I talked the Middle East, Misinformation, COVID Royal Commission, the Immigration Housing Crisis and Net Zero Madness on ADH TV.
As the middle east descends into war again my concern is making sure we don’t send Australian sons and daughters to another conflict in far away lands again.
Chris Smith: Well, the federal government’s latest stance on Israel’s war with Hamas, Hezbollah. And now Iran has put Australia at odds with its number one ally, the United States, as well as with Israel, the United Kingdom and Canada. It seems as if labor is redrawing Australia’s military and diplomatic position in the world. And, as I mentioned earlier, does taking such a solo stance no longer guarantee reciprocal support from those countries?
If or when Australia is faced with aggression from, say, China or whoever in the Indo-Pacific? Let’s bring in Queensland One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts on that and more. Senator, welcome back to TV. Thank you Chris. Good to be back. Thanks for the invitation. Israel’s most recent attacks on Hezbollah were aimed at preventing a repeat of the October 7th massacre.
Is Peter Dutton right to say the Prime Minister should be condemned for falling out with our allies?
SENATOR ROBERTS: This is a big escalation on Israel’s part. It’s almost all at war, but it’s something that I think that Israel has a right to defend and defend itself. The history of this, this area, this region of the world is rife with lies, complexities, contradictions. And, you know, the first casualty in war is the truth. So we’ll never know.
But Israel has a right to defend itself, but we must keep Australia out of it. We must keep Australia out of it. We followed the Americans into just about everything, without question. They’re an important ally of ours. But we must hold them accountable as well.
Chris Smith: Do you sense that Anthony Albanese is trying to appease voters in those Muslim concentrated seats in south western Sydney?
SENATOR ROBERTS: Yes, without a doubt. Anthony Albanese has shown a distinct, lack of respect for Australia’s position in in his deliberations. What he wants to do is promote the Labor Party that the the national interest is not in Anthony Albanese’s calculations.
Chris Smith:There are some good signs among crossbenchers, Malcolm, that Labor’s information, misinformation and disinformation bill will struggle. That’s a sign of good news.
SENATOR ROBERTS: It’s a very good sign of good news. We put, a motion out, matter of urgency thus Monday of the sitting in the Senate. And there were quite a few signals coming across to us that people wouldn’t support it. So that’s why we did that. That matter of urgency had forced a vote on it. But just remember, it’s not labor’s, misinformation.
Disinformation bill. The Morrison Liberal National’s with Morrison Littleproud in charge introduced it into the into the parliament. Labor brought it back and and he’s now putting it into the voting regime process. And now the liberals are saying they will come up with their own before the next election. The liberals just don’t get it. No one wants this bloody censorship bill.
And One Nation makes a promise they will never introduce such a bill. The best, best defense of truth is to let debate happen. And then we’ve got the largest perpetrators of misinformation and disinformation is the government. This Albanese government takes the cake. It’s all about control and censorship and they haven’t got the guts to do it themselves.
They’re trying to intimidate the, search engines and platforms into doing it for them and putting them in a position where, as someone said recently, they’ll be fined if they if they don’t exercise enough control, enough censorship, but they will not be fined if they if they exercise excessive censorship. This is just about getting government control over the over the debate in this country and suppressing free speech.
That’s all it is. One nation will never, ever introduce such a bill.
Chris Smith: I couldn’t agree more. As a matter of fact, if an opposition or a government wants to do anything about what we say freely, I think they should win back the restriction that exist right now, because the Esafety czar is out of control. I agree with you. And this this compounds the the problem.
SENATOR ROBERTS: As I said, the best the best defense of truth is to let open free debate continue. That’s the best way of finding out the truth. And you can never take responsibility for someone’s opinions. That’s their responsibility. They formed it. This will just make more victims in society and suppress free speech. It’s just a road to tyranny. That’s all it is.
Chris Smith: Okay. Another subject. Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think?
SENATOR ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review. Chris, I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased. They were lockdown supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers. Investigative powers. They’ve got no compare to compel. Compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got out.
He deserves to be really hammered on this. But he’s no more guilty then than, he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who will mostly labor. This is a protection racket for the labor premiers and the labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now
Chris Smith: Now you say, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching the states, as you mentioned, and their role when it came to lockdowns and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those, those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves.
SENATOR ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at. Chris, we, I moved a motion to get one of the committees, two in the Senate, to investigate and develop, a draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission. And that that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it.
And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie for he pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages. I think it was 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And they covered it. Was it it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid. And it covers everything. And the royal and the, the chair, Paul Scott, I must say, the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable.
A draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.
Chris Smith: Let’s get on to energy. Now, a report from the US Energy Department is saying that with nuclear electricity, prices will drop 37%. Chris Bowen says renewables will always be cheaper. This is basically a blatant lie, isn’t it, Malcolm?
SENATOR ROBERTS: Well, you stole the word right out of my mouth. It is a lie. It is fraud. Fraud is the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain. Chris Bowen has been pushing this bandwagon the lies fraudulently to get political capital. He is telling lie after lie. Solar and wind are the most expensive forms of energy that’s repeated everywhere. You know, AEMO doesn’t even cost the lowest price system.
What they did with the relying on GenCost in the first place was false assumptions underpinning their calculations for solar and wind to make them look favorable and negative assumptions, and under coal to make it look unaffordable. That is completely false. And now we’ve got a circular argument that’s baked in, that’s beaten back to us all the time.
Now, it doesn’t cost the lowest price systems. It’s forced to exclude the cost of calculating coal or nuclear disaster. Rubbish stuff that comes out of the south end of North Band bull.
Chris Smith:Yeah, well, the CSIRO should be condemned completely for their reliance on that gen cost report. Malcolm.
SENATOR ROBERTS: That is fraud as well Chris. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of the energy structure. It was politically driven to achieve a political objective the same as their climate. The CSIRO has admitted to me the politician’s quoting them as saying that there’s a danger in carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has denied ever saying that and they said they would never say it. They admitted to me that the temperatures today and not a not unusual, not, unprecedented.
So the whole thing is based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of North Bound book. The CSIRO is guilty of misrepresenting climate science, misrepresenting nature and misrepresenting climate presenting energy. It’s just a fraud to extract money, to make billionaires richer, and to make, foreign multinationals richer.
Chris Smith: Spot on.
SENATOR ROBERTS: We pay for it
Chris Smith: You’re not wrong. I think it’s fair to say to Malcolm that Australia’s immigration program is now officially out of control, and the worst it has ever been.
SENATOR ROBERTS: Without a doubt. Completely agree with you. We have more than 2.4 million residents, excluding tourist million residents who are not citizens. Excluding tourists. Rent is up 52% in five years. Now, just remember that, the Albanese promised a after the last financial year where we got 518,000 net immigrants, by far the largest ever, almost double the previous record.
Albanese comments. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we’ll cut it. Immigration is coming in this year is higher than the record from last year. Higher. These people are just telling lies after lies. Lies. And the thing is they’re hiding over a per person per capita recession. That’s what they don’t want to be.
