This is my seventh update on the fallout from our ill-considered, dangerous, and criminal response to COVID-19. The truth is becoming clearer with every new study and every new piece of data.
Australia and New Zealand responded to COVID with measures designed to force mass vaccination, resulting in enormous financial gains for pharmaceutical companies. This money flowed through to shareholders—the world’s most predatory billionaires.
It’s terrifying that the entire situation—from the development of the COVID virus to the implementation of COVID measures, including the vaccines—was one giant fundraiser for the world’s wealthiest individuals. Yet that IS the truth!
Let me be clear: those who died from COVID died from a man-made virus. It was developed using gain-of-function research to be more deadly and more contagious than the original SARS virus, which was the starting point for the development of COVID. The virus was then “sold” to the public as the unfortunate result of human interaction with pangolins at a wet market in Wuhan, China.
It’s concerning that so many believed that fanciful story—an over-trust in authority resulting in a medical tragedy that’s still unfolding, as shown in new peer-reviewed and published studies.
Transcript
The New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned invited several former ministers in New Zealand responsible for the damaging, inhuman and fatal COVID response. These were Jacinda Ardern, the former prime minister; Chris Hipkins, the former health and COVID-19 response minister and current Labour leader; Grant Robertson, the former finance minister; and Ayesha Verrall, the former health minister. All four refused to testify, instead choosing to provide the Hollywood version of their actions in writing, avoiding cross-examination. Jacinda Ardern went so far as to call the royal commission a witch-hunt. One Nation calls it accountability. To refuse to be held to account for their actions is a signed confession of wrongdoing. Australia and New Zealand reacted to COVID with measures designed to force mass vaccination at huge financial benefit to pharmaceutical companies. This money flowed through to shareholders who are the world’s predatory billionaires. It’s terrifying that this entire thing, from the development of the COVID virus to the COVID measures, including the vaccine injections, was one giant fundraiser for the world’s wealthiest people. Yet that is the truth.
We know COVID itself is a man-made virus developed under Anthony Fauci with funding from the United States’s NIH, National Institutes of Health, administered through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The research was conducted first in the USA and then moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology from 2014, where it escaped in a lab leak in September 2019 before development was completed. Documents released through the FBI and others prove these facts. This is why the amazing United States secretary of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, announced the opening of a criminal investigation into Anthony Fauci and his cronies. I wonder if Ms Ardern considers that a witch hunt. The wheels of justice turn slowly, though they do turn. Ms Ardern can stare down a royal commission now, yet the truth is coming out.
It’s important to note that in its 2020 press release Australia’s own CSIRO confirmed it was involved in this gain-of-function research. Last February, a new paper was published through CSIRO Publishing entitled ‘Impacts of long COVID on disability, function and quality of life for adults living in Australia’. It found that people with long COVID reported worse disability than 98 per cent—almost 100 per cent—of the general Australian population. A total of 86 per cent those with long COVID met the threshold for serious disability compared with nine per cent of Australians overall. Complex areas like housework and socialising were badly impacted. People could often meet basic needs, yet their ability to contribute to their homes, workplaces and communities was limited. Quality of life was badly affected. Energy levels and social life were the most impacted, reflecting how fatigue and brain fog affect activities, relationships and connections. It is without a hint of irony that the CSIRO published a study showing health damage resulting from the virus they helped create through their support for gain-of-function research. All the evidence we have at the moment suggests long COVID can come from exposure to COVID or from the vaccine, the injections, the shots, and from some batches more than others. This is because for the first year the COVID shots were not made using good manufacturing processes, so batch variation was enormous.
Almost immediately when the virus appeared, we knew that COVID was the product of gain-of-function research. Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier sequenced COVID in April of 2020 and found unmistakeable evidence human intervention, including the inclusion of a large segment of the HIV virus. Luc should know; he won his Nobel prize for discovering the HIV virus. The bat virus was spliced in to confuse the human body’s immune system into producing in the wrong immune response to make the virus more deadly, deliberately. Then, for good measure, they spliced in most of the HIV virus to make it more contagious. Let me be clear. Those who died from COVID died from a manmade virus developed using gain-of-function research to be more deadly and more contagious than the original SARS virus which was the starting point for the development of COVID. Then the virus was sold to the public is an unfortunate outcome of human interaction with pangolin animals in a wet market in Wuhan in China. It’s concerning that so many believe that fanciful story and overtrust in authority, resulting in a medical tragedy that continues to unfold in new peer-reviewed and published articles.
Here are the latest such articles. Chen and others say mRNA injections cross the placenta and reach the fetus. mRNA-1273 crosses within one hour, accumulates in fetal organs, translates into spike protein and persists after birth. Thorp and others say CDC and FDA safety signal thresholds were breached for 37 adverse events following jabs in pregnant women, including miscarriage, stillbirth and fetal arrests. Karaman and others say mRNA shots destroy 60 per cent of a woman’s egg supply, known as primordial follicles. Manniche and others, on a sample set of 1.3 million women, found 33 per cent fewer successful pregnancies in women who had the shots. Freiberg and others, on a sample of 493,000 people—almost half a million people—found a 23 per cent increase in autoimmune disease post shot.
Did anyone hear about this study conducted from the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Dr Feldstein, published in the Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal, an Oxford University Press peer-reviewed publication? Amongst children aged six months to four years with no prior COVID infection, those who received the Pfizer-bioNTech mRNA shots were 159 per cent more likely to get infected and 257 per cent more likely to develop symptomatic COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated children without prior infection. This study from the US’s own CDC clearly shows that a COVID shot in young people has negative efficacy. It makes children more likely to get COVID, and, when they do, they experience worse symptoms. That study has resulted in the FDA and now Australia’s TGA at long last announcing the end of COVID vaccination for children, after they told us it was essential. Add that to the mental health damage, developmental delays and academic damage done to children during lockdown, and the picture is scandalous. This is criminal. This is inhuman.
In O’Keefe Media’s recent hidden camera video, Johnson Johnson’s lead scientist in regulatory affairs, Joshua Rys, admitted the typical clinical process was abandoned for the COVID-19 vaccine. J J knowingly bypassed standard testing protocols under pressure from the Biden government. Joshua said:
This was just, ‘let’s test it on some lab models … and just throw it to the wind and see what happens.
He acknowledges that the public was not informed about the shortcuts, which were not acknowledged. Did the TGA know that there was no proper safety testing on the J J product before it was given approval in Australia? While public officials claimed the vaccines were ‘safe and effective’, Rys pushed back saying:
There’s no proof. None of that stuff was safe and effective.
He added that the industry relies on a benefit-to-risk trade-off to justify product launches. What this means is that the product is justified if it helps more people than it harms. In that scenario, harm is tolerated. If the pharmaceutical company has its thumb on the scale, making harm less and benefit more, then the faulty product makes it to the market. That’s exactly what happened with the COVID products and 20 other products, like Remdesivir, that were approved in Australia.
Now the latest instalment in Frankenstein science is upon us. Listen to this. Self-amplifying RNA vaccines—saRNA—are being tested. These are shots which replicate inside the human body after injection, turning our bodies into genetic material production units which shed on those around us. This is uninformed consent to vaccination taken to a whole new level. A paper published in the peer reviewed Journal of Clinical Medicine found that the COVID-19 replicon saRNA injections caused severe blood abnormalities in 93 per cent of trial participants. Symptoms include increased risk of internal bleeding and suppressed immune cells, which raises infection risks. Renowned American cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough last week commented on saRNA technology, saying:
Vaccinologists have made a critical error in the design of genetic vaccines. Injection of the genetic code for any foreign protein including parts of viruses causes the body to respond with an immune attack against its own cells.
