns about the long-term effects of the current batch of COVID vaccines because we simply don’t know the effects. I support anyone making an informed choice and giving their informed consent to choose to take a vaccine, yet there is no justifiable reason that the government should enforce vaccines or make vaccines mandatory – ever. A vaccine passport, a vaccine certificate, a vaccine prison is just another way to make a vaccine mandatory by coercion and the idea should be tossed in the bin forever.
Where did COVID come from?
Despite being dismissed as conspiracy theorists in the early days of COVID, many Australians still have concerns whether the pandemic came from the Wuhan Lab. As time has gone on, more and more evidence has emerged giving the supposed conspiracy theory credibility.
Transcript: (click here)
Many everyday Australians are concerned not just about COVID-19 but where it came from. We recently heard that CSIRO and several Australian universities have engaged in at least 10 joint projects with the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology over the past decade. This is a laboratory that US intelligence has linked to the Chinese military and which is suspected of being at the centre of the COVID-19 outbreak. Concerningly, at Senate Estimates hearings CSIRO at first denied any links to Wuhan. Later, the truth came out.
What’s worse is that CSIRO is linked to a Chinese infectious diseases expert who is now head of the Bat Virus Infection and Immunity Project at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. There are links into Australian universities too, one being the University of Queensland, which has been partnering with the Wuhan Institute, experimenting on emerging diseases, environmental science and infectious disease epidemiology.
These experiments are called “Gain-of-Function” which is a euphemism for biological research aimed at increasing the infectiousness, danger and severity of pathogens and viruses. These deadly science-enhanced pathogens can and do escape into the community where they infect and kill people – it’s biological warfare. The risks posed by these dangerous experiments far outweigh any speculative benefits. Many Australians are asking why our government is not being proactive and protecting us from the release of lab-created viruses, and why the government does not have an end-to-end plan for managing the COVID-19 outbreak.
It’s time the Morrison Government cancelled funding and support for research and collaboration on projects and with nations that may weaponise a virus and harm everyday Australians. We all deserve to be safe.
Vaccine Approvals
The government has simply taken BigPharma’s word, accepting Pfizer and AstraZeneca’s data which by their own admission may be inaccurate.
It’s no wonder Australians don’t believe in mandatory vaccination when data on the long term effects of these vaccines is simply unavailable.
Transcript: (click here)
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), part of the Department of Health, has granted a provisional determination to the Pfizer Australia and the Astra Zeneca vaccines. The granting of a provisional determination means that the TGA has made a decision that Pfizer and Astra Zeneca are now eligible to apply for provisional registration for the vaccine in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).
This Provisional approval pathway is available to sponsors with preliminary clinical data. To put this simply, the TGA takes the drug companies’ word for the accuracy of the data, which will have come from limited foreign trials. There is no checking or peer review. none. In looking through Pfizer’s clinical data, our office team noticed this disclaimer: “Pfizer advise that substantial risks and uncertainties exist in connection with their data, including the possibility of unfavorable new data and the ability to produce comparable clinical results, including the rate of vaccine effectiveness and safety observed in the trials.”
With those words, Pfizer just said that they cannot guarantee once deployed the vaccine will be safe and will provide a level of protection claimed during the application process with the TGA. This is what happens when approvals are given on wafer thin clinical testing, so quickly that replication and peer review has NOT happened. The vaccine approval process takes between 5 and 10 years for a reason. This approval was 3 months.
The public are right to be concerned that the TGA has not tested these vaccines enough, and in fact, have not tested them at all.
The plan is coercion
Even at 80% vaccination the Government won’t rule out lockdowns. They don’t have a plan for managing COVID at all.
Transcript: (click here)
The Australian people and our business community are fatigued with the limping and damaging mis-management of our response to COVID. The only real plan, post flattening the curve, has been to stoke the fires of exaggeration and hysteria to keep the population scared and compliant. This ensures many of us won’t notice that no one has any idea of what’s next and it facilitates people accepting illogical and inconsistent health orders.
After 18 months of widely different responses across the country the Prime Minister announced on Friday 2 July what he believes will be a plan to get back to normal. You might breathe a sigh of relief… yet that would be premature. There’s no real detail, that will take another month to assemble. The promise to use lockdowns only as an extreme measure seems to mean that lockdowns will be here to stay for the rest of the year. That gives business no confidence at all.
The real message in the plan is the use of coercive power to get the population vaccinated. Our freedom of movement, our freedom, is being directly tied to being vaccinated. The Prime Minister is ushering in a two-tier society – those vaccinated and those unvaccinated. Personal choice and health considerations around the unproven and experimental vaccine with known and unknown negative side-affects have become irrelevant.
The unvaccinated will be condemned and not allowed to live a normal life. Instead of this vaccine prison Australians need a plan that respects the rights of Australians and brings us all along without the intrusive and unconstitutional curtailing of personal freedoms. This one trick pony of a plan is all about coercive control – get the vaccine or lose your job, lose your business or stay at home.
We are being forced to choose between our freedoms – freedom over our bodies or freedom over our movement or freedom over which job we can have. That is no plan. That is a con, a disgraceful con. No wonder so many people have vaccine hesitancy.
Why isn’t Ivermectin available in Australia
All along, we’ve been told that the only escape out of the pandemic is completely new, expensive vaccines. But what if alternative and complementary treatments were available? Would it threaten BigPharma’s monopoly?
Transcript: (click here)
When it comes to treating and preventing people getting Covid-19 we’ve been told that the only solution is a brand new vaccine. This is not true, there are alternative and complementary treatments for respiratory conditions, which COVID19 is. One of them is Ivermectin. It’s had over 3.7 billion doses administered over the last 60 years. In that time, it’s had a proven safety record. Over the past year Ivermectin has been successful where used against COVID in some Indian states, and in some South American, European and Asian countries.
There are over 40 medical and scientific papers which hail Ivermectin’s success. So why is it banned for this use with Covid in Australia? It raises serious questions about BigPharma’s monopoly and conflicts of interest. For example, Google’s parent company Alphabet owns YouTube. YouTube has banned any videos that even mention Ivermectin as a possible COVID treatment.