The government that was in place when the recession occurred. They would rather see people sleeping under bridges, in tents, in cars. I mean, working families. Kids are going home at night to their kids and sleeping in cars. Where do they shower? Where do they toilet? I mean, we got the richest state in the world, potentially in Queensland, and we got people living under bridges, families, working families.
And because the government, it just wants to look good by by lifting up GDP to make sure we don’t have a recession, we would be in a recession now without large scale immigration fudging the numbers.
Chris Smith Fudging the numbers. That’s exactly what large scale immigration does. It’s terrific to have you on the program. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for your time.
SENATOR ROBERTS: You’re welcome Chris, any time. All right. Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts,
https://img.youtube.com/vi/XzcmSYBROY0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-10-03 16:19:082024-10-03 17:41:43Middle East in Turmoil, Misinformation Bill doomed to fail? ADH TV with Chris Smith
Dr. Raphael Lataster is a former pharmacist and hospital administrator turned university researcher, focused on COVID misinformation due to his personal battle against the vaccine mandates.
Dr. Lataster’s interests are now centred around misinformation, disinformation and fake news, particularly in health and politics.
He runs Okay Then News – https://okaythennews.substack.com/ – a platform dedicated to counter-narrative news pieces and journal articles, aiming to provide truthful perspectives amid widespread misinformation and is the only Australian to testify before Congress regarding COVID.Dr. Lataster’s shift in focus to COVID-related misinformation was not a choice, but a necessity, as he seeks to clarify the truths surrounding health and political narratives.
Transcript
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Well, good day. Welcome to the Malcolm Roberts show. Our aims are to restore our country and our planet for humans to flourish. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts in Queensland, Australia.
Thank you for having me as your guest in your car, your kitchen, your shed, your lounge, your barbecue, or wherever you are right now, sitting, standing, driving, walking, running, laying, exercising, whatever you’re doing.
Today, we’re going to get down to some truths that may surprise, with a guest who researches misinformation and disinformation and fake news in health and politics. And I haven’t got time for many quips or overblown introduction because he’s only got 30 minutes with us, and he’ll tell you why he can only spend 30 minutes. It will explain much about why our country is where it is and their loss of sovereignty.
And if there’s time, hopefully we’ll get into what we need to do to restore our governance, our integrity, our leadership, our truth, respect and security. Always truth is reality. It’s the best place to live. Our show’s two themes are freedom, specifically freedom replacing control, the eternal human struggle between people, between groups, between nations. Our second theme is responsibility, specifically personal responsibility and integrity. History repeatedly proves that both freedom and responsibility are essential for human progress and people’s livelihoods.
Human history, when we look beyond the few villains and exploiters that get publicity, we see a wonderfully positive story. I am very, very pro-human. Now, I’m not suggesting we ignore the villains and the exploiters, nor the pain they wreak, yet look into them and look beyond them to understand the bigger picture in human evolution and progress.
I’m going to get straight into introducing our guest because Dr. Raphael Lataster was a pharmacist and a hospital administrator. He became a university researcher who focused on misinformation, mostly teaching at the University of Sydney, and largely because of his personal battle against COVID vaccine mandates. And he’s won. He has won.
He recently turned his attention to misinformation around COVID and COVID vaccines. Not because he particularly wanted to, but because he bloody well had to. Dr Lataster holds a PhD from the University of Sydney and occasionally lectures there and at other institutions, and his PhD may surprise you. It’s why they picked the wrong guy to take to the cleaners. His main academic research interests include misinformation, disinformation and fake news in health and politics.
Raphael has a Bachelor of Pharmacy, a Masters of Applied Science and several postgraduate research degrees in the arts. Initially focusing his academic efforts around misinformation in religion, he shifted focus to misinformation in politics and health. Wow, that’s plenty of fertile ground, particularly around COVID-19. He currently runs OK Then News, which highlights counter narrative news pieces and journal articles. In other words, the truth.
What’s your background, Raphael? Where were you born?
Dr Raphael Lataster: So, I’m Australian, born and bred, and I have a very diverse ethnic and racial background. I have European background, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, British, Scandinavian, but also non-European background as well, North African and South Asian, East Asian, Polynesian, Native American, so quite a bit in there.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: You’re what they call a mixed blood, a real mixed blood.
Dr Raphael Lataster: Yeah, mongrel.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: A mongrel, but mongrels are the fittest usually, and that’s why they shouldn’t have taken you on if they’d known what you could do to them.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: That’s right.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: So tell us, where were you born specifically? Whereabouts in Australia?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: So I was born in Sydney, New South Wales.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: How long were you in Sydney as a child?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: I was there for most of my early childhood. And then I went to Queensland. And that’s where I first, generally as a teenager, that’s where I first encountered Pauline Hanson and absolutely fell in love with what she was doing and One Nation. And, of course, that’s where I started supporting the Mighty Maroons as well. Up the Maroons.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: You’re not just doing that because we won up in the first series. You’re doing that because you’re a true Blue Maroon.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: That’s right.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: So we’ve only got 30 minutes. Have you got the clock on for your 30 minutes?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, yeah.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay, so we’ll let you tell us when we need to end. Tell me, what were some of your formative years? What were some of the things that shaped who you are and why you had no choice but to stand up to these COVID mandates? Tell us what formed you? What made you tick?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Well, university. When I went to pharmacy school, basically, that gave to me the scientific process, scientific evidence, and started me on the path for logic, for logical reasoning, Bayesian reasoning, probabilistic reasoning, as well as just being part of the Western education system and having been influenced by Western liberalism, classical liberalism. But in terms of science, I was a pharmacist. I went to pharmacy school and we learned all sorts of uh science yeah science scientific facts scientific reasoning scientific method all of this biology chemistry physics and I ended up working and then I did some other things. I worked in finance for a while as well. And then I went back to university to do …
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: You worked in finance?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, I was a financial advisor as well. And I ended up going back to university and doing degrees in the arts. And even though it was in the arts, it was basically scientific because it was analytical philosophy. Basically everything I did up until now in the academic world was analytic philosophy.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: So what is analytical philosophy?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: It’s basically the foundation of science. Science comes from philosophy. There’s that battle now between science and philosophy, how science is all great and philosophy is pointless and all that sort of thing. But science actually came out of philosophy. It’s natural philosophy. And I’m talking real philosophy. That’s analytic philosophy. So… no offense to all those people that endorse the continental philosophy, but that’s really quite pointless. Analytic philosophy is where it’s at. Analytic philosophy deals with things like logic and reasoning. And it’s the stuff that basically leads the science and justifies science because the scientists doing their work – how do they justify it? How do they justify how they interpret their results and so forth? That’s where you get the theoretical basis, which comes from philosophy and analytic philosophy. So basically I’ve spent many, many years not only learning science, how to do science, but also how to be logical, how to analyze arguments, how to look at methods and scrutinize them. And that’s basically what I’ve been doing the last few years with all the COVID stuff, with everything, including the vaccines.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Well, that’s wonderful. One day, perhaps we can have a longer conversation because there’s very little logic, there’s very little data used in politics. It’s quite disappointing, quite annoying, and it’s destroying our country. It’s destroying the West. But I’d like to know just one thing before we get onto your topic specifically. Just something you appreciate, anything at all.