This leads to intense vaccine injury syndromes all through the human body
He said:
Giving the vaccines their own ‘life’ with the ability to reproduce themselves is inhumane, reckless, and from the outset, should be flagged as dangerous and potentially lethal to the recipient.
COVID vaccines were released without proper testing and caused 1,200 deaths in testing alone, in Pfizer alone. Pushing COVID shots killed tens of thousands of Australians—homicide. If saRNA shots are pushed, it will be genocide—deliberate. Those responsible for COVID have not been held to account, yet now they plan to turn every person and every animal into a genetic material production facility. I have now given seven of these COVID updates, 70 minutes of proof—scientific proof, medical proof—that we must investigate this criminal enterprise, or this next generation of Frankenstein science, the saRNA, will kill and maim huge numbers of Australians.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/UeOyEgf2btM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-09-29 17:18:002025-09-29 17:18:07Update 7: COVID, Control and the Cost of Compliance
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ojUay2EUVuE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-08-14 17:50:472025-08-14 17:50:50Patients First – Not Profits or Mandates
They promised safe and effective. What they delivered was sudden and unexpected.
For years, I’ve defended the doctor-patient relationship against bureaucratic overreach and pharmaceutical influence. The COVID response exposed regulatory failure, destroyed trust, and harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians who trusted the medical establishment.
One Nation will shut down the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and its related crony committees, end the revolving door between regulators and industry, and demand a royal commission into the COVID response.
Australians deserve truth, justice, and a health system free from corporate control.
Transcript
‘They promised you safe and effective; instead, they delivered sudden and unexpected.’ So reads the billboard erected by NZDSOS—a group of 9,000 New Zealand doctors, health professionals and academics. There are 9,000 of them; courage is contagious. Their byline is, ‘It’s time to remove the government from the consultation room.’
For many years, I’ve spoken about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. I’ve spoken against the insidious influence of health bureaucrats creeping into that relationship—influence exerted to benefit the pharmaceutical industry over the interests of everyday Australian patients. I’ve spoken about the abuse of power and regulatory capture of Ahpra and health regulators. In recent months, I have joined the fight against the Queensland health department’s decision to destroy biological samples taken from 10,000 volunteers and used to test the safety and efficacy of COVID injectables. A bad decision that, I’m happy to say, has been overturned. Thank you, Premier Crisafulli from Queensland. I always say ‘injectables’ because these dangerous, killer products are not vaccines; they’re a biological experiment which failed. Tens of thousands of people died, and many more live with adverse reactions, which is bureaucrat-speak for them having their health and lives destroyed.
One Nation will close the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its related crony committees, filled as they are with personnel that pharmaceutical companies employed, funded, educated and now seek to regulate. Australians were healthier and safer when the health department made these decisions with the benefit of close parliamentary scrutiny. We must go back to that system. One Nation is preparing legislation to prevent the revolving door between parliament, the Public Service and private industry, so a person cannot go from regulating big pharma to working for big pharma. We continue to call for a royal commission into our COVID response. We must understand how the disproportionate, homicidal response to a bad flu killed many tens of thousands of people and maimed many more. Justice must be served or more people will die. (Time expired)
I spoke with Brent on 2SM about to the recent and concerning medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots and the disturbing lack of accountability from CASA regarding the impact of vaccine mandates on aviation safety.
We need proper cardiac screening and transparency about potential vaccine injuries among pilots. The public deserves to know the truth about what’s happening in our skies.
CASA’s wilful blindness to these serious safety issues must end.
Transcript
Brent: I said we were going to be talking to Malcolm Roberts this morning. He is on the phone. Two recent medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots, one who collapsed in the cockpit, another who suffered chest pains mid-flight, have sparked fresh questions around aviation safety and pilot health post-Covid. Now, pilots, if you remember, were required to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Remember, no jab, no job. That’s what they were saying. No jab, no job. But could there be lingering medical issues going undetected? And are the regulators doing enough to stay ahead of it? Senator Malcolm Roberts raised the matter during Senate’s estimates. He joins me now. Good morning, Malcolm.
Malcolm Roberts: Good morning, Brent. How are you?
Brent: I’m well. Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule. We really appreciate it. Okay?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome. Pleasure.
Brent: When you asked about these incidents in Senate estimates, what was CASA’s response and did you get the sense that they’re really taking it seriously?
Malcolm Roberts: No, they’re definitely not taking it seriously. Their response echoed or exuded the word indignant. They’re indignant. I’ve asked them many questions about the vaccine injuries, the jab injuries, Fred, and they have been willfully blind, in my opinion. That’s my honest opinion. They have given me nothing. When I first asked about the jabs being mandated by Qantas and Virgin, they said, “Well, that’s their business.” They are responsible for any new medication coming into the airline sector to be tested at low altitude. That has not been done. When I asked them on whose advice they ignored Qantas and Virgin’s jabs, they said, “The experts.” On whose advice did you basically approve the vaccines? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The international experts. I never got a name. They will not take responsibility, that’s why I say they’re willfully blind. And we know from pilots, Fred, that there are many with serious problems.
Brent: Pilots already undergo regular medical checks, but is there a case for adding cardiac screening now, just as a precaution, given what we know post-Covid?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, and we know that in states, the United States of America, the screening levels were increased considerably just to get more people through. I know from talking to a lawyer who’s helping a whistleblower prosecute Pfizer, that he was told by a Southwest Airlines pilot and Southwest Airlines is the biggest domestic carrier in the United States with about 23% of the market, almost a quarter. They tell me that 1,000 Southwest Airlines pilots failed their medical.
Brent: A thousand?
Malcolm Roberts: A thousand. We worked that out on back of envelopes stuff to be about 5%.
Brent: Gosh.
Malcolm Roberts: 1/20th. So there’s a serious issue, and we’ve heard from Australian pilots that there are people who are damaged who are flying, but they won’t report because they could lose their jobs.
Brent: The U.S. Defence study back in 2021, it raised concerns about myocarditis in young fit people including pilots. Shouldn’t that have been a trigger for more action here? Malcolm?
Malcolm Roberts: Definitely. But no matter what we raised with CASA, they just ignore it. They ignore the regulations about testing, requiring testing of new medications at low pressure, low and [inaudible 00:03:25] high altitude. These are significant rules that they’re just ignoring. They’re not taking responsibility for doing their job. I find CASA and in particular, it’s chief expense to be uncaring, and I don’t think they’re doing their job properly. That’s my honest opinion. They just seem to run away from their responsibilities. She is the top of the heap when it comes to airline safety in this country and she, in my opinion, she’s not behaving responsibly.
Brent: U.S. flight surgeon, Teresa Long sounded early warnings about health, heart risks with these mRNA vaccines. Malcolm, has there been any similar discussion or concern raised by aviation doctors in Australia?
Malcolm Roberts: Pilots have raised it with me. Former pilots who refused to get the jab who still stay in touch with their former colleagues have raised it with me. They’re very, very concerned about this. Very concerned. There have been doctors and pilot officials who’ve raised it with me, as well.