They even took down one of my videos, and I’m a Federal Senator. But here’s the kicker, Alphabet owns 12% of Vaccitech, who created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? The federal government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration wrote me a threatening letter for publicly discussing Ivermectin.
The way I see it I’m a duly elected member of Australia’s national parliament doing my lawful duty, sharing accurate information with you. Silencing debate and data is a form of control. And always beneath control there is … fear.
Is dishonest BigPharma afraid of losing its hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? Is the government afraid to admit they’ve made a mistake? I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers or Ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is in ensuring we protect people’s health & restore our nation’s economic health and security. That’s why alternative and complimentary treatments must be available.
On the best evidence we have, Ivermectin should be available. Without it, the government has blood on its hands.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/cdc-w9KEokhajKw-unsplash.png?fit=2300%2C1294&ssl=112942300Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-07-02 13:11:452021-08-05 13:17:03Everything wrong with the government’s response to COVID19
I dare to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate.
What we are seeing in these COVID times is the squashing of debate. I call on you to decide for yourself. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I ask: what’s happening to our country? On COVID, due to the overseas deaths early last year, I was cooperative and supportive from the start. On 23 March 2020 and 8 April 2020, on single-day sittings in this Senate, we gave the government a blank cheque. But I added, on behalf of constituents, that we would hold the government accountable and we expected data and a plan. I mentioned the most successful nation was successful without crippling its economy because it did not cripple its economy. I mentioned ivermectin. Yet we never heard back—no data and no plan. Like people across Australia, I now have important questions.
People are feeling scared. Some are terrified, lost, hopeless, daunted and confused. People are feeling unsafe because of the vaccine side effects. People are feeling insecure because crucial, universal human needs are not being met—needs like security, health, reassurance, trust, confidence, support, leadership, honesty, competence, care, freedom, ease, calm and direction.
Where’s the plan for managing the virus and our economy? There’s clearly inconsistent behaviour across our states, and the national government has revealed no plan. Queensland, Victoria and WA have deepened fear and insecurity to win elections and to control people. Governments have abandoned the people and removed accountability. I asked the Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department to confirm my list of strategies that should be part of a plan for managing the virus. Isolation is one. Testing, tracing and quarantining is another. Then there’s restrictions, cures and prophylactics, vaccines, personal behaviour, and health and fitness. That’s seven I’ve raised with them. They’ve agreed with all seven. But we only see three in use, and then only partially, with crude and limited impact on the virus and a huge economic and social cost.
In response to my question in Senate estimates in March, I received data on the severity and transmissibility of this virus. The mortality is known by the health authorities to be low to severe. In fact, Senator Rex Patrick didn’t even know he had the virus. Others with co-morbidity, though, can die. Just like with the flu, there’s a huge range of symptoms. So why do the Chief Medical Officer and the health department not publicly separate out each of the group’s mortality rates? Is it because people need to be kept in fear?
Now our taxes are being given to big pharma for unproven and risky vaccines. Let’s consider some of those risks and facts. There have been deaths from the vaccine. Thousands of people overseas have died from it. There have been a wide variety of side effects from the vaccine, such as blood clots. The health minister, Mr Hunt, had cellulitis, reportedly a known vaccine side effect, and was hospitalised. The Chief Medical Officer, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the head of the federal health department refuse to declare the vaccine as 100 per cent safe.
So my first question is: how did the vaccines get provisional approval? They said there were no alternative vaccines available. But wait—once the first was approved provisionally, the others faced an approved alternative. So how did the others get provisional approval? The vaccines fail to prevent transmission of the virus. The vaccines fail to stop someone getting the virus and getting sick. Intergenerational effects are not known at all. The vaccine’s effect against mutations is still unknown. The dosage is unknown. Vaccine frequency, number and time between jabs are still all unknown. Are people going to be jabbed forever? The vaccine fails to remove restrictions on our lifestyle. The vaccine fails to open up international borders.
The vaccine makers all lack integrity. They have been fined billions of dollars—not hundreds of millions but billions of dollars—for misrepresenting their products. The health minister himself said, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ I am not a lab rat. Australians should not be treated as lab rats. This is the first time in history that healthy people have been injected with something that could kill them—and yet, on ivermectin, this is the first time that sick people have been denied medicine that is safe and successful for COVID, as multiple overseas jurisdictions prove.
Let’s move on to ivermectin. I took it successfully in 2014 for something else. Some 3.7 billion doses have been given over six decades. It is prescribed for many ailments. There’s no risk. It’s safe. It’s cheap because it’s off patent. It’s affordable. It is being used successfully overseas to treat COVID en masse, regionally and nationally. There are 250 medical papers in support of ivermectin—proven successful with COVID. In times of emergency, when four vaccines are provisionally approved, and adults are vaccinated—and now kids, despite the early warnings, and now pregnant mothers, apparently—why isn’t a proven, safe and affordable treatment like ivermectin provisionally approved? If no-one has made application, why didn’t the government get off its hands and do it? The government has blood on its hands. My second question is: why have four unproven, untested and risky vaccines been given provisional approval, yet one known, safe treatment has not been given provisional approval, despite extensive medical papers and successful widespread use overseas? What happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to Australia?
I received a letter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration last week threatening me because I shared some facts publicly. I dared to ask questions. I have a duty as an elected representative to share the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration calls that ‘advertising’—in an effort, apparently, to control me. I have a duty to the people of Australia to promote debate and understanding for informed debate. Without that, there can be no informed consent, and, without informed consent, there can be no vaccination or treatment. People are free in our country to make what they want of the facts. The Therapeutic Goods Administration seems to think that discussing facts and data is advertising. Whose side is the TGA on—the people or Big Pharma? My third question is: what are the connections between Big Pharma, Monash University, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Gates Foundation, Google and Facebook? Think about this. Google’s parent company is Alphabet. It owns YouTube, which took down one of my videos on the topic. Google owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? Another possible conflict of interest is surely Sequoia Capital, a venture fund known for making millions from early funding of Google, YouTube and Apple. Sequoia owns 10 per cent of Vaccitech. I have no financial or other ties with vaccine makers, ivermectin or drug companies. My interest is ensuring that we protect people’s health and safety—our nation’s health and safety. So what happened to basic freedoms? What is happening to our country?