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Something that I appreciate. Well, it’s Western culture. It’s Western liberal values. I think that’s been key for our culture, for our civilization. If you look at the best, I mean, you’re not the person I’d have to convince of that, being the party you are, One Nation, being a nationalist party. But if you look at the countries in the world and sort of rank them based on the things that we generally like, I think our country is pretty high up there, us and a lot of European countries and the US. And there’s a reason for that. There’s a reason for that. I’m very appreciative of Western liberal values. And like yourself, I do think they’re under attack. And I think a lot of the things that’s happened, especially with COVID, has been working against that, has been working on dismantling what we’ve built over the past few hundred years. So I’m very much interested in joining the fight and defending our culture and our values.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: And I do have to say, I agree with you that Australia is perhaps at the forefront of that was about forty years ago, maybe fifty years ago, because we had Western civilization’s values. We also had that unique Australian lifestyle. Take it easy as it goes, as it comes and goes. But we’re not that anymore and we’re a long, long way from our potential. And that’s what I’d like to take people to, our potential, because Australia’s got enormous potential. But now that we’ve understood what you appreciate and we’ve understood a bit about your background, what’s your story with the COVID vaccine mandates? Tell us about what happened, please.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, sure. I just wanted to add to this long introduction as well. Just to get it out there, my pronouns are Prosecute Fauci. All right. So, I’ll explain what happened with my fight against the vaccine mandates here in New South Wales. I was working for, I think, the biggest children’s hospital in the country, New South Wales Health, Westmead Children’s Hospital. And what happened? The vaccine mandates came in. So, I had to decide. I thought, I better not. I don’t want to risk it. I’ve got a family history of heart disease. I know these vaccines could potentially cause cardiovascular problems. um I don’t want to take the risk I want to know more about it and the hospital asked me to make my case they said make your case for why you shouldn’t be fired and I said oh brilliant because you know what I have an easy case to make I work from home at the moment I’m doing only administrative work from the hospital I work from her hundred percent of the time all the training all the meetings it’s all done digitally uh like what we’re doing right now so there’s no point there’s no point in forcing me and then firing me over not taking the vaccines so I made that case I used logic I used evidence and that started me on the on the path to doing research on this topic on covert on the vaccines and I made my case and all they did with it was say see you just don’t want to take the jab we’re going to fire you so that uh yeah that basically destroyed my life it destroyed me um psychologically and financially and that of course led to physical manifestations as well so it wasn’t I wasn’t in a good place um I’m still trying to put it all together and eventually I stumbled on thanks to someone like you sharing stuff like you do on social media I found out about Diane Dawkin’s win in The Guardian of all places. And Diane Dawkin won a workers’ compensation claim against New South Wales, or against the Education Department, actually, I believe it was. And I read the article, saw who the lawyer was, contacted the lawyer and said, yeah, let’s go. So there’s a bunch of cases now that’s happening here in New South Wales, Education Department.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Are you able to tell us who the lawyer was?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yes, it was Dave McCabe.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: And yeah, he’s been very helpful. And we won. So, we fought and we won. So I got an ongoing payment. Now what my win actually means, it’s important to clarify what it actually is, not make too much of it and not make too little of it either. I think it’s very significant. It’s been great for me, but it also sets great precedent our multiple victories now. What it is, it’s a recognition that people have been harmed by the vaccine mandates, people like myself, and that we deserve compensation for that, because they’ve caused harm, they’ve caused psychological injury, so forth, other manifestations as well. And so, I won the main case, then I won just recently a second action against them for back pain. For some reason, even when they promised to pay the back pay, they wouldn’t so we had to take him to court, or actually it’s the commission and we won that and we’re going to go for a few more bites of the cherry before finally seeing what we can do – maybe wrapping it all up, we’ll see how it goes. But yeah, it was a heck of a time. It still is. And as part of my case, I ended up doing a lot of research, which is why probably some handful of your readers and listeners may have heard my name because I’ve ended up getting some articles published in medical journals based on all stemming from the case I had to make, the case the hospital told me I had to make and then ended up you know, being legal action and me having to research for that as well.
So, it’s been quite a journey and there’s still quite a bit more to go. But the good thing is we actually won. It can be done. My lawyer now has several victories. So that’s for the education department and the health department. So, people out there who are struggling and who could use such help as well, consider doing something like I did. It was a really good way to go because unlike most legal actions, this was all free and there was no chance of a cost order. That’s one of the problems when you go for, when you try and sue somebody, when you try and get some justice in this country, it costs a lot of money. But this was a very, very good way to do it. Very, very efficient way to do it.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Thank you. That’s a very good explanation and pretty concise. So, I take from that, that there’ll be more legal actions.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, we’re going for a few more bites of the cherry under workers’ compensation law. I would like to do more. I would like to look at civil cases, even criminal cases. But that, yeah, the cost involved in that would be prohibitive. I think we could only do that if we have a certain billionaire, a certain eccentric billionaire who seems to be on our side, joins the fight a bit more.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Have you made contact with him or his party?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: I’ve tried to. It’s quite difficult to get directly in touch with him. There’s people around him that seem to protect him from just random people contacting him, of course. And I’ve had a few people. say that they’d like me involved in in that party and so forth and then a few people apparently don’t want to so it’s been it’s been really hard to get in touch with him I’ve been trying but I think he’d be quite interested in some of the things we’re doing.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: I think he would be. So let’s talk about another very well-known person – Dr Robert Malone and what he did for you and what he did for the Senate in the United States.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, so I ended up with having to make my case and then fight my legal case. I ended up doing research, as you said. I shifted focus to research on COVID and COVID vaccines. And some of the studies we’ve come up with are pretty significant. So Peter Doshi is one of the editors of the BMJ, one of the top journals in the world. He got an article …
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: British Medical Journal, BMJ.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: He got an article published in another journal and I followed up with an article and then he did another article and I followed up again. So we’ve got four articles. in this journal – Journal of Evaluation Clinical Practice – that actually show that the observational studies, for the observational studies and the clinical trials, the effectiveness and the safety of the vaccines are likely highly exaggerated. And one of the things they did that really contributes to that is playing around with the definition of vaccinated and unvaccinated. So, you know, that period where you’re not fully vaccinated, you’re only partially vaccinated. They’ve been ignoring COVID cases during that period. And they found, Doshi’s team found that that exaggeration could be something like forty eight percent of effectiveness. And then I piled on and said it’s actually more than that, because not only are those cases ignored, they’re often ascribed to the unvaccinated. which obviously I don’t like as an unvaccinated person. So I figured it out using the same sort of numbers that we’re looking more like sixty five percent exaggeration. And there’s a few other dodgy things as well. So it’s quite plausible that the vaccines never were effective to begin with. And that might explain why they go down in effectiveness to zero and beyond so quickly is because, well, maybe they were never effective to begin with. So that research, yeah, was deemed quite important. And Robert Malone was one of the people that looked at it and thought, yeah, this is really good. He invited me to America, which is good because my treating team, they suggested I go on an international trip anyway. So I thought, okay, let’s do it.