Brent: Do you think the public would be reassured if little word, big meaning, CASA simply looked at a short-term cardiac screening programme for pilots just to be on the safe side of things?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And what’s the fear about this? If a pilot is found to be liable or more prone or has a heart problem, then the public is going to be safe, safer by giving him treatment. That’s the first thing. If they find no one at all, and I don’t think that’ll be the case, then at least we’ve had that confirmed and the public can be at ease. But one of the things is they’re afraid to the whole, when I say they, it’s not just CASA, it’s the whole health establishment are afraid to do that because once they find the data themselves, they can’t ignore it, then they’d have to admit to what they did was inhuman by mandating untested, not properly tested vaccines in this country. So people are just burying it. I mean that sincerely. People in the health departments there at state and federal level, health agencies like APRA they’re burying this. They don’t want to.
Brent: So is it fair to say that CASA-
Malcolm Roberts: I hope we’re not going to be burying passengers soon.
Brent: Is it fair to say that CASA is just deliberately covering up myocarditis cases?
Malcolm Roberts: I would say that they’re in group think, they don’t want to admit it and it’s willful blindness. So you interpret that as deliberate in my view, they’re being deliberately negligent, which is deliberately not wanting to look at it because of what they might find, and I don’t think they know it, but medical authorities know that there’s a lot of heart problems with the vaccine with those vaccinated with the Covid shots.
Brent: Senator, this isn’t about panic, is it? It’s about trust.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely. It’s about trust, responsibility, and accountability. And the federal government, state government, we have got a problem in this country. The number one issue in this country, Fred, is that there is very low level of accountability. When I square up at Senate estimates, I’m holding them accountable and the liberal and labour governments, which I’ve had experience with both, they’re not on the side of the public. The number one problem in this country is shoddy governance that is based on ignoring the hard data, the hard evidence,
Brent: Trying to dust it away, hide it under the rug, as they say. Look, more transparency and a few extra checks would go a long way in keeping people confident when they simply step on a plane.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, we’ve had senior pilots telling us that they admittedly retired rather than face the mandates or who voluntarily just refused to accept the mandates. They are very, very concerned and we know that the heart injuries globally from these shots, and it’s not just Astrazeneca, it’s also Moderna, also Pfizer. They have seriously raised a sign, raised the incidence of heart problems.
Brent: No jab and no job. That was the saying during this whole thing. No jab, no job, so we lost lots of excellent pilots. May I ask you, in your experience and the people that you talked to, have you found that because pilots lost their jobs, there’s a shortage of good pilots? Are pilots that didn’t take the jab, are they now getting their jobs back?
Malcolm Roberts: I don’t know. I make statements only based on data and I haven’t got the data with me on that, but I do know, I know the data that we have lost many, many fine nurses, paramedics, ambulancemen, doctors, firees, police officers. We have got some people who deliberately avoided the mandates and stood down or resigned or worse, stood down. We had a bloody nurse pregnant, stood down in January. Some of these places have still got mandates on and it’s basically inhuman. They didn’t test the shots properly, Fred, we know that they didn’t test them, yet, they mandated them and they said basically to people employed in all those industries and services that I just listed, they said basically, “If you want to feed your kids, you’ll get the shots.” That is inhuman. That is just disgraceful.
Brent: Did you say you had a nurse? I just want to repeat this, you had a nurse in January of 2025, she lost her job. Is that right? Because she hadn’t had a jab in 2025.
Malcolm Roberts: Sorry, January, 2024. My mistake. January, 2024.
Brent: Okay.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And she was basically suspended at work, off work suspended at various times in the previous three years since the jabs came in, the mandates came in and then they sacked her.
Brent: Gosh, we’ve just got to get rid of these mandates.
Malcolm Roberts: And the injections that were approved provisionally for people in this country, the medical authorities in this country are now saying healthy infants, children’s and adolescents aged less than 18 years of age are not recommended to receive Covid-19 vaccine.
Brent: Absolutely. They’ve changed their mind.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah, so we’re going to see the TGA, we’re going to see APRA blacklisted from social media like I was suspended for saying exactly that healthy infants, children, adolescents should not be given the shots, I was blacklisted, suspended from social media. Are they going to be suspended? There’s not even a fuss about it. We know that Astrazeneca’s been withdrawn because of the court decision in the United Kingdom.
We need a royal commission. We need a royal commission to get to the bottom of this because there is a lot of lies being told, a lot of inhuman decisions, and now we find out that so many things, the premiers are telling us so many things in the Covid response, a fraudulent Covid response, are wrong and they’re not based on the science. They’ve admitted that, and we knew that because the different states had different approaches and some states had different approaches from one day to the next. They didn’t follow the data. There is no scientific evidence, empirical hard evidence. There’s been no serious testing. Pfizer cancels its tests early because they were killing people in their own test group who’d got the shots, and I asked the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration responsible for provisionally, approving the shots in the first place, what testing they did. Oh, Senator Roberts, we didn’t do any testing. We relied upon the FDA in America, the Food and Drug Administration, which does America’s approvals.
And we knew at that time, Fred, at the time, the TGA told me that, we knew that the FDA had not done any tests and relied purely on Pfizer’s evidence. Pfizer’s evidence, and Pfizer is now being questioned seriously about the efficacy of the test. We’ve had tens of thousands of, let’s be blunt homicides, they are homicides, in this country and millions worldwide homicides because the testing has not been done properly at all. What testing was done was not proper at all. It was very, very brief.
Brent: All right, Malcolm Roberts, we’ll leave it there today. As always, thank you for making yourself available to talk on the Chris Smith morning show. Chris will talk to you again. No doubt. Keep up the good fight, Malcolm.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vWM0fq7VzI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-06-26 17:34:402025-06-26 17:34:59Time for Transparency: Aviation Safety Demands Answers from CASA
The largest ever study (QoVAX) comparing COVID injected to non-injected patients has been stopped without explanation, and Queensland Health is on track to destroy all of its samples and evidence.
Losing the last evidence that could inform a truly objective assessment of the effects of the injections wouldn’t just be a tragedy, it could be a crime.
I’m putting Queensland Health bureaucrats on notice. Do NOT destroy these samples and evidence – allow the study to complete so that the data can be shared for all Australians.
Transcript
This building could become the biggest crime scene in Australia.
I’m standing outside the Queensland Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Metro North, where Queensland Health intends to cover up and destroy evidence of the COVID vaccine fraud.
In 2021, a major research project, the QoVAX study, started researching 10,600 biospecimens from donors injected with the COVID-19 injections and from donors not injected.
The study was considering effectiveness and outcomes of being injected versus non injected.
It was to be the largest study of this nature in the world to date.
After only 18 months, the $20 million programme was shut down suddenly and without warning and with no valid reason provided. The donors were not even consulted, and neither were senior scientists running the study.
Metro North now intends to destroy the data and specimens, even though they’ve been informed of pending legal action to preserve the valuable data and evidence in the samples and material.
Destroying the samples would be a crime. Punishment for all responsible could include gaol time and massive fines.
The Human Research and Ethics Committee and board members of Metro North are failing in their duty and oversight responsibilities. This may make them culpable.
Why do these bodies wish to destroy the samples and data? What are they trying to hide?
Papers are about to be completed and published for the first 18 months of the research. If the research reveals problems with the COVID shots, it would embarrass Queensland Health bureaucrats and politicians. That’s motive for destroying the samples and the evidence.