Coercion seems widespread and primed for stronger, wider, more extensive coercion. Let’s have a look at some of the types of coercion: letters from so-called authorities intimidating people; threats to doctors; threats to employees of withholding employment or livelihood—a basic means of survival; media intimidation from the legacy media; journalists labelling and misrepresenting people. It’s no wonder that mainstream media is rapidly becoming the legacy media. There is also government funding of media companies on vaccine propaganda. But I do want to single out one journalist. Adam Creighton, in the Australian, has done a fabulous job of exposing and sharing the facts. We move on now to what the government is calling a ‘digital certificate’. Is that going to become a digital passport? Will there be the withdrawal of people’s basic access to amenities, transport, travel and jobs unless they get the jab? Will there be the withdrawal of livelihood—the ability to live? This is not a digital passport; it’s a digital prison. Social media threats: Facebook and YouTube take down posts and threaten shutdown. Always, beneath control, there is fear. So my fourth question is: of what are authorities afraid? Clearly, it’s not the virus, because they have no plan. They’re afraid of people, the truth and freedom. Freedom is so easily squashed. The key question is: why is there no government action to approve ivermectin? I call on the government not to wait for an application for approval and to get on with the job of inquiring about, and investigating, ivermectin and approving it. Australians, I call on you to decide for yourself. Compare ivermectin and the vaccine. Consider the actions of federal and state governments. What happened to basic freedoms? What happened to Australia? Are you willing to help us bring back Australia?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Capture.png?fit=901%2C497&ssl=1497901Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-06-16 13:24:192021-06-16 13:36:46COVID: What happened to our country
I spoke in support of a motion that big companies who had a profitable COVID year and paid millions in executive bonuses should be made to pay back JobKeeper. JobKeeper was meant for companies that were struggling to keep their doors open, not to pump up executive bonuses.
Transcript
One Nation supports this motion. Many broad-stroke policies were voted through in the early days of COVID due to the uncertainty at the time. And yet mistakes were made, and these must be admitted and addressed. In some cases, JobKeeper payments went to companies with no need for the money and who used the money for purposes having nothing to do with the intent of JobKeeper, which was to protect jobs and to help workers and families get through tough times. Mega car dealership, Eagers Automotive, claimed JobKeeper and then paid out dividends for almost the exact same amount—$67 million. Star Casino received $64 million and then gave CEO, Matt Bekier, an equity bonus of $800,000.
Without basic governance, greed has come out to play. Company executives purloining JobKeeper for their own financial benefit does not pass the pub test. It’s time this government stopped running the country for the benefit of its big-business mates and started caring about the people paying for all of this—Australian taxpayers, current and future.
IF THERE’S ONE VIDEO YOU WATCH FROM SENATE ESTIMATES MAKE IT THIS ONE.
I questioned the Government about vaccines, the indemnities it has provided to vaccine manufacturers and whether the government actually has a plan to stop restrictive lockdowns. These are common sense questions about liability and informed consent, let’s see if the tech-censors agree.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Chair. And thank you for appearing today. Many Australians have heard that getting vaccinated does not stop us from getting COVID, and that if we do get it we could still infect other people. Is that true?
– Yes – I guess Dr. Kelly onto that.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person with COVID compared to an unvaccinated person with COVID?
So, just repeat the question.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the risk of being infected by a vaccinated person who has COVID compared with an unvaccinated person with COVID?
Well, it’s lower. I’m not sure I can give you an exact amount. I think Professor Murphy earlier talked about the issue and also Senator Colbeck, about the issue of transmission and how the vaccine affects that. We’re getting more information, and it seems like there is a definite influence on transmission, decreasing transmission somewhere between 30 and 60% less likely.
[Malcolm Roberts] Is that a mass figure or is that if you had COVID and you were vaccinated compared with if you had COVID and weren’t vaccinated, would I have the same risk or lesser risk?
You would have a much lower risk, but it’s not zero.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. What decrease in transmission of infection would stop restrictions such as lockdowns, masks, and social distancing?
So, that’s a matter that we’ve been charged by national cabinet way as in Australian Health Protection Principal Committee of which I chair, by the national cabinet to look at. And so, it’s a matter for the national cabinet. There will be, there’s a series of papers that we’re preparing exactly to answer those questions. Some have been produced already and presented and there’ll be more in the coming meetings.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. How many times and how often would each of us need to be injected for the vaccine to be effective and for each time, for how long does the effect last?
So, as I mentioned earlier in the hearing, very good protection from one dose of vaccine, either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer particularly in relation to severe infection, but also to symptomatic infection, and to a lesser extent asymptomatic infection. So, that’s a single dose. The second dose is important for both of those vaccines. And most of the vaccines that are currently being used around the world require two doses to give a longer effect and a more deep effect, if you like, in terms of protection. I think it’s very important that Australia knows that this is the start of our vaccine programme. It will almost certainly not be the end. There will be a need for boosters into the future particularly in relation to the variants of concern of which there are four now that have been designated by the World Health Organisation. And some of those we already know do affect the vaccine efficacy. So, it’s likely we will need to have boosters into the future. How long the two dose effect works is still, we don’t know. We know it’s at least six months because that’s the studies of, been looking at it for six months. It’s almost certainly longer than that for the original strain, but the variance of concern adds another complexity to it.
[Malcolm Roberts] Can you guarantee Australians that all the vaccines you have obtained are 100% safe?
I can’t say that they were 100% safe, Senator, no.
[Malcolm Roberts] I do appreciate your honesty. How many years will it be before we know the long-term and intergenerational effects of these vaccines that only have provisional approval?
I might ask my colleague from the TGA to come up to answer that one.
John Skerritt, Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation, also responsible for the TGA. So, TGA, unlike the U.S. and the UK, for example, did a provisional approval of a vaccines as opposed to an emergency use authorization. The reason why it is a provisional approval is because we don’t have, for example, as Professor Kelly has just said, information on the duration of protection from these vaccines. And we require that the companies to give us that sort of information in the coming years. I mean, no one has those answers now. There’s some encouraging results, but as Professor Kelly has said, it’s likely that further vaccinations will be required. As part of the approval of any medicine or vaccine, big companies together with us are involved in very extensive safety monitoring. And we publish the results of the safety monitoring of that vaccine every week including mild or 24 hour adverse events, right through to those that might be much more serious and require hospitalisation. And no medicine or vaccine is without adverse events, but on balance, the number of adverse events, especially serious adverse events for these vaccines are comparatively low. The overwhelming majority of people vaccinated from them at worst suffer the 24 or 48 hours sore arm or tiredness, fatigue, et cetera.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, thank you. It’s a very comprehensive response. So, to summarise, we don’t know yet, but you’re relying upon company, the vaccine makers, to feed you back information as time moves on.