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Your what team? Your treating team?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: My treating team, yeah my uh psychologists and things like that uh dealing with my psychological injury caused by the former employer and Dr Robert Malone was was impressed with all that he got me in front of the senate hearing as well held by senator Johnson ron Johnson so I presented there I was the only Aussies there representing the country and that went that went pretty well And then, yeah, now I’m back and I’ve been doing where I can. I’ve been doing bits of research again, try and bolster the case and helping with other people’s cases as well. And yeah, the research coming out is… is, I think, pretty significant. So, I mean, that stuff is already huge. Effectiveness and safety has been highly, highly exaggerated. Now we’ve got articles in the proper journals, in the medical journals saying that. And there’s other stuff as well. There’s a lot of great papers by all sorts of people. Some of the work I’ve been involved in is quite interesting as well. One is on negative effectiveness, and that’s going to be coming out very soon in an Aussie journal, an Aussie medical journal that goes out to doctors, to family doctors, GPs, So that’s gonna be quite important. And that talks about negative effectiveness. There’s quite a few studies, quite a few sets of government data that show not only are the vaccines losing effectiveness really quickly, like within months even, but they also turn negative. So that means it increases your chance of getting COVID and even dying from COVID. Now, obviously there’s no point to taking the vaccine if that’s what it does. And that’s not even talking about the other side effects, your myocarditis, blood clotting and so forth. Now there’s links to cancer. So very, very concerning development, negative effectiveness where The vaccinated apparently are suffering more from COVID than the unvaccinated and long COVID as well. That’s been part of this new series of articles in this Aussie journal. So more on that soon. That should be published very soon. And I’ve also got an article.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: When you say very soon, how soon do you think? Anytime this week?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Next month. Next month.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay. All right. Yeah.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: And there’s another journal article coming out on excess deaths in Europe. I’d like eventually to do one for Australia as well because we’ve noticed some really interesting things in Australia. But yeah, in Europe, I did some correlations with the data and it’s very clear. Vaccination is positively and significantly correlated with excess deaths. And it seems like the countries that didn’t vaccinate so much, like Romania and Bulgaria, they’re doing very well. They don’t have.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And, and just, you, you probably already know this Raphael, but, uh, in Queensland and I think in, in Western Australia, sorry, Queensland and Western Australia, but definitely Queensland. Um, and I think possibly South Australia to some extent, but in Queensland, the vaccines, the injections, I won’t use the term vaccine with these things. They’re experimental gene therapy-based treatments. So the COVID injections were introduced before COVID got to Queensland. We had a huge spike in deaths before the virus arrived. So they can only be attributable to the COVID injections. And then we had the COVID arrival in this state several months later. So, we’ve got a clear, clear signal. It meets quite a few of the criteria. Is it Bradford Hill criteria? So, yes, continue, please.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: A hundred percent. And I’ve got that one on European XSS coming out soon. I would love to, again, limited by what I can do, but I would love to do an article on Australia, particularly the smaller Australian states. So New South Wales, Victoria, there’s sort of an out to explain Australia. know the rise in excess deaths maybe it’s covered maybe it’s the lockdowns but when you look at the smaller population states even if we leave Queensland to the side and we start looking at WA, South Australia, Northern Territory what you said is exactly what’s happening you’ve got this excess deaths when the jabs came in but they didn’t really have covert until later and their lockdowns are basically non-existent I think in in western Australia the worst was a three or four day long weekend and that’s that’s about it We know what a lockdown is here in New South Wales and especially our cousins in Victoria. They know what a lockdown is. You could blame it on lockdowns, that people weren’t seeing their doctors as much and so forth, not picking up all the cancers and heart problems.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Not a sudden increase.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Smaller states. So I really want to do something focusing on those smaller population states because it’s quite clear the only rational explanation is that it’s got something to do with the vaccine. And if you look at what’s driving the excess deaths, like cardiovascular problems, well, we know that. The evidence keeps coming out more and more that the vaccines cause cardiovascular problems. And one thing is this stream of evidence coming out about myocarditis. I saw from one article, the myocarditis rate was one in a few thousand. So for every few thousand people that take the jab, you’re looking at one case of myocarditis. Well, UK data indicates that you need to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of young, healthy people to get a single prevented case of severe COVID, a severe hospitalization. So, when you’re comparing hundreds of thousands with a couple of thousand, and that’s just the one side effect, it looks like, at least for young, healthy people, it looks like the benefits absolutely do not outweigh the risks. The risks outweigh the benefits, and by a lot. And that’s just one side effect.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: And also, Raphael, from the little bit I know, you’ve done a lot more research in this specifically, the… The so-called benefits of the COVID injections last only for a short while, and then they turn negative quite often. But the adverse events or the adverse effects of the COVID injections last for a long, long, long time, if not the entire life, if it doesn’t kill you straight away.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: That’s the real scary thing is that the more time that elapses, the more adverse effects we’re finding and more adverse events, the more we’re finding. So, this is all limited. The figure I just gave you, which is already quite concerning, every few thousand people gets myocarditis, that is based on a limited timeframe, something like forty two days after the vaccine. What if we start looking at many months after? What if we look at a few years after? We’re just going to find more and more adverse events and adverse effects, but effectiveness was already gone within a couple of months. And as I pointed out, it’s quite plausible that there never was any effectiveness to begin with, or that even it was negatively effective from the very beginning. When you look at those articles that Doshi’s team published and I published in that journal, Journal of Evaluation Clinical Practice, you can get a summary of those articles on my site, okthenews.com. If you look at those articles, it’s quite plausible that the vaccine was never particularly effective from the very beginning. And that’s dealing, when you look in the clinical trials, that’s dealing with the very first, most deadly strains of COVID. So obviously, there’s fewer benefits to be had from the vaccines now that we’re dealing with a billionth generation of Omicron. So, the benefits keep going down and down and down, but the adverse effects apparently look to be going up.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Well, not only that, just as a brief sideline, Dr. Jayanthi Kunar Hassan from Melbourne, she was an anaesthetist and very good researcher, she’s delved into details into the COVID injection trials that Pfizer held. And she’s found hundreds of deaths amongst those trials just in the trial period and the trials weren’t completed properly because when they were killing so many people with the COVID injections, they quickly injected everyone so that there could be no comparison anymore. And then she also found a number of other anomalies in it. What were some of the others that the Covid injections some of the deaths of the people injected were not called in and not documented and there were more people who died from the covid injections than from the then from the virus in the in the control group so that’s quite startling but what’s even more startling not surprised though given Pfizer’s record is that they covered up these deaths they did not report them so imagine if the public had been told right up front The more people died if they were injected in the Pfizer trials than if they weren’t injected. More people died from the injected rather than the non-injected. How many people would have stood up and said, I’m not taking that? Far, far more. How many politicians would have said, we’re not going to inject it?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Even the stuff that was reported in the trials is super concerning. Even beyond that, if you just look at the clinical trials as written and you look at the analyses that Doshi’s team did and I did, there’s more deaths in the vaccinated groups. More deaths, more total deaths. It’s not statistically significant but imagine what you would do if you had a bigger population sample. But there were actually more deaths, and there was no statistically significant decrease in COVID deaths. And total deaths, there were actually more. One of the things driving those extra deaths was cardiovascular problems. and the researchers you know behind the mRNA vaccine clinical trials they said well it has nothing to do yeah there were those kind of deaths but that has nothing to the vaccine first of all you have no right to say that if you’re running a clinical trial then when there’s a discrepancy if you’ve run it well when there’s a discrepancy between the groups you attribute that to the to the product to the treatment So they had no right to say that. And also, we’ve got all this evidence coming out now that actually the vaccines do cause cardiovascular problems, blood clotting, myocarditis, pericarditis, strokes, haemorrhages, the lot. So, if you go back to the trials, if you go back to Peter Doshi’s original article and then the four in general, if Peter Doshi was listened to from the beginning, these probably wouldn’t have been approved because you’re looking at effectiveness of maybe twenty percent or less. And that doesn’t meet the fifty percent FDA requirement for approval. So yeah