If the research reveals no problems with the shots, why would Queensland Health not release the data and conclusions?
With a $4 billion annual budget, Queensland Health’s Metro North can afford to continue storing the samples and preserve the data.
I call for this decision to be immediately withdrawn and steps taken to preserve the specimens and reinstate this vital programme to provide conclusions as to the nature and effects of the COVID injections.
I’m sending letters to raise this issue with the Premier of Queensland, the Minister for Health and the Attorney General.
This is just another reason why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese must call a royal Commission into the entire COVID response.
Letters to Queensland’s Premier, Attorney-General and Minister for Health
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8JT2TyqPBSk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-22 18:11:002025-05-22 18:12:56Crime Scene in the Making: Hospital Moves to Destroy COVID Vaccine Data
Powerful video from America’s national Health Secretary (Minister), Robert F Kennedy Jnr.
RFK Jnr made and sent this video to national health ministers and bureaucrats attending the UN-WHO’s World Health Assembly.
He raises many core issues that when addressed would put the USA and the world on a track back to full health and to freedom from Big Pharma.
He omits one key point: the fact that in addition to CCP funding of Gain-Of-Function research in Wuhan China, the USA National Institutes of Health and Anthony Fauci unlawfully funded and drove such research in Wuhan AND unlawfully initiated and continued to oversee research into the manmade Covid-19 virus at the University of North Carolina under the leadership of Ralph Baric.
RFK Jnr’s 5-minutes video gives the world hope.
Transcript
To my colleagues in public health, I’m Robert F Kennedy Junior, the US Health and Human Services Secretary.
As you know, President Trump has made the decision to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation.
I’d like to take this opportunity to offer some background to that decision and more importantly, to chart a future path toward global cooperation on health and health security.
Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat and trench paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics.
While the United States has provided the lion’s share of the organisation funding, historically, other countries such as China have exerted undue influence over its operations in ways that serve their own interests and not particularly the interests of the global public.
This all became obvious during the COVID pandemic when the WHO, under pressure from China, suppressed reports at critical junctures of human to human transmission and then worked with China to promote the fiction that COVID originated from bats or pangolins rather than from a Chinese government sponsored research at a bio lab in Wuhan.
Not only has it WHO capitulated to political pressure from China, it’s also failed to maintain an organisation characterised by transparency and fair governance by and for its member states. The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens and not to transnational or corporate interests.
Now, I believe that for the most part, the staff of the WHO are a conscientious people who sincerely believe in what they’re doing. And indeed, the WHO has since its inception accomplished important work, including the eradication of smallpox. Too often, though, the WHO’s priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine. Too often it has allowed political agendas, like pushing harmful gender ideology, to hijack its core mission. And too often it has become the tool of politics and turned its back on promoting health and health security.
Global cooperation on health is still critically important to President Trump and myself, but it isn’t working very well under the WHO, as the failures of the COVID era demonstrate. The WHO has not even come to terms with its failures during COVID, let alone made significant reforms. Instead, it has doubled down with the pandemic agreement, which will lock in all of the dysfunctions of the WHO pandemic response.
We’re not going to participate in that. We need to reboot the whole system, as we are doing in the United States. Here in the United States, we’re going to continue to focus on infectious disease and pandemic preparedness, but we’re also fundamentally shifting the priorities of our health agencies to focus on chronic diseases, which are prevalent in the United States.
It’s the chronic disease epidemic that is sickening our people and bankrupting our healthcare system. We’re now pivoting to make our healthcare system more responsive to this reality.
We’re going to make healthcare in the United States serve the needs of the public instead of industry profit taking. We’re removing food dyes and other harmful additives from our food supply. We’re investigating the causes of autism and other chronic diseases. We’re seeking to reduce consumption of ultra processed foods. And we’re going to support lifestyle changes that will bolster the immune systems and transform the health of our people.
Few of these efforts lend themselves easily to profits or serve establish special interests. These changes can only occur through the kind of systemic overhaul that President Trump has brought to our country.
We’d like to see a similar reordering of priorities on the global stage, especially considering the fact that through the leadership of the United States and funding from our country over the past 25 years, millions of global citizens have seen a reduction in premature death due to HIV, TB and malaria.
Let’s return to the core focus of global health and global health security, back to reducing infectious disease burden and the spread of diseases of pandemic potential.
I urge the world’s health ministers and the WHO to take our withdrawal from the organisation as a wake up call. It isn’t that President Trump and I have lost interest in international cooperation, Not at all. We just want it to happen in a way that’s fair and efficient and transparent for all the Member States.
We’ve already been in contact with like minded countries and we encourage others to consider joining us. We want a free international health cooperation from the straight jacket of political interference by corrupting influences of the pharmaceutical companies of adversarial nations and their NGO proxies.
I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation. We don’t have to suffer the limits of a more abundant WHO.
Let’s create new institutions or revisit existing institutions that are lean, efficient, transparent, and accountable. Whether it’s an emergency outbreak of an infectious disease or the pervasive rod of chronic conditions that have been overtaking not just America but the whole world, we’re ready to work with you.
Thank you and May God bless you, and let’s all pray for the health of our children and our grandchildren.
Produced by the US Department of Health and Human Services.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/toTUNlOlKr4/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-05-22 18:05:142025-05-22 18:05:18US Exits WHO: Let’s Build a Better System Together
This is a great session to demonstrate how far Estimates has fallen. I asked a perfectly simple question: if a person followed the TGA’s COVID-19 “vaccine” schedule, how many shots would they have had by now? Watch as they bob and weave to avoid answering this simple question.
Part of the reason for this is to use up time. The TGA session attracts a lot of interest, and my time is limited, so the longer they can draw out the answer, the fewer questions they have to answer.
I then asked about a new study showing that the COVID-19 jabs produced spike proteins for almost two years after injection, despite being told that the vaccines stayed in the injection site and passed out of the body in a matter of hours.
Professor Lawler tried to discredit the research, which was conducted by Yale, and refused to acknowledge that the spike proteins from the “vaccine” were being produced for years after vaccination, despite the paper stating exactly that. A substantial amount of my time was spent on them saying very little that they could be held accountable for later.
I also asked about other studies linking vaccines with autism and received a similar response: the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited—nothing to see here, move on. The link between autism and vaccination has been well established, even with the small number of papers that have survived the bullying from big Pharma to protect their sacred cash cow.
I will not stop pursuing the truth about vaccine harm.
Note: This video combines two separate sessions into one video file.
Transcript 1
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are all to do with the TGA. Technology is marvellous, isn’t it? Potentially hundreds of doctors and constituents are watching. The TGA approach to COVID has been based—correct me if I’m wrong—on two original shots, then boosters to maintain currency, because MRNA technology offered waning protection over time. If a person had taken the recommended COVID shots at the time they were recommended, from March 2021 until now, how many COVID injections would the person have had?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure, necessarily, whether that’s a TGA question. The role of the TGA is very much to—
Mr Comley: I think we have an appropriate officer joining the table, Dr Anna Peatt, who I think can help you on this because I think she’ll need to go to the nature of ATAGI’s advice for vaccines for individuals. I think it would also go to the question about different categories of individuals receiving different recommendations over that period of time, reflecting the risk profile for those individuals. Dr Peatt, would you like to, perhaps, have a crack at this?