No, information on safety comes from a wide range of sources. It comes from the states and territories. For GP vaccination agreements, the GPs make an undertaking to also report any adverse events. The companies are legally bound to report adverse events not only in Australia, but also globally. And of course we share, and in fact at nine, 10 o’clock tonight we’ll be having one of our regular fortnightly video conferences. We share information on adverse events with all the major regulators globally. So, and the final sources from a medical scientific literature. So, while the companies have this legal requirement to report, it’s only one of a number of inputs to understanding adverse events. And many of our adverse event reports come directly from doctors or even individuals. Any individual can report an adverse event directly to us.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, moving onto another topic away from vaccines for a minute, the vaccine only has provisional approval. Is it true that provisional approval is only possible where there are no approved pharmaceutical treatments available?
The provisional approval is possible where there is not a similar treatment available in that, for that group of patients. And so, if there’d been an approved vaccine, but say it had been on the market for several years, fully approved, then it wouldn’t have been possible to provisionally approve a vaccine, but at the time of the submissions of those vaccines, and indeed we have provisionally designated the Novavax vaccine as well and the Johnson & Johnson or Janssen vaccine, it is possible to provisionally designate and potentially provisionally approve those vaccines.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Ivermectin is an antiviral that’s been proven safe in 3.6 billion human doses over 60 years. It’s now demonstrating success in treating COVID internationally, including in certain Indian states that are performing far better than the other states without it. Last time you were here, sorry Dr. Murphy and, Professor Murphy and Professor Kelly, you acknowledged that cures and preventatives are a fundamental and complimentary part of a virus management strategy. What is your timeline for the assessment and use of Ivermectin in light of the emerging evidence and it’s historical setting.
Senator, we have not received a submission for Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID. I have had a number of people write to me and say, “Why haven’t you folks approved?” We can’t make a medicine submission to ourselves for regulatory approval. There’s no provision in law for us because it requires a legal sponsor. But we have said to people if you come with a dossier of information we will review it as a priority. Now, if you go to the broader community including the company that is the main originator company that is a sponsor of Ivermectin, they do not believe that the overwhelming balance of evidence actually supports that Ivermectin being effective in the prophylaxis or prevention or the treatment of COVID. However, our doctors and scientists would look at that evidence with open eyes. And so, it is open for any sponsor to put an application in for Ivermectin to the TGA for regulatory approval.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Moving back to the vaccine, the government has provided an indemnity to vaccine suppliers, as I understand it, and multinational pharmaceutical companies who have caused harm in the past. What is the nature of the indemnities that government has provided, and are they full indemnities?
Yeah, just give me a moment. Sorry, Senator, going to a wholly different part of my folder.
[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve got a lot on your plate.
So, just to go to your question, I understand it. You’re wanting to know exactly the nature of the indemnities provided, obviously–
[Malcolm Roberts] That the government has provided to the vaccine manufacturers and suppliers.
So, in the first instance to say that the actual detail of the indemnities is part of the Commercial in Confidence contracts, but I can provide you some information about the nature of what’s provided. So, we’ve agreed to certain indemnities with the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers. They’re contained in commercially confidential contracts. The indemnities are designed to operate if there are problems with the flow on from the vaccines themselves, as opposed to the manner of administration and so on, they don’t cover that. Details of the agreement are Commercial in Confidence, but nothing in any of the contractual agreements from individual companies would stop individuals from seeking to litigate should an individual seek to do so in the future.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, could you repeat that again, please.
So, the actual detail of the indemnity, it relates to the nature of the vaccine itself as opposed to the manner of administration or any other issue to do with how it’s transported and so on. But it is absolutely the case that nothing in the indemnities prevents an individual from taking an action against the manufacturer or against anybody, if there’s an issue that arises from the impact of the vaccine. So, the summary of the arrangements are that they ensure that manufacturers have the significant indemnity in place to allow them to come into the marketplace and provide the protection, but they don’t prevent any action being taken by an individual who might be affected by a vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what would they be? Why would they need an indemnity if they, they can still be sued? I don’t understand that. I’m not a lawyer, but.
I was once, but it’s a long time ago.
[Malcolm Roberts] You could say, I’m honest with you. Now, we’ve got lawyers as good friends. We’ve got good friends.
So, no one’s saying I’m . It’s to do with the relationship between the government and the company.
[Malcolm Roberts] What is the nature of that relationship?
Well, those are the things that are confidential in the contracts. You’d appreciate in order to get these vaccines into Australia so that we have access to them, there are strict requirements in the way the contracts are done with the companies and confidentiality. And the nature of the indemnities are part of that confidentiality.
[Malcolm Roberts] In the event of an injury or death from the vaccine, who pays compensation?
Not a question I can answer in the abstract. It would depend on the circumstances and so on and how the legal process would go on. As I say, the indemnities with manufacturers relate only to the flow on from the vaccine itself. So, in the event that negligence happens in any mechanism then it could be actionable against the person who had done the negligence, but there’s no simple answer to who pays compensation ’cause compensation would have to be found to be payable and attributable to someone and so on.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, it’d be pretty challenging, Ms. Edwards, for an individual to sue that they’ve just lost their spouse or their son or daughter, because, I’ll just go through some of the settlements in the past or some of the fines. Pfizer has paid the second largest pharmaceutical settlement in history, $2.3 billion in 2009, off-label promotion and kickbacks plus US$ 430 million in 2004 for off-label promotion. AstraZeneca has paid US$ 520 million in 2010 off-label promotion and kickbacks and US$ 355 million in 2003 for Medicare fraud. Johnson & Johnson has paid US$ 2.2 billion in 2013 for off label promotion and kickbacks plus millions in Australia last year for defective pelvic mesh implants. It’d be a pretty brave person that would hope to get anything out of this if they tried to sue any of these companies. These guys have a history of dodging.