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: the FDA well let’s take another step back I asked the therapeutic goods administration head at the time professor john scarett what testing they did in this guy oh we didn’t do any testing senator roberts we relied upon the fda at the time he said that and admitted that I think that was march twenty twenty three at the time he said that Raphael The Food and Drug Administration had previously said they did no testing and they relied upon Pfizer’s own test results. The TGA did not even look at the patient level clinical data from Pfizer, did not even look at it. I mean, this is the stuff and now we’re finding out that… Sorry?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Our regulators are relying on their regulators, their regulators are really just relying on Big Pharma. And arguably, they’re owned by Big Pharma.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Well, that’s correct. That’s a discussion for another day. So what will you do now? How much time do you have left? Three or four minutes?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yeah, yes.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Explain why you’ve got a time limit on you.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: So that’s because of my case, ongoing legal mumbo-jumbo, things like that. The damage they’ve caused to me, psychological injury that I’m working on treating as well. So all those places, limitations on exactly what I can do. But what I’m trying to do now is just focus on myself, working on getting better, fighting my cases, getting a few more wins on the board, helping other people. I get constant invitations to help people with their cases as well, providing evidence and so forth. I got invited by you guys as well, the Australian Senate, to provide evidence for the upcoming inquiry on excess deaths. So, I’m just trying to just fight my cases, get better, and bit by bit where I can, I’ll do this research and get it out there.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Excuse me just a minute, Raphael. Did you make a submission to that Inquiry into Excess Mortality in the Senate?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: I did indeed. You might not find it there yet because for some reason it’s not up there, but I did make a submission, yeah.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay, that’s good because you weren’t called as a witness and I’d like to find out why. So I’m going to ask that question.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: You can maybe do something about that and maybe get me in touch with the big man up in Queensland, our wealthy friend, and maybe we can get some more things happening because I think there’s a lot of room. I think if you have some people that are willing to do it, I think you need to really take advantage of that opportunity and do something if necessary. yeah we can get the right people together we can actually make some changes.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: so before you uh you’ve got a time limit of thirty minutes I think you said uh how many minutes have we got left
Dr. Raphael Lataster: oh we’ve got a couple minutes okay okay just tell me when you need to go I don’t want you to breaking any conditions of the court or anything like that
Dr. Raphael Lataster: yeah yeah
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: how do people connect with you how do they learn more about you Raphael doctor this is dr Raphael lataster l-a-t-a-s-t-e-r
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Yep. The best way is to contact me through, well, I’ve got my main outlet now where I share updates of my cases and little bits of research that I’ve done and some interesting research from other people. I share that on my page, okthenews.com. That’s a Substack page. And yeah, people can comment on there and get in touch through there. And I’m happy for people to get in touch about maybe some advice on how to approach fighting for justice. Maybe they have a case they think they can make and also to provide evidence for their own cases and things like that. I’m happy to do that where I can.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: So one of the things, we have a wonderful barrister in our team in the Senate office here who told us right from the start, just taking action in court, prosecuting people or departments because of breaches of law don’t cut it. You need to have some cost incurred that you need to be compensated for. So, you need to have something that’s cost you your health or cost you something, your income. In your case, it was potentially both. And also, the papers you’re talking about, the articles you’ve written, the papers that you’ve had officially published in peer-reviewed scientific journal, they’re available through your Substack as well, are they?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: That’s right, yeah. In fact, the first thing people should see if they go to okthenews.com is a pinned post which summarises some of the most relevant research, the stuff on the vaccines, yeah, going back to the clinical trials, probably having huge exaggerations on their effectiveness and safety. That’s right there on the front page.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay, let’s get the spelling right for okay. It’s not okay. It’s O-K-A-Y-T-H-E-N, Then News, N-E-W-S.com. O-K-A-Y-T-H-E-N-N-E-W-S.com. Correct?
Dr. Raphael Lataster: That’s it. Yep. So, yeah.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay. Let’s finish off before we say farewell and thank you. Let’s finish off with some of the things that you think need to be done as solutions for, for going into the future.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Solutions. Oh, I don’t know about solutions. I’m more the kind of person that points out all the problems. While sitting from my armchair. But solutions, I find that quite interesting, the idea of solutions, because I feel like we already had so many things in place that were really good. We’ve just been dismantling those and ignoring those. It’s about going back to the basics. When I went to pharmacy school, one of the things that seered into my brain, my tutor told me, and he’s the head of the department now, he’s done very well for himself, but my tutor back then in pharmacy school said, you can never say a drug is safe. Ever. All you can say is that at the moment, you don’t have the evidence that it’s unsafe. But you can never say it’s safe. And of course, the classic example back then was thalidomide. Back when I was working, it was rofococcib. And now just a few years ago, we’ve had fulcidine taken off the market. That was safe and effective for about seven years until it wasn’t, until it started killing people. So, yeah, it’s incredible that the things we already did and the things we already believed, they’ve sort of gone by the wayside. We need to go back. And maybe that’s the general problem in general with our culture and so forth. We already had all the great ideas and all the great processes. We just need to go back. and do what we were doing back then. But one thing I think we definitely need to do is get money out of the equation, big money, big pharma. We are relying on the drug companies and the pharmaceutical companies to run their own studies Right. For their products. And then the regulators in America, the regulators here, they’re all relying on that. Now, clearly, there’s a huge conflict of interest there, especially for something of massive public interest and public concern like the COVID vaccines that we were forced to take. Right. We’re relying on a profit driven, you know, for profit company. doing this so that’s one thing and the regulators are basically funded by the pharmaceutical companies even in Australia something like ninety five percent and I don’t care how many times someone says but bro it’s just the funding it’s just it’s just grants and application fees bro I don’t care it’s ninety five percent of the funding is coming from big pharma so the regulators are basically owned by Big Pharma. And you can go back further, who owns Big Pharma, it’s the same few people who own basically everything nowadays.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Yes, and not only that, we see Professor John Skerritt, who gave provisional approval when he was head of the TGA, Therapeutic Goods Administration, to Pfizer’s injections, to the Moderna injections, to the Astra Zeneca injections, which were withdrawn globally, I think to also Novavax, but… what he did eight months after he retired, he retired in April last year. And eight months within eight months, he was signed up as a member of the Board of Directors of Medicines Australia, which is big pharma’s lobbying group in this country.