Dr Peatt: Yes, I will. It’s actually quite a difficult question to answer because the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines has changed over the course of the pandemic. So, really, you can’t actually answer the question unless you know the specifics of the individual that you’re referring to. Someone who was aged 75 years or over at the start of the pandemic may have had upwards of eight vaccines over that course, but it really depends on the individual circumstances. In Australia we don’t have vaccination mandates at the moment, so it also comes down to people’s individual choices. But, ultimately, it comes down to vaccinators’ advice.
Senator ROBERTS: So eight in total, most likely. Can you confirm the TGA is still recommending boosters every six months for immunocompromised people and every 12 months for adults under 64.
Prof. Lawler: I can’t confirm that, because the TGA’s role is not to recommend immunisation. The TGA’s role is to assess the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: But you do monitor the injections, the results and the DAENs, don’t you? Do you have a role—
Prof. Lawler: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Good.
Prof. Lawler: No. That’s correct, but that’s not the same as what you asked previously. The difference is that the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to assess pre-market therapeutic goods for safety, quality and efficacy, and, where appropriate, to undertake post-market monitoring. That’s why we undertake pharmacovigilance activity and assess adverse events. That is not the same as monitoring and recommending specific immunisation schedules. That’s the role of ATAGI.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But surely you would monitor the number of doses that people have because, as I understand it, don’t you monitor DAENs? Isn’t the monitoring super critical, especially when you have provisional authorisation for these injections?
Prof. Lawler: As I think we provided previously, the vaccines that we’re discussing are not provisionally registered. They have transitioned to full registration. But, as I said, the role of the TGA is to monitor adverse events as and when they occur, and as they are reported.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, I understand that Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled ‘Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Diseases after COVID-19 Vaccination’. That study found that spiked protein remained in patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine for, in one case, 709 days and counting. When did the TGA realise that spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify, because I have previously indicated there are quite a lot of studies out there, is that the Bhattacharjee article from Yale last week? I think it is.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled—
Prof. Lawler: Thanks. So that is, as you say, an article in preprint. I would like to reflect on that article. The first line of the abstract reads: COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. And the intro says: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been pivotal in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. These vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, vaccinated individuals experience a lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 … or long COVID, thus highlighting an additional potential benefit of receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. It might seem like I’m not answering your question in reading those first few lines out, but I think it’s really important that a feature of the public debate on this matter has been the convenient picking out of individual findings from papers. I think it’s really important to note that. In terms of the paper itself, it was a small study, with 42 cases that reported post-vaccination syndrome after COVID vaccination and it had 22 controls with no symptoms. There are some challenges with the article. There was a very small sample size, which included insufficient subgroup numbers to adequately assess the effect of previous infection. There was a lack of analysis of potential confounders, such as other medical conditions and medication use, and a lack of standardised case definition for PBS—noting that the symptoms of PBS are general and are associated with a range of other conditions. I think that there is some really interesting information in that article. I particularly like the introduction where it clearly indicates the benefits of vaccination. But I would also say that it is challenging, potentially, to draw too much of an inference from its findings.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, I don’t know which question you answered but let me ask my question again. When did the TGA realise spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when we have evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not aware of it at the moment?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when there is evidence that it is the case that spiked protein persists in the body for years. I think one of the things that is most notable—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. You’ve answered the question. For clarity, if a person has spiked protein in their system years after injection, something must be making that spiked protein and renewing it in their system. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler: I might ask Professor Langham to respond to that.
Prof. Langham: I think what Professor Lawler is trying to say is that we are not aware of any robust evidence that supports the presence of spiked protein being in the system of recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine for years. When we do undertake reviews of relevant studies—and I might add, this as an ongoing process that the TGA undertakes for every single product that is registered on the ARTG—our robust and thorough review of evidence is such that should there be a finding that we would consider scientific, then that absolutely would be accepted. That is the case for the question that you are asking. We are not aware of any scientific and robust findings that demonstrate prolonged circulation of spiked protein in the human body.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. If a person already has spike protein in their system, and they need more mRNA technology—more spike proteins—and if, for that person, those are long lived as well, could there be people walking around with dangerous levels of spike protein as a result of following ATAGI’s guidelines? Surely you’ve considered this.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. As we discussed previously, one of the roles of the TGA is to undertake ongoing post-market pharmacovigilance. As a result, we continually receive and accept reports of adverse events. We use those to work toward the identification of safety signals. We take more of a phenomenological approach to identifying risky safety profiles, as has been highlighted previously. We’re firmly of the view that the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The Yale study examined 64 vaccinated subjects. One in 64, in this case, retained spike for almost two years and counting. Extending that sample to Australian consumers, doesn’t that indicate, certainly, that tens of thousands of Australians are dealing with spike protein build-up in their body? Does even the possibility of that concern you?
Prof. Langham: I think what we’ve been trying to say is that not all of the research that is published is of a high level of scientific quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Langham—
Prof. Langham: I’m sorry, Senator. We’ve been here before. It’s Professor Langham, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Professor Langham—I mean that sincerely. I wasn’t trying to cast any aspersions. Professor Lawler just read glowingly, in response to one of my questions, about aspects of this study.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that ‘glowingly’ would describe by situation. I think there was a balanced argument. However, one of the things we do undertake when we scientifically review a paper is to look at the rigour of it. It is acknowledged within the paper that there are certain limitations to the study. Some of the findings include the fact that there were potential differences in the immune profiles of individuals with PBS and that PBS participants had lower levels of spike protein antibodies. There was serological evidence suggestive of recent Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. But I think it’s quite important—and it’s actually quite challenging to convey this in this forum—to note that the presence of a study saying something should not be taken as meaning that without a robust analysis of the rigour of that study. It’s important to note that this was a small case study. There were 42 cases and 22 controls. That means the ability to extrapolate from that in the way you suggested is actually really limited and potentially misleading. I don’t mean it’s deliberately misleading; it can lead to misleading outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand from the previous Senate estimates and from this one. Are you saying that spike proteins are harmless?
Prof. Lawler: No, I don’t believe we said that last time or this time.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I asked the question—for clarification. The Yale study found immune cell— in this case T cell—exhaustion. Do you accept the science that mRNA technology has caused T cell exhaustion in some consumers, leading to a condition that causes chronic tiredness, brain fog, dormant conditions like Epstein-Bar and cancer becoming active again, and in general an increased susceptibility to new infection?
Prof. Lawler: Part of the challenge in responding to that is that we’re responding to a definition outlined within the study as a post-COVID-19-vaccination syndrome that is characterised by a wide range of symptoms which have been, as far as I can determine, selected by the authors. They include such things as you’ve mentions, like exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy and others. But the authors themselves note that PBS is not officially recognised by health authorities, and there’s no consensus definition of the syndrome. One of the things I was trying to say—and, again, I wouldn’t characterise it as a glowing endorsement of the article—is that it is encouraging that even small studies are looking at these things. One of the things that has been levelled at the TGA previously is that we are blind to science or not interested in hearing new ideas. It’s actually very encouraging to see this kind of research, but it needs to be taken within the context of rigorous research methodology.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Long COVID’, a phrase that Dr Skerritt used at estimates in May 2022, was the theory tested by Yale in a literature review entitled ‘The long COVID puzzle: autoimmunity, inflammation, and other possible causes’. That was published in May 2024. This studied viral persistence, inflammation, autoimmune damage and latent viral reaction following exposure to COVID, naturally or by injection. Minister, is your government ignoring a ticking time bomb with these mRNA vaccines, one that you are making worse by still recommending that people take these products? You’re still recommending it.