Well, I’m not aware of any of the instances you’re referring to, but clearly there have been instances in which action has been taken against these companies.
[Malcolm Roberts] Are these companies appropriate to be entered into an agreement in this way? I mean, look at the history.
So, the Australian government and Australian consumers have the advantage of pharmaceutical products produced by companies such as these and many others. Obviously, enormously important to the health of Australians that they have access to medicines, including vaccines. We rely heavily on the scientific advice from the CMO, from the TGA and from experts as to what is the appropriate vaccine to be approved and used in the country. And those are the vaccines which we have purchased and are administering.
[Malcolm Roberts] I’m going–
[Member] Senator Roberts…
Senator, I think that perhaps I might throw this in In relation to this. The approvals for the vaccines have been based on a considerable amount of data. The approvals haven’t been provided lightly. And we have had the advantage of the visibility of the application of the vaccines in a number of other jurisdictions. It’s an important question that you ask, I think. And so, it’s not a company reputational issue, it’s actually the data that supports the application of the vaccines that is assessed by not only our regulatory authorities, but also the regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions. And also the fact that, as has already been indicated, there is a lot of discussion between those authorities in relation to that data. So, it’s interrogated as a part of the approval process not only in this jurisdiction, but in others, and I might…
[Malcolm Roberts] I understand it’s, perhaps you could also include reference to this Doctors Skerritt that some of the overseas nations that are using these vaccines have suspended their use.
Well, there’s several questions. I’ll return to suspension of use although it’s been relatively limited in countries like Norway. But to talk about those fines for the companies, I should clarify that it’s a consequence of one of the things that personally I hope Australia never follows. And this is the U.S. widespread advertising directly to the public of prescription medicines. And it is legal and extremely commonplace. You only have to have the TV on for five minutes in your hotel room to see an advertisement for prescription medicine in the United states. And however, it is tempting for some of these companies. And they’ve been found with major fines from court cases when they push for sorts of conditions, what we call the indications for which a medicine is approved. So, a medicine may be approved for certain sorts of arthritis and their marketing people think it’s a great idea to talk about arthritis in general, and that’s where they get these multi hundred million dollar fines. So, if you go into those cases in the U.S. it’s not about them providing defective vaccines or cheating with their quality data or cheating with their clinical data. Almost all those cases come down to inappropriate promotion because of the, I guess the temptation the United States systems offers of allowing to advertise prescription medicines directly to the public. Now, thank God we don’t have that system in this country.
[Malcolm Roberts] That’s still a matter of ethics, though, isn’t it? That the companies are pushing that, it’s their marketing people they are employing.
It’s their marketing people, and of course, we could mention many well-known Australian corporations who have also had challenges with marketing, including of telecommunication services. Now, we also —
[Malcolm Roberts] But they also go to the essence of integrity of the company?
But in Australia, we do look closely at promotion, including to doctors. So, recently we fined a particular company over $300,000 for what we concluded was inappropriate promotion of opiates to doctors. This wasn’t of a general public, but it was still inappropriate in our view. So, we will take action if we believe promotion of a product is inappropriate. Now, talking about companies in countries that have suspended vaccines, there were a number of short term suspensions of vaccines. For example, when some deaths in aged care were reported very early in the new year, they were then lifted off after further investigation where it was found that sadly people die in aged care. And the death rates were not all that different from the expected death rates. There were then short term changes, suspensions in some countries after the initial clotting cases were found AstraZeneca. In most countries, although Norway, for example, was an exception, most countries have re-introduced those vaccines, but like Australia, many of them have age recommendations. And those ages vary between countries.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you.
Senator Roberts, you’ve just run out of time. So, if you’ve got one more question.
[Malcolm Roberts] Okay. After the TGA had already provisionally approved the AstraZeneca vaccine, Minister Hunt said of the vaccines quote – “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”. Australians later died of blood clots due to the vaccine, a side effect that was not known prior to provisional approval. Why should Australians be the lab rats of a drug trial?
So, the word trial really, I mean, the treatment of COVID. And none of us has a crystal ball, where we’ll end up, whether it’s opening the borders or changes to the way we live our lives in a year or two is probably one of the biggest societal trials we’ve had since World War II. So, it’s true to say that because we don’t know whether vaccines are 100%, 90%, 80%, 70, 50, 60 in preventing transmission because we don’t know about the duration of protection, all those things. It is a trial in the sense that anything is new. So, that was a context. If you look at the wider context in which the Minister made those comments. Now, on the issue of benefit versus risk, every medicine or vaccine has significant risks. There’s been many dozen deaths due to Panadol in this country. And yet, if we didn’t have that drug for the relief of simple fever and so forth, there’d be a lot of people suffering. And so, every medicine has its benefits and its risks. Now, because the clotting thing is very rare, even though the trials were extremely large as trials go, 20, 30,000 people, and there’s been another 30,000 people on a follow-up trial of the AstraZeneca. Those numbers were still too low, but you would predict something would be seen 10 in a million times. And so, that’s why the clotting thing was not picked up.
[Malcolm Roberts] Isn’t there still something really big, outstanding though and that is that these are an RNA vaccine?
[Professor John] No, the AstraZeneca vaccine–
[Malcolm Roberts] Some of them, sorry, are RNA. How long before we know the intergenerational effects?
[Professor John] There’s no evidence at all from animal or human studies that the RNA vaccines, if you’re talking about them, incorporate into the genetic material of human beings. They wouldn’t have been approved for regulatory approval and that includes by much bigger regulators such as the FDA, if these bits of mRNA incorporated into the human genetic material. In fact, medicines that incorporate into human genetic material and are inherited are currently not permitted in most major countries, including Australia.
[Malcolm Roberts] So, what you’re saying is that it is okay to have a few deaths?
I’m saying that every medicine or vaccine is assessed both before it goes onto the market and once it’s on the market based on benefit and risk. And in Australia, we’ve had, sadly, one death. We’ve had a number of cases of this clotting syndrome, but the really encouraging thing is that many of our cases seem to be milder than in our countries. And that’s because of such widespread awareness. These cases are picked up early, they’re put in hospitals, even if it’s minor clotting, and the really good news is that, the overwhelming majority of those people were already out of hospital.