Dr. Raphael Lataster: Anyway, that’s a good place to leave it. I think we’ll have to have another chat another time
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: Okay
Dr. Raphael Lataster: cover some some more of these issues but that’s yeah well.
SENATOR Malcolm Roberts: okay well you’ll have to sign up because sign off because of your time but hang on a minute because we need to upload your your material so I want to take this time we won’t get you to do any more talking first of all thank you so much Dr Raphael Lataster.
Malcolm Roberts: Thank you for your courage in telling the truth. Thank you for your battles in giving testimony in America and also here in Australia, your writing, your research. I agree with you that science is based on hard data and hard logic and people don’t understand that, but I really commend you for that.
Until our next show, this is Senator Malcolm Roberts, staunchly pro-human, fiercely proud of who we are as humans and a believer in the inherent goodness and care in human beings. I want to acknowledge the pain and then take a minute to appreciate the abundance and potential in and around all of us. All of us have pain at times, acknowledge that, but take a minute to appreciate the abundance and potential.
Please remember to listen to each other, love one another, and cherish one another. Until next time, thank you.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/MR-Show.jpg?fit=1397%2C778&ssl=17781397Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-26 17:15:002024-09-26 17:40:15The Malcolm Roberts Show with Dr Raphael Lataster
Last year I was successful in having the Senate inquire into the prospective terms of reference for a Royal Commission into the government response to COVID-19. The Inquiry was held in good faith by Senator Scarr and I thank everyone concerned for their work, which produced a 128 page report full of honesty, decency and common sense. After hearing and reading testimony from multiple highly qualified witnesses, every one of whom called for a Royal Commission.
The Committee recommended a Royal Commission be held and included a comprehensive Terms of Reference that would have uncovered the truth. Last week, the Government provided a response to the Inquiry Report, which stated that the Government does not support a Royal Commission, does not support working with the States to review COVID, does not support the proposed terms of reference and does not support you, the public, having further involvement in the inquiry process.
This is the same Labor Party that took one million dollars from the pharmaceutical industry in 2022/23, including large donations from Pfizer and Astra Zeneca.
Do we have the best government money can buy? You decide.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I wish to comment on Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report COVID-19 Royal Commission. Last year, I was successful in having the Senate inquire into the prospective terms of reference for a royal commission into the government response to COVID-19. The inquiry was held, and I thank Senator Paul Scarr for his even-handed treatment of the process and for producing with the secretariat at an excellent report—outstanding! After hearing and reading testimony from multiple highly qualified witnesses, every one of whom called for a royal commission, the committee did, in fact, recommend a royal commission be held. Their report was 128 pages of honesty, decency and common sense.
Last week, the government provided its response to the report—one-and-a-bit pages. Here’s what it says: ‘The government does not support a royal commission. The government does not support working with the state governments on an inquiry. The government does not support the proposed terms of reference. The government does not support any further public involvement in the inquiry process.’ How can we have an investigation when the government says it does not support working with the state governments, yet it’s got an inquiry underway right now that is not considering the state governments. Instead, the Albanese Labor government will continue with their cover-up inquiry, comprised of two bureaucrats and a university academic closely involved in the COVID response. Shame! The government is letting bureaucrats and academics investigate themselves. What a disgrace! It is betrayal. It’s inhuman.
During the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised a royal commission or similar inquiry. A Senate select committee inquiry would fit that description. Then Senator Gallagher promised us a royal commission. No wonder the public distrust politicians, when two promises that were as clear as day were broken the minute the Labor Party came to power. It does raise this question, though: what was the motivation for the government to proceed with a cover-up instead of its promised judicial inquiry? Could it be the donations the Labor Party received from the pharmaceutical industry in the last election?
Here’s the list from the Australian Electoral Commission of donations made to the Australian Labor Party in 2022-23: AbbVie, the makers of leuprorelin, a puberty blocker, $14,000; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, $33,000; Amgen biopharmaceuticals, $27,500; Aspen Medical, $83,000; AstraZeneca, $33,000, and isn’t there a huge conflict of interest in refusing to investigate them; Bayer, $33,000; Bristol-Myers, $52,000; HA Tech pharmaceuticals, $54,000; and Johnson Johnson pharmaceuticals, $36,000. Kerching, kerching, kerching! The cash register at the Labor Party is ticking over. Here are more donations: Merck Sharpe Dohme, $66,000; Navitas, $33,000; Pfizer, $25,000—another cash register kerchinging. There was Roche, $66,000; Sanofi-Aventis, $42,000; Pharmacy Guild of Australia, who enjoyed years of profit dispensing high-paying COVID injections, $154,000; and Medicines Australia, the peak lobbying body for the pharmaceutical industry, which just gave the former head of the TGA, Professor Skerritt, a job as a director, donated $112,000 to the Labor Party campaign funds—kerching! Including smaller donations, the Labor Party raked in almost a million dollars from pharmaceutical companies and associated favours bought. It’s not just big pharma, either. Remember when you couldn’t get COVID at Bunnings, yet you could get it at your neighbourhood hardware store? Governments forced many hardware stores to stop business during lockdowns, and they went broke while Bunnings grew its market share. Then they set up vaccination stations in their car parks. I know many people thought that was odd, so let’s look at this list of donations. The owners of Bunnings, Wesfarmers, donated $110,000. For completeness, let me list One Nation’s pharma donations in 2022-23: none! There was not one donation from the pharmaceutical industry, the banking industry, the healthcare industry or the net-zero industry. Why? It’s because One Nation is not for sale.
I will now review what the government is covering up with their refusal to hold a COVID royal commission. This is based on expert witness testimony to the committee inquiry and on peer-reviewed papers and data analysis which have come out since the inquiry. Firstly, testimony before America’s congress proves SARS-CoV-2 was the product of gain-of-function research, with funding from Anthony Fauci’s National Institutes of Health, managed through Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. The research started in the USA, and when President Obama banned gain-of-function research, it was moved to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. But the research continued secretly and illegally in North Carolina. We know that. In 2021, Australia’s CSIRO confirmed it assisted in the Wuhan research. We’re complicit.