Senator McCarthy: We certainly, through the health minister, look out for all Australians in relation to their care, health and wellbeing, but I will refer to officials in terms of the technical aspects of your question.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure if I’m answering your question here, so I’m happy to hear it again if I’m not. One of the things that we do find that has been supported by multiple studies—in fact, studies that are cited within the Yale article—is that COVID vaccination actually leads to a decreased incidence of both the post-acute sequelae of COVID and also the prevalence of long COVID. So we know that those are not only protective for hospitalisation and death, as are their indications within the Register of Therapeutic Goods, but also protective for some of the long-term sequelae of COVID infection.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on to vaccine harm generally. An article in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law—there’s an interesting combination; science, public health and law—titled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’ found: … the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. For those at home, an NDD is a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or OCD, and ASD is autism spectrum disorder. This study of 41,000 nine-year-olds in Florida came out this month and finds, with statistical certainty, that childhood vaccines are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. Have you seen this paper? And, if not, why not?
Prof. Lawler: I’m familiar with the journal that you outline; I’m familiar with the nature of the articles that are provided for publication and the level of peer review that occurs. I’m not familiar with that journal article specifically, and it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment on it without it in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: The autism vaccine link is the most contentious issue in medicine right now, based on the number of people affected. Is this wilful ignorance on your part? Prof. Lawler: That is an interesting question. It’s not a contentious link. There was an article some years ago that drew links between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism. That has been serially and profoundly debunked; it’s been retracted from the media. There’s no evidence currently that there is a link between vaccination and autism. Unfortunately, the continued promulgation of such a link is suspected to be one of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and falling vaccine rates.
Senator ROBERTS: I would argue, based upon the timing, that the COVID shots, the mandating of COVID shots and the adverse effects of the COVID shots would have done a lot of damage to the credibility of vaccines in general. If I give you the link, Professor Lawler, will you undertake to review the study and come ready to discuss the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, at the next estimates?
Prof. Lawler: I’m very happy to receive any link and read any article, and to come back and have a comment. I do have with me Dr Sophie Russell, who’s the acting director of the Pharmacovigilance Branch.
Dr Russell: Thanks for the question. I’ll just make one small comment about the Yale study. The Yale study that you refer to was not able to properly account for previous COVID-19 infection due to insufficient case numbers. We would, of course, be happy to provide on notice a broader critical analysis, but I’ll reinforce what Professor Lawler has said—that, to date, the TGA has not found a causal association between any vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorder—and I would like to reassure you that we are continually monitoring for those particular adverse events in COVID-19 vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: In that paper, entitled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’, I’ve seen a graph. The multiplier for ASD is 3.14—the vaccinated have 3.14 times more ASD than the unvaccinated; for hyperkinetic syndrome it’s three times; for epilepsy or seizures it’s 4.2 times; for learning disorders it’s 9.8 times—almost 10 times; for encephalopathy it’s 7.7 times; and, for at least one of the listed neurodevelopmental disorders, it’s four times. Let’s move on—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before you do, in a couple of minutes I’ll be seeking to rotate the call, as I understand Senator Rennick has some more questions. You still have the call, but I’m just giving you some early warning that I’ll be seeking to rotate in a few minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff, which is a lot. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll ask Dr Kerr to join us at the table. I would probably contest the comment that that’s a lot of staff. We have staff that are appropriate to the role of ensuring qualities and standards within our therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t casting aspersions that way, Professor Lawler; I was saying that that’s a lot of staff to do some of the work that I’ve just raised.
Prof. Lawler: We have a lot of work to do. I think the numbers are quite appropriate.
Dr Kerr: May I have the question again, please?
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Dr Kerr: The subject of our testing is actually the vaccine itself. We have spent a lot of time ensuring that the vaccine complies with the quality requirements. We do look at the expression of the protein from the vaccine in vitro, but we do not take samples from Australians to test for the COVID spike protein. That is not our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t monitor it in that way?
Dr Kerr: We’re not a pathology laboratory. We don’t take samples from Australians—from humans.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to my next question: have you been actively testing people to check spike protein levels and to test for antigens indicating myocarditis, Guillain-Barre, Epstein-Barr—which is also called herpes 4—and the other 1,240 other known side effects of mRNA technology, as provided by Pfizer? Have you been testing for anything to do with that? These are known adverse events from Pfizer. Have you been testing?
Dr Kerr: I might defer to my colleague Dr Russell.
Dr Russell: As Professor Lawler highlighted earlier, we take a broader approach to postmarket safety issues. Published literature and clinical testing are all part of our assessment. When we are looking into safety signals in the postmarket space, we’re looking at that in the Australian context. We are looking at the number of cases that are reported to the TGA and the number of cases that are reported to the World Health Organisation database; we’re liaising with our comparable international regulators and looking at published literature. There’s a variety of areas that we look to, to consider the strength of the evidence between a clinical condition and vaccination, and that informs our regulatory actions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, but how do you know about the incidents if you’re not actually testing?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry—the incidence of clinical episodes?
Senator ROBERTS: Adverse events, yes—actively checking people for spike protein levels.
Dr Russell: Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any evidence that correlates spike protein levels with a clinical syndrome or diagnosis. What we are looking for in the postmarket space is clinical symptoms or conditions that are caused by the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: If I could just add to that, we’ve endeavoured to be clear previously—and I won’t on this occasion read out the SQoNs that we’ve answered—that our pharmacovigilance program, in keeping with the standard and accepted practice of regulators around the world, is based on clinical adverse events. As Dr Russell has highlighted, there is not a correlation that is currently identified between spike protein levels and clinical events. Our adverse event monitoring process, our pharmacovigilance process, in keeping with the actions and practice of regulators globally, is to capture, analyse, understand and, where necessary, respond in a regulatory fashion to safety signals identified through clinical events. So those clinical events are identified. As I’ve mentioned, we have many events—I don’t have the number in front of me, but certainly over 100,000—of variable severity that we have analysed and responded to, and we have made significant regulatory changes in response to that. The clinical approach that we take to adverse event monitoring is entirely in keeping with the pharmacovigilance practices of global regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Lawler. So you don’t do testing, so you presumably rely upon adverse event notifications. Ahpra have ensured those reports were not made. You can’t possibly be relying only on the few doctors with the courage to stand up against Ahpra—or was ‘rare’ the outcome you worked back from? Did you just assume it was rare and work backwards to justify it?
Prof. Lawler: It’s unfortunate that Ahpra isn’t here to respond to that. I think it’s pretty clear that—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known.
Prof. Lawler: Sorry, Senator. What’s well known?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known that Ahpra has been suppressing doctors’ voices.
Prof. Lawler: I would make the distinction if I may—and, again, Ahpra is not here to respond and defend itself against that comment—that what you are characterising as misinformation around vaccine and the disease is very different to the reporting of adverse events. I would also contend that the volume of adverse events that were reported would indicate the threshold for reporting adverse events is quite low, and that’s exactly where we want it to be. We want to be detecting adverse events.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am due to rotate the call, but if there’s time we we’ll come back to you. We have about 25 minutes, so can I just get an indication of who has further questions?