I talked to Marcus Paul last week about our motion to keep our Judaeo-Christian values in our education system and questioned why ivermectin wasn’t available in Australia when it has been proven safe.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul] Tell me about this motion you put in front of me here. I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I nearly said another word then. I shall move that the Senate, what?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that the Senate actually makes sure that the national curriculum, includes Judeo-Christian heritage as the basis for our laws and customs.
[Marcus Paul] Right?
[Malcolm Roberts] We want that in the national curriculum, because in 2014, there was a review by two people called Donnelly and Wiltshire, into the national curriculum. And they recommended more emphasis, more emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage Because that’s the role it played in Western civilization and contributing to our society and making our laws and our culture. And lo and behold, when the 2020 national curriculum recommendations came out, they had a de-emphasis on our Judeo-Christian heritage and going over a bit more to the, what could you say, the flavours of the month? You know, the fads.
[Marcus Paul] Like?
[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we wanted the basics back.
[Marcus Paul] Hang on. Like?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well they want to emphasise that the First Nations people think that there was an invasion. They want to emphasise that there are other multicultural aspects of Australia. Now we’ve got no problems with that at all but we’ve got to make sure that the basis of our culture the basis of our laws, gets prominence and not, is not removed.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah, or we could just focus on teaching kids how to add up and to construct a sentence.
[Malcolm Roberts] Ah Marcus, that’d be wonderful.
[Marcus Paul] All right. The federal budget, you say that there’s been a lack of spending on visionary infrastructure to improve our productive capacity. We’ve continued to ignore the basics, energy and tax which are vital for manufacturing.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes, that’s right. You know, we talked many times about tax and about energy costs. The energy costs are artificially high. We went from being the cheapest electricity in the world, Marcus, to being amongst the most expensive all because of artificial regulations that are not needed. We are exporting our coal to China where they sell electricity made from our coal at 8 cents a kilowatt hour. Our cost here, our price here is three times that all because of the rubbish regulations.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah.
[Malcolm Roberts] And so what we’re really doing is we’re exporting jobs to China because our manufacturers leave here and go to China or other places in Asia that use our coal and don’t have our stupid governance. So what we’ve got to do is get back to basics and stop all the subsidies destroying our electricity sector and also fix the tax system because, you know, we talked about that at length last week. So probably don’t need to go into that, but they’re the things that are really destroying our country. And instead of killing jobs, we need to create jobs and we need to build our productive capacity in terms of our infrastructure, things like dams in particular, power stations, so that we have cheap reliable water and cheap, reliable, stable power. They’re the basics for any society. And, you know, we’re letting the UN, Warragamba Dam wall. They wanted to raise that and they’re not allowed because of the UN’s world heritage agreement. Well, I didn’t elect the UN I want, I want to budget for us.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Very true. All right, mate, now there’s plenty in there for women’s services in relation to domestic violence, which all of us agree is worthwhile. You say, but nothing for men. What do you mean by that?
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s a really good point that you raised Marcus. I know an outstanding group. That’s doing phenomenal work on a voluntary basis and they’re really supporting men and women. They’re not specifying only men, just men and women and also kids and families. Family law system is really crook and it’s devastating people’s lives. It’s the slaughter house of the nation. And what he’s finding is that he can get no support from the federal government in terms of providing counselling services that he is putting on voluntarily and getting volunteers to do. I mean, it’s an amazing network that he’s got. He’s just opened offices in Newcastle, Australian brotherhood of fathers. So, but the point is that we know domestic violence is perpetrated by men on women. We also know that domestic violence is perpetrated by women on men, but only one side of the story comes out. And only one side of the equation gets the funding. So men are vulnerable too, and they need to be protected and need to be funded.
[Marcus Paul] All right, there was plenty of money for mental health, the national disability insurance scheme, aged care. But the reality is, is that the money will never get spent. You say.
[Malcolm Roberts] Much of it won’t get spent Marcus, because we don’t have the professionals. I mean, I was at an aged care rally here, aged care health and safety, health services union on Monday. Sorry. Yeah. Monday morning.
[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Monday it was.
[Malcolm Roberts] Here in Canberra and I mean they’re wonderful people I know from my parents care is they’re wonderful people and they work very, very hard. They’re under extreme emotional stress but they can’t get enough because of the pay rates. But the other thing is they can’t get enough of the professionals and registered nurses and they can’t get enough of the psychologists in when it comes to the NDIS and other professionals. So we won’t be able to have the services anyway. We’ve got to focus on getting these areas fixed.
[Marcus Paul] Okay. Well, I mean, I don’t disagree at all. I mean, the whole thing in particular, in my opinion has been packaged to look pretty good. You know, it’s a, it’s a budget that’s full of plenty of promises, almost like a labor-esque budget if you like, but there’s apparently more money. And this is what, a point I wanted to come to. And this is where I think people like you and Pauline Hanson need to really hold these people accountable in parliament. Apparently there’s some sort of war chest. So there’s billions of dollars that’s been set aside for, you know, the election campaign not too far away. So in other words, they’ve held off on some things and rather than spend the money now or put it toward, you know, extra money toward mental health or extra money toward the aged care sector, et cetera people suggesting that they’ve kept it aside for, I dunno future pork barreling or promises ahead of the next federal election.
[Malcolm Roberts] That could be right. And you raise a fantastic point there because what’s happening is that with both the main old parties the tired old parties, they do exactly what you’re saying. And what voters don’t seem to realise is they’re having an auction with the voters money.
[Marcus Paul] There we go.
[Malcolm Roberts] And the voters are bidding those prices up. So we’re doing it to ourselves as voters but we need to hold these people accountable. And that’s what Pauline and I will be doing. She was, budget papers are very, very thick and detailed. So she was already discussing with me in the Senate in a quiet moment, some ridiculous expenditure. I can’t remember the exact one that, that she raised but it was just outlandish. So they’re the things that we will do in the coming weeks going through the details and exposing them. But you’re absolutely right. We’ve got to stop this budget that puts us on an annual cycle of making promises and stealing money from taxpayers to give to other tax payers.