Secondly, the official timeline for COVID is wrong. The University of Siena in Italy sequenced COVID on 10 October 2019. Unconfirmed reports persist of three lab technicians from Wuhan lab presenting with flu-like symptoms to a hospital in Wuhan in mid-September 2019. Those three were COVID patients ‘zero’. Wuhan has 90 direct overseas flights a day, including five a day into Italy and five a day into Australia, where symptomatic infections started showing up around the end of December 2019. This means that, in October 2019, when the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation sponsored the COVID-themed Event 201 war game that the World Economic Forum organised, COVID was alive in public. Note that the Nobel Prize winning virologist Luc Montagnier sequenced COVID in April 2020 and found: ‘It is not natural. It’s the work of professionals and of molecular biologists—a very meticulous work.’ Luc declared the virus was a combination of the original man-made SARS virus, parts of the HIV virus and a bat virus which was there to fool the body’s immune system into thinking it had never seen the virus before and as a result had no immune response to it.
The fact the virus escaped before it could be perfected has saved billions of lives. What they tried to do was evil personified. Here is an example. The RNA genome of SARS-CoV-2 consists of 30,000 nucleotides and 11 major coding genes. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna took the 4,284 nucleotides constituting the spike protein. At positions K986P and V987P, they introduced mutations to stimulate increased production of human antibodies. Those spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 are involved in receptor recognition, viral attachment and entry into the host cells. The last part is significant. Both COVID itself and the mutated vaccine material enter human cells. There’s certainty on this point. These COVID vaccines are gene therapies yet are not regulated as such. No safety testing was done on the long-term effect of introducing a mutated COVID DNA strand into the human genome.
Secondly, Oxford University investigated brain injury from COVID. It mapped the brains of 785 participants and waited for them to get COVID; 401 obliged, creating a control of 384. All were scanned a second time, and any brain function difference was attributed to COVID spike proteins. Oxford University found: ‘significant longitudinal effects, including a reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast, changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the olfactory function and a reduction in global brain size in the SARS-CoV-2 cases. The participants who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed on average a greater cognitive decline between the two time points.’ The paper concluded these results may indicate degenerative spread of the disease through olfactory pathways through the nose. Doctors who advocated for nasal preparations were actually right. The nose turns out to be the key. One study found 471 bacterial agents in 171 face masks, many of which had high resistance to antibiotics. This was an important issue for the royal commission to understand. Thirdly, Yonker et al. from Massachusetts General Hospital tested young people presenting with chest pains and found free spike antigen was detected in the blood of adolescents and young adults who developed post-mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, linking the shots with heart disease in the young. Fourthly, we knew as early as November 2021 that spike protein could build up in the lungs, heart, kidney and liver, causing an inflammatory response, yet we kept injecting spike proteins into people, including children, over and over. Now they’re dying suddenly and doctors are baffled—the hell they’re baffled.
Fifthly, SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, meaning most likely the shots as well, have serious effects on the vasculature of multiple organ systems, including the brain. Outcomes include fatal microclot formation and, in rare cases, encephalitis. Wait a minute. Isn’t New South Wales now urging parents to vaccinate their children against a sudden outbreak of encephalitis? COVID and COVID shots are the same man-made poison, yet we never tested the shots long enough to reveal that. Now people are dying and suffering life-altering disease while we continue to inject the public with boosters containing the very substance that is causing these deaths and injuries.
Today I’m announcing that, in the first week of December, I will be conducting the third of my full-day reviews of COVID, to be called ‘COVID in trial’. I promise to hound those responsible—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Allman-Payne): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Do you wish to seek leave to continue your remarks?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I seek leave to continue my remarks.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/RC-Covid.jpg?fit=1146%2C636&ssl=16361146Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-09-12 22:26:002024-09-16 12:58:22Labor Rejects Call for Royal Commission into COVID-19 Response
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared Monkeypox a global public health emergency, triggering emergency powers to drive vaccine sales that benefit big pharmaceutical companies with ties to the organisation. This decision serves corporate interests rather than public health. Regulatory agencies that are meant to protect the public fall under undue influence from the industries they regulate. The WHO is a corrupt organisation that is designed to funnel taxpayer money to its billionaire donors. Australian taxpayers gave $30 million to the WHO last year, likely as a show of loyalty.
Transparency is lacking. Major donors include Gavi, a vaccine alliance funded by corporations tied to predatory giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, who also own large shares in pharmaceutical companies. The WHO’s Monkeypox emergency, declared solely by its director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, highlights the unchecked power of the position. This decision created a market for four already-approved vaccines linked to companies backed by BlackRock and Vanguard, ensuring massive profits for their shareholders. A new Monkeypox vaccine is expected soon, likely fast-tracked by compromised regulators like Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
The WHO previously tried to raise alarm over Monkeypox but found little public concern, so they rebranded it as “Mpox” to push vaccine sales. This benefits the predatory billionaires who control vaccine companies, funnel money to Gavi and the WHO, and fund political parties, including Australia’s Liberal and Labor parties. Recent revelations show Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a more deadly and highly transmissible Mpox virus. This “gain-of-function” research has pandemic potential and should be stopped immediately. It’s troubling that Australia’s CSIRO was involved in gain-of-function research for COVID-19, yet faces no consequences.
The WHO and the TGA have failed in their regulatory duties, serving political agendas rather than public interest. During COVID, the TGA prioritised government control over public health, and there are concerns the same will happen again with Mpox. Every Monkeypox case should be verified through public lab tests, especially as redacted data was used to justify COVID measures that harmed public health.
The time of blind trust in the WHO’s narrative is over; it’s now the age of ‘prove it’.
Transcript
The UN’s World Health Organization, the WHO, has declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. This triggers WHO emergency powers to drive vaccine sales to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies that donate to the WHO through their other commercial and ownership interests. The first thing a house of review like our Senate should do is ask, ‘Is this a legitimate decision?’ The answer is: it is not, no. The UN WHO has succumbed to regulatory capture—a troubling development in governance. That may plunge Western society into serfdom under large corporations.
Regulatory capture occurs where a regulatory agency mandated to oversee and enforce rules to protect the public interest ends up under undue influence from companies with vested interests such as the entities it’s meant to regulate or special interest groups. This can result in the agency making decisions that prioritise the interests of these parties over the broader public interest. The New South Wales government lists six areas for regulatory capture: adherence to public interest principles; organisational culture; structure; processes; transparency; and staff experience. The WHO fails all six.