Senator Rennick, Senator Kovacic and Senator Roberts, you have further questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Transcript 2
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go back to continue the discussion we had about testing, or the lack of testing. In estimates in May 2022, I asked whether the mRNA from the vaccines, the injections, transcribed into the patients’ own DNA, permanently modifying their DNA. In light of the work that has been done since, including the latest Yale study that I quoted, could a plausible theory be that the mRNA technology does indeed transcribe and the mRNA technology does permanently alter the human genome in some people?
Prof. Lawler: We did have an exchange with Senator Rennick earlier around the incorporation of DNA and RNA into the human genome. There was a comment made around it being down to a series of highly improbable steps. The challenge that I think we face—and I’ll ask Dr Kerr to add to that—is that there is a point at which a plausible theory requires supporting evidence. In the absence of that supporting evidence, it needs to be rejected. We’ve had 50 years of biotechnology in this field, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines and other vaccines of similar technology administered, and there’s been no evidence of such incorporation. As to the plausible theory, there are some mechanisms that you could arguably say lead to that in very unusual circumstances, but there is no evidence and no real-world data to support that. Dr Kerr.
Dr Kerr: Thank you. I’ll add to Professor Lawler’s statement that there’s a very rigorous regulatory framework that operates globally to ensure that any residual DNA in biotechnology products or the mRNA vaccines is adequately controlled and the risks are adequately managed.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you review the legal position of the TGA, specifically the issue of them committing malfeasance in office due to their wilful ignorance of harms from the pharmaceutical industry products they promote?
Senator McCarthy: I reject, outright, your question in this regard, and I’m sure the government does have great faith in the TGA.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to move on to a major anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy under Dr Danyelle Townsend. It has been retracted after its dataset was exposed as unreliable, bordering on outright fraudulent. The paper, titled Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, found that treating hospital patients with HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an increased mortality rate and led to health authorities banning hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. This was the reverse outcome to what many practitioners were experiencing prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Minister, did your government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020—I know the Liberal Party was in office at the time. Did the government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020 to make room in the market for the vaccines, despite a body of evidence saying hydroxychloroquine was effective?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll defer to the officials.
Prof. Lawler: I was not in this role at that time; I had a different role in a different place. My understanding, though, is that the decision on hydroxychloroquine was based on a position supported by global regulators that there was a lack of efficacy in this and, similarly, concerns that individuals seeking to use the treatment might potentially perturb them and deter them from validated effective treatments. I’m certainly not aware that there is any underlying motivation to benefit any other treatment on a commercial basis.
Senator ROBERTS: So it was an internationally agreed position?
Prof. Lawler: In terms of our established relationship with regulators, it is my understanding that it was a fairly agreed position that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment for COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: So now it’s a ‘fairly agreed’ position. It didn’t rely on the science; it was just fairly agreed?
Prof. Lawler: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Were there any studies done—any basis for this in fact, in data?
Prof. Langham: It absolutely was an evaluation of the science and the concerns for public safety that led to changes in the restriction in the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine. There was no supportive evidence for its efficacy and, as there was a concern that people were—and absolutely were—moving towards taking hydroxychloroquine in the false belief that it was going to help them with COVID, there were fewer people that were being vaccinated and there was also a greater risk of a poor outcome. That restriction was removed on 1 February this year.
Prof. Lawler: I also highlight that we’ve answered this question about hydroxychloroquine before, in SQ22- 000147 and also SQ21-000687.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. In Senate estimates in May 2021, Professor Skerritt, your predecessor, the former head of the TGA, said of the COVID vaccine injection technology: … the idea is to introduce sufficient spike protein to activate the immune system so that it mimics a COVID infection so that your B cells and T cells can start to mount an immune response to protect the person from catching COVID. He also said: … it’s the messenger RNA that’s translated into protein which is a spike protein. Messenger RNAs are inherently unstable. In fact, that’s why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require this little lipid coat, this little lipid nanoparticle. … … … And the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly … Is this still an accurate statement of the technology behind COVID MRNA vaccines?
Prof. Langham: The specifics of your concern around that statement?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate? Is Professor Skerritt’s statement accurate still?
Prof. Lawler: The process of immunogenicity as described by Professor Skerritt absolutely is. There’s the central dogma that MRNA is translated to protein. It’s the mechanism by which proteins are created. The MRNA is coded for spike protein. It’s created within the cell and expressed on the cell’s surface. That then engenders an immune response through antigenic presentation. That is the standard process for vaccine utilisation. As Professor Skerritt highlighted, the MRNA is inherently unstable and readily broken down. That’s why it’s encapsulated with a lipid nanoparticle which contains four different types of lipid. That enables its introduction to the cell, where it can exert its cellular effect.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as he said, that the lipids are hydrolysed and destroyed by the body fairly rapidly?
The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.
It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?
It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.
Transcript
CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process.
Senator ROBERTS: Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday?
Ms Van Gurp : No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked?
Ms Van Gurp : Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates?
Ms Van Gurp : As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy.
Senator ROBERTS: Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented?
Ms Van Gurp : Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk.
Senator ROBERTS: So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence?
Ms Van Gurp : I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please?
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment.
Ms Van Gurp : I will take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke?
Ms Van Gurp : As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long?
Ms Van Gurp : Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan.
Senator ROBERTS: I haven’t been promoted yet!
Ms Van Gurp : Senator, sorry!
Senator SCARR: It’s coming now—just hold off!
Ms Van Gurp : It’s past my bedtime!
Senator ROBERTS: It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn?
Ms Van Gurp : Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot?
Mr Kershaw : I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated.
CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, the AstraZeneca brand.
CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing.
CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.
Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?
In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.
We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.
To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.
With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.
A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.
Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.
https://1a-1791.com/video/fwe2/15/s8/6/A/l/w/4/Alw4x.0kob.1.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-02-27 14:33:182025-03-12 15:49:06Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman
During my session with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) at Senate Estimates in November, I questioned them about a number of concerns.
Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic in COVID-19 vaccines? Professor Langham clarified that the spike protein is not pathogenic and is designed to trigger an antigen recognition and antibody response.
Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse events related to the spike protein? Professor Langham responded that no such events have been observed, as the spike protein is quickly degraded by the body once it’s introduced s part of the mRNA vaccine.
What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the spike protein’s suitability before vaccine approval? Professor Lawler agreed to provide detailed information on notice.
It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system? Professor Langham explained that while the spike protein attaches to receptors, it does not cause harm on its own.
Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians? Professor Lawler responded that there is no accepted evidence to confirm such a link.
Has the TGA received any applications for treatments to remove spike proteins from the body and has the TGA engaged with research institutions on this matter? Professor Lawler clarified that the TGA has not received such applications, does not commission research, and focuses on regulating therapeutic goods.
The TGA emphasised that the overall risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines remains positive.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does the TGA agree that spike protein is pathogenic?
Prof. Langham: Thank you for your question. The spike protein is not pathogenic. It does not contain any of the other parts of the COVID-19 vaccine that brings about a pathogenetic state. The spike protein is really there to encourage an antigen recognition and an antibody response by the body.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll move on. Has the TGA observed or seen reports of any adverse effects of COVID vaccination that may be associated with the likely effects of spike protein?