[Marcus Paul] Some of it, to be honest is borrowed anyway but we’ll deal with that another time. We can’t travel overseas as we’ve learned probably until mid 22. The budget itself, many of the promises and many of the figures announced you know, predetermined on, you know the whole joint being vaccinated in time, et cetera. International students will be let back in in small phase programmes later this year. I mean, and I noticed yesterday in question time in the house of representatives, that we couldn’t get a straight answer from the prime minister. And even the health minister had to jump in and have his say. And he just muddied the waters further. Vaccines and whether or not our borders will be reopened is something that the government just can’t seem to answer at the moment.
[Malcolm Roberts] Yes. And that’s right. And there are too many uncertainties here and too many unknowns Marcus. First of all, the vaccine that the prime minister himself has come out and said it may not stop the spreading of the virus. What, well, hang on. It’s all based on that, and yet he’s admitting that it won’t necessarily stop the spread of the virus. The other thing Marcus, that people may not be aware of, is that there’s a drug called ivermectin. It’s been used for treating people in Africa all over the world. In fact, I’ll tell you someone else who’s been treated by it in a minute. This ivermectin is an antiviral and it’s been used for around six decades, 60 years ago.
[Marcus Paul] This was the stuff that Craig Kelly was spruiking. Yes?
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, he’s just picking it up from overseas. I mean, Craig’s doing a wonderful job that man I can tell right now, every interaction I’ve had with Craig, he’s solid on the data and he doesn’t open his mouth. But anyway, without the data, now, the thing is that ivermectin has been given in 3.7 billion doses to 3.7 billion people. It’s proven safe. It’s an antiviral.
[Marcus Paul] Why then, why then Malcolm is not on the list as a as a well I don’t know, as a as a vaccine for COVID-19. I’ve heard ivermectin, we’ve had we’ve heard all of the stories that was originally criticised as a bit of a conspiracy theory vaccine proposal. I respectfully understand that there are many scientists who agree that it could be used, but I just wonder, I mean we’ve just spent, what we’ve just bought another 25 million cases of a new vaccine, Moderna from the United States. If ivermectin was all it was cracked up to be, surely it would have already been authorised.
[Malcolm Roberts] Well, that’s the real point Marcus. That I was getting to. In many countries now ivermectin is legal and is being used and they’re desperate to get it into into place because it’s very safe. I went to India and developed a condition in India as a consultant over there in the mining industry in 2014. And I was given ivermectin by an Australian doctor here quite legally, I had no side effects. It was fantastic. So we know it’s proven around the world. There are more and more countries that are doing two things, bringing ivermectin in and more and more countries are now stopping the use of some of these vaccines for COVID vaccines because the blood clotting and other issues. So the reason I believe, well we’ve got to ask this question why aren’t we using ivermectin when it’s completely safe? It’s got no side effects. It’s killed no one. And, and it’s also being proven as effective with the virus. Why are we not using that when these unproven, untested vaccines or partially tested vaccines? And when we know so much, so little about them, why are we doing that? Is it because if there is a viable solution in ivermectin that the vaccine makers wouldn’t get their money?
[Marcus Paul] I dunno it could be you’re the Senator. And these are the questions that you will ask. I’m sure. Mate, I’ve got to go. I really appreciate it. Talk soon. There he is. Malcolm Roberts.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Capture.png?fit=927%2C924&ssl=1924927Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-18 10:46:002021-05-26 15:29:43Ivermectin – 2SM with Marcus Paul
Even though the government says they don’t want to mandate vaccination, they haven’t ruled out attaching it to everyday activities. That means they won’t rule out that you might have to be vaccinated to go to the pub which sounds as good as mandating it to me.
I believe in the vaccine being available to anyone who wants to take it, but it should be every individual’s choice whether they take it or not. I do not believe they should be government mandated. Where do you stand?
Transcript
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending. What percentage of the population, that will, will receive a COVID 19 vaccine? Do you expect or plan?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well, we were, our target at present Senator, is to vaccinate all the adult population, the over eighteens off by the end of October, give them a first dose. So that’s I think approximately 20 million, I think?
About, about 20 million going on.
Yeah. Now we may then go on and vaccinate children. If we have vaccines that are registered and approved for children. And if they prevent transmission and that helps us with herd immunity, but there are no vaccine. There’s no trial data on children at the moment. So the vaccines are only registered for adults.
Or 16 to 18 in the case of one. But no nobody under 16 has a registered product at this point.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Will that include the elderly, the frail?
[Brendan Murphy]
Absolutely. Unless there is a medical contraindication which is very rare. So if someone is very close to end of life it may be decided that it’s not appropriate. But in general, absolutely. That’s what we’re doing in residential aged care. Vaccinating a lot of very elderly and very frail people.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you. Do you have the constitutional or legislative power in your opinion, to impose mandatory vaccination?
[Brendan Murphy]
The government policy is very clear that we’re not. We’ve never imposed mandatory vaccination in Australia. We take the approach that we want to encourage, promote and provide the evidence for vaccination. There have been situations where, for example, with flu vaccination last year in aged care where there was a public health order that the States and territories made. That decided that you couldn’t enter a facility unless you had proof of flu vaccination. But that was that’s very different from, from making, from mandating a vaccine. It just means that you have to make a choice about whether you go into an aged care facility. And obviously for childhood immunisation similar rules have applied. With again, mostly enforced by the States and territories, with no jab no play and government policy with no jab, no pay. But none of those have said that you are by law required to be vaccinated.
[Malcolm Roberts]
In the States?
[Brendan Murphy]
Yeah, In the States. Nobody can force a medical intervention on another citizen. We can do a lot of things to encourage, promote. And in some cases to restrict situations of risk if you’re not vaccinated. But we have never taken the view that we can force a citizen to have a medical intervention.
[Malcolm Roberts]
And you won’t be taking that view.
[Brendan Murphy]
I, I can’t imagine. That’s not, we wouldn’t recommend it.
[Witness]
There is absolutely no proposal from the government to make any COVID vaccine compulsory for anybody.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So are there any policies or plans or ideas or has it been discussed to make something unavailable without the vaccine? Effectively making it compulsory?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well, again, there has been discussion at HBPC. About whether, and Professor Kelly can comment on that, whether, at some stage we might use the same approach that we used for flu last year. To say that if the COVID vaccine is really effective at preventing transmission, that to say that to work in aged care or to enter a facility you need to have a vaccination. But HBPC has decided that; A, there isn’t enough evidence on prevention of transmission at the moment. And, B it would be silly for such a public health order to be introduced until such time as all of those workers and community members who might visit aged care have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. So that is, that’s a live matter for consideration that will be reviewed as the evidence evolves.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Okay.
[Witness]
No, I’ll just be very clear here though, that the current position of the government is that this vaccine is voluntary and not withstanding that the HPCs work and the, and the health departments work. But the government’s position is very clear, that the vaccine is voluntary.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Murphy. I’ll just jump outside of vaccines for a minute. To understand the overall context, and then come back to vaccines. What are the main factors in managing a pandemic? I’ll just test my own knowledge with you first. Is isolate and arrest the vaccine, which is called a lockdown, I understand. Then there’s number two is, identify the location and the spread to get on top of the quickly. What’s that? testing, tracing and quarantine. Then there are attempts to reduce the transmissibility through restrictions like masks, gatherings, criticism, movement of people, sorry, not criticism, movement of people. Then the fourth one would be cure and prophylactic areas to try and prevent, to try and cure people of the virus. For example, antivirals. Number five would be vaccine. Have I, have any, have I included any that are wrong? Have I missed any?
[Brendan Murphy]
Well you’ve missed international borders, which is probably…
[Malcolm Roberts]
Isolate and arrest.
[Brendan Murphy]
Yeah, well, certainly that has been one of our most successful interventions. Was to prevent the importation of a virus from, despite all the impact that it’s had on our citizens overseas. It has been one of the most singularly important parts of our success in controlling COVID.
[Malcolm Roberts]
So there’s just isolate and arrest, which I include international borders. Identify the location and spread through testing, tracing, quarantine. Reduce the transmissibility through restrictions. Cure and prophylactic approach and vaccine.
[Malcolm Roberts]
That seems pretty complete Professor Kelly?
[Professor Kelly]
individual behaviours.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Sorry?
[Professor Kelly]
Individual behaviours. So the hand hygiene, cough into your elbow, that sort of stuff.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Okay. Thank you.
The following line of questioning occured after the end of the attached video clip(see HANSARD)
[Chair]
The last question.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Sure. Can I get, on notice, an assessment of the characteristics of the virus? We were told initially it was a respiratory disease and we shoved ventilators at people. Some people were telling us that it hinders the blood absorbing oxygen or uptaking oxygen. We were told about various treatments. Perhaps you could tell me, on notice, what are the characteristics you measure to assess the virus’s mortality and transmissibility, and any other characteristics of the virus, and perhaps rank it relative to, for example, the decreasing order of impact. We’ve had the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, smallpox, the Antonine Plague, the Spanish flu, the third plague, HIV/AIDS and now COVID-19, which is a fraction of the population affected. Is it possible to get that summary?
[Brendan Murphy]
We can certainly provide it. This virus is now well studied. Essentially, as we’ve said on many occasions, for most fit, young people it’s a relatively mild disease, but 126,000 people have died in the UK, a very similar country to us. We have avoided a very large death rate by controlling this virus, and we’re very proud of that achievement, Senator. Whilst it may be a mild disease, that means it transmits wildly. Older people and people with underlying conditions are at risk of getting severe respiratory disease and dying, as they have done in their millions around the world.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Jm-ys1WT1tw/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-25 15:29:062021-04-06 10:12:43Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates
On Tuesday we supported 2 of 11 amendments to the JobMaker scheme but on receiving new information on Wednesday afternoon we changed our position. We listen and when we get new data we have the courage and integrity to review our position.
There was concern that employers would put off older workers and only employ younger workers to receive the JobMaker scheme.We now know this is not the case. The legislation only offers JobMaker for businesses who increase their payroll & head count. Sacking an elderly employee & hiring an under 35 wouldn’t qualify for a subsidy.
The Treasurer advised Pauline that unemployment in people 35 years of age or younger is 10.4%. In people older than 35 is 4%.There is a crisis for those in our community under 35. A job can make all the difference. When Covid restrictions came in unemployment increased 100%. And unemployment among younger people increased 150%.
Transcript
Hi, we just had a bit of a kerfuffle in the Senate about the job makers scheme. It’s to subsidise hiring of two groups of people. Those from 16 to 29 years of age, and those from 30 to 35 years of age. Yesterday, I spoke strongly opposed to it. And we then supported two amendments, two of 11 amendments. We rejected nine of Labor greens amendments, rejected nine, we supported two.
One was on reporting and the other one was on duplication. Here’s some new data. And when we get new data, we look at it, because we use these things, this thing, and our heart, and we assess the data honestly, and we don’t care what people think just because we changed our mind. We have the courage and the integrity to change our mind.
So here’s some of the data we got from the treasurer through Pauline today, she went in to see the treasurer, and we were told that the unemployment rate for those under 35 years of age is 10.4%. The unemployment rate for those over 35 years of age is just 4%. So that means the young have been really hammered. We’ve got to get those people back to work.
Another set of figures, the increase in unemployment, across all of Australia, due to the COVID restrictions, was 100%. The increase in unemployment due to the COVID restrictions on people under 35 years of age was 150%. So it’s really savaged the young. And we have to help these people back to work. Now, the treasurer gave us this data, and as I said, that caused us to rethink.
He also reassured us about the two amendments that we had previously supported. One was about reporting, and he assured us that the ATO will do that. And we also were reassured that the data will be reported to the COVID inquiry, the COVID committee. The second amendment was about duplication. We’ve been reassured on that too. The treasurer gave us the facts.
We have the courage and the integrity to change our position. Sadly, the Labor party and the greens are pitting old versus young. We know that that’s crap. That’s complete rubbish, because Australians care. And Australians who see those figures will do exactly what we’ve done. They’ll try and help the young and everyone. We know that all Australians care and will want this fixed.
And this programme is necessary to get the young back to work quickly. There are other programmes for other groups, and they’re at work already and have been at work in some cases for months. So that’s why we changed our position, because we’re honest and straight. No deal done, simply facts. Labor and the greens can’t understand that, because everything they do has to be grubby.