Prof. Langham: As I said, the spike protein is not pathogenic. We’ve not seen any adverse events related to the spike protein, because—and we’ve discussed this previously—the spike protein is rapidly degraded by the body once it’s introduced as part of the mRNA vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Really? Okay. What analysis did the TGA conduct regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval? Could you please provide me with that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m taking that question to be: what did the TGA know about spike proteins prior to approving the COVID vaccines? Is that a fair—
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what analysis you did regarding the suitability of spike protein in the COVID vaccines prior to approval, and I’d like that material on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to respond to that question on notice. We have responded to similar questions previously.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me about the analysis?
Prof. Lawler: As I said, I’m happy to take that question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know about the analysis now? The question on notice is only if you don’t know something now.
CHAIR: Senator, the official is well entitled to take a question on notice. It’s not about not answering the question; it’s about taking an answer on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, as I understand it, the guides to the witnesses include that if they want to take something on notice it’s only because they don’t know the answer now.
CHAIR: Yes, or they need to qualify or check the information or they don’t have the extent of the information.
Senator Gallagher: They don’t have the information with them to provide you a comprehensive answer, which is not unreasonable.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Have you received any reports, data or discussion from your pharmacovigilance system highlighting concerns about spike proteins following the introduction of the COVID vaccines? If so, could you please provide that information?
Prof. Langham: Again, I’m at a loss to understand the specifics of your question as to how our pharmacovigilance would relate to the specific aspect of the vaccine which is the spike protein. I think we can answer very clearly what our pharmacovigilance results have been for the vaccine itself. But as to the specific aspects of the spike protein, the reason the mRNA vaccines include the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus results from many years of research that had been undertaken in the US by the National Centre for Vaccines to develop mRNA vaccines.
Prof. Lawler: And I’d just add to Professor Langham’s answer that the purpose of our pharmacovigilance and the way in which it monitors for and identifies to enable us to respond to emerging safety signals and trends is that it’s based on adverse events.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s all it’s based on?
Prof. Lawler: These are clinical events. So, there’s an expectation—indeed, an encouragement—that adverse events are reported, and these are reported on the basis of clinical nature. We also, as I mentioned previously, work with international partners on a network of pharmacovigilance activities that Dr Larter might like to speak to.
Dr Larter: We continue to engage with our international regulatory counterparts to look at not only spontaneous adverse event reporting but also linked data, and many of the rich datasets that are available globally, to inform our safety monitoring. These processes enable us to identify emerging safety concerns well before we understand how they might be occurring, before the mechanisms of action are identified. That’s a strength. We don’t need to know exactly how they’re being caused to take regulatory action to ensure that the safety profile is up to date and available for treating health professionals.
Senator ROBERTS: There has been a multitude of papers about potential health impacts from spike protein on the renin-angiotensin system in the human body. It appears to be basic to human health—if not the key system then certainly one of the key systems to health. Is it your testimony today that the COVID vaccines containing spike proteins are still perfectly safe.
Prof. Lawler: We’re aware of the importance of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Professor Langham is a nephrologist. The reality is—I’m happy to come back if I’m wrong, but I don’t know whether we or any other regulator has ever said that a medication is perfectly safe. There are a number of processes that we follow in the assessment and market authorisation of a number of medicines. We have product information that clearly states the risks and potential adverse events—
Senator ROBERTS: Who is that from? Who is the product information from?
Prof. Lawler: The product information is produced—I guess, to the question, I’d like to say that we don’t maintain that the vaccine is perfectly safe. Every time we come here, we discuss with you the adverse events and the recognised and accepted potential adverse events. So, no, it’s not our position that the vaccine is perfectly safe. It is our clear position, and this is the clear scientific consensus, that the risk-benefit of COVID vaccines has been shown to be very safe and, in fact, the risk-benefit is significantly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay; I won’t explore that any further. It has been demonstrated that spike proteins exert an inhibitory effect on the function of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, ACE2, leading to dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Is the TGA aware of this effect of spike proteins on ACE2 and on the renin-angiotensin system?
Prof. Langham: It’s well known that the angiotensin receptor is important in how the virus exerts its effects on the body. As to what you are describing with the spike protein itself, on its own, it’s not able to cause any problems. It connects to the receptor, but there is nothing else there behind the spike protein. It’s the virus itself that does cause problems, and the receptor that that virus attaches to is absolutely the angiotensin receptor.
Senator ROBERTS: Was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines? I’d also like to come back again and ask: on whose advice do you take the product safety?
Prof. Lawler: There are two questions there.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, there are.
Prof. Lawler: I’d like to answer them in turn. Which one?
Senator ROBERTS: The first one is: was the potential impact of spike proteins on the ACE2 receptor and the renin-angiotensin system considered as part of the analysis of the vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: The process of the market authorisation and evaluation of medicines, including vaccines, is a comprehensive process that is based upon a significant dossier of information that goes to the safety, quality and efficacy of that particular medicine. In terms of whether that was a specific issue, I’m very happy to have a look at that and come back to you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice—are you taking it on notice?
Prof. Lawler: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Recently, German doctor Karla Lehmann, in her peer-reviewed scientific paper published in the journal of the European Society of Medicine commented that spike protein is ‘uniquely dangerous’ for use in vaccine platforms—and this woman is generally pro-vaccine—because of the effects of spike protein causing ACE2 inhibition, leading to excessive angiotensin 2 and harmful overactivation of AT1R, the angiotensin 2, type 1 receptor. This analysis is supported by other research providing clear evidence of the pathogenic nature of spike protein and its unsuitability for use in vaccine platforms. Is the TGA aware of this review and analysis conducted by Karla Lehmann and her damning conclusions about the dangers of spike protein based vaccines?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t have that article. It would be useful, obviously, to review that. I think it’s also worth noting that a lot of the theoretical conversations around spike protein are mechanistic in nature rather than supported by phenomenological or observational studies. So there are a lot of inferences drawn between a cellular mechanism and a clinical scenario that is very difficult to distinguish from the disease itself. Professor Langham, is there anything you would like to add?
Prof. Langham: I guess I would just support those comments that, when the vaccine with the spike protein as the antigenic stimulus is trialled in clinical trials, the sorts of physiological derangement of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system that might be described is not seen. So we do not see activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the clinical trials in terms of understanding the specific safety signals that have come from them. It has been quite widely demonstrated that the vaccines themselves are very well tolerated.
CHAIR: Senator, I’m due to rotate.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have two more questions on this thread.
CHAIR: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ‘long COVID’ the result of spike protein in the body coming from the Wuhan and alpha versions of COVID itself or is it from the vaccine products containing spike proteins, which are injected repeatedly in Australians?
Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe there’s accepted evidence to confirm that that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the TGA received any applications for treatments or protocols to remove spike proteins from the human body? Have you asked the National Health and Medical Research Council to advertise a grant for this purpose? Are you working with any university around this topic—anything at all—either to cure spike protein damage for long COVID, if it exists, or for vaccine injury?
Prof. Lawler: The answer to the first question is not to my knowledge. The answer to the second question is that it’s not the role of the TGA to commission research from the National Health and Medical Research Council. And the answer to the third question is it is not the role of the TGA to generate knowledge; it is the role of the TGA to regulate therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the end of my questions on COVID spike protein. I have two more sets of questions.
CHAIR: Do you mean for the TGA?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, for the TGA but on other topics