I’ve often spoken about the corruption, cronyism and illegal behaviour of the World Health Organization; some of my WHO speeches are on my website. The WHO fails to hold staff accountable for misbehaviour, including rape and sexual assault. Its own investigators conclude the WHO is ‘rotten with rapists’—their words. It is a failure of organisational culture and of staffing quality. The WHO is a corrupt organisation whose decisions benefit its billionaire sponsors with substantial health interests. The scam is simple: take a disease that’s around for generations—firstly the flu, and more recently bird flu and now monkeypox; plant scary stories in a media desperate for clickbait articles; use the media driven fear to declare a pandemic; and then—payday!—mandate vaccines financially benefiting the billionaires that funded the media scare. This betrays the public interest.
The WHO is a con, a fraud and a criminal enterprise designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of their billionaire donors and owners. It is an organisation to which Australian taxpayers gave $30 million last year despite them having $8 billion in financial assets; that donation was likely more about fealty than financing. Identifying the WHO’s donors is difficult since its annual accounts show 32 per cent of donations as ‘other’—another failure of transparency. One of the WHO’s major donors is Gavi, the globalist vaccine alliance of international academics, bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies funded through corporate donations from companies whose share registers feature investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard. They feature on big pharma share registries; they own big pharma. If Australia had racketeering laws this arrangement would be illegal. This is a failure in structure.
The monkeypox declaration came from the WHO director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, acting alone. The process for making such an important decision is not meaningfully regulated and gives Ghebreyesus too much power to direct a worldwide health response. This is a failure of process, and it’s deliberate. The proclamation is designed to create an international market for new monkeypox vaccines. The WHO already have four approved vaccines for monkeypox: cidofovir, distributed through Pfizer; brincidofovir, manufactured and distributed through Chimerix, whose controlling shareholders include Vanguard and predatory wealth fund cronies; TPOXX, from Siga Pharmaceuticals, with shareholders BlackRock and Vanguard; and ACAM2000 from Emergent Biosolutions, whose largest shareholders are—wait for it—BlackRock and Vanguard. With these drugs the world’s predatory billionaires have decided it’s time for another fundraiser. All four drugs are off-label use—so, any day now, expect a killer new vaccine for monkeypox to be given the hosanna palm frond parade through our disgraced regulators like Canberra’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA.
The WHO tested this scam a few years ago with a minor media fear campaign that discovered the public didn’t take something called monkeypox seriously. So they rebranded it as mpox. Amusingly, they claimed the name monkeypox was insulting to monkeys; monkeys have feelings too, you know! So mpox is monkeypox rebranded to sell more vaccines from vaccine companies who funnel the profits to the world’s predatory billionaires—those same billionaires who own the corporations that donate to Gavi and the WHO as well as fill the coffers of political parties around the world, including massive donations to both cheeks of the Liberal-Labor uniparty in this country.
Last Tuesday, American congressional investigators revealed that, for nearly nine years, Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a pandemic-capable mpox virus with high transmissibility and a case fatality rate of up to 15 per cent. That’s homicide. The gain-of-function project proposed through NIAID in America from virologist Bernard Moss was to splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new chimeric virus or combined virus could have retained up to a 15 per cent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive rate—a measure of transmissibility—meaning, on average, every sick person could infect up to 2.4 other people, giving it pandemic potential. It’s marvellous, what it’s designed to do!
We know gain-of-function research produced the COVID-19 virus. Is this monkeypox outbreak also man-made?
Gain-of-function research serves no useful purpose and should be terminated immediately. It’s deeply troubling that Australia’s CSIRO admitted and bragged about its involvement in gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19. And now an online meme simply says: ‘They’re doing it again because you didn’t punish them last time.’ That’s truth indeed.
The WHO fails all six elements of regulatory capture and so does Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The TGA is not acting in public interest, which former New South Wales deputy ombudsman Chris Wheeler considers fundamental to representative democratic government. The TGA may claim that, during COVID, it was caught between the parliament, its direct employer, and the wider public. It chose to serve the government’s need for air cover for controls decided on political, not medical, grounds. The TGA should have read the findings of the 1990 WA Inc royal commission, which found:
The institutions of government and the officials and agencies of government exist for the public, to serve the interests of the public.
That’s clear. Yet, during COVID, the TGA chose a different path: to support their own agency, to the detriment of the public. What will the TGA do this time, with monkeypox?
Monkeypox is transmitted through direct contact from sexual activity or intravenous drug use. A Philpot scientific study found 98.7 per cent of infections resulted from gay male sexual transmission. Transmission can occur through direct personal contact of the infected site. Infected animals can spread the disease. Asymptomatic spread, though, is, like COVID, an assertion with no evidence. The clade Ia variant of monkeypox can affect children. The clades currently circulating, though, clade Ib and II, have not been proven to infect children.
Australia has two monkeypox vaccines approved for over-18s. Both are off-label repurposed drugs approved for smallpox. JYNNEOS from Bavarian Nordic uses cidofovir, which I mentioned earlier, as the active ingredient. Bavarian Nordic have an application in to America’s Food and Drug Administration to give this vaccine to children aged 12 to 18 and are in early testing to support their application to extend use to children aged two and above—two and above! Why does a child need a vaccine against a disease that’s predominately only transmitted through sexual contact or intravenous drug use? The case for a monkeypox vaccination program must be a very high bar for any person who does not engage in risky sexual activity.
TGA’s website data from the 2022 monkeypox round of vaccinations in Australia shows 3,163 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations—a staggeringly high three per cent. I note a study published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, with authors from the University of New South Wales, entitled ‘Autoimmune blistering skin diseases triggered by COVID-19 vaccinations: an Australian case series’. This report found that COVID-19 vaccination either caused the recipient to develop autoimmune blistering disease or made the recipient’s existing condition worse. The cases are extremely rare, and, for once, I can agree with the TGA. I alert Australia to the chance that these outbreaks of a related disease could be mistaken for monkeypox. I note that autoimmune diseases and shingles—that is, herpes zoster—can intersect, and both are side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the Senate is going to be called on to support a monkeypox response, then it’s essential every case is verified through publicly disclosed laboratory testing.
Page after page of redacted data was used to support COVID measures and the damage to public health is undeniable. It’s homicide. ‘Safe and effective’ was not one lie; it was two. People are not believing the UN World Health Organization mpox narrative. The time for blind trust is over. We’re now in the age of ‘prove it’.
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton replied to an interviewer, calling for the public to dob in loved ones, friends, or workmates who have changed their opinion of the Government for the worse to ASIO. After facing backlash on social media, I expected the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks, but he has yet to do so.
His advocacy for Australians to report their fellow Australians to ASIO for expressing concerns about government COVID measures—which destroyed lives, health and families—is deeply troubling.
We are witnessing police actions in Canada and the UK where merely attending a protest rally, without any violent actions, is grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Is this a glimpse into the future under the Liberal Party?
Transcript
Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn’t. In the interview, the interviewer said:
“We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now.
One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There’s the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people’s lives and the effects that that can have?”
Peter Dutton’s answer:
“None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you’re referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it’s within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody’s behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they’ve changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency”.
In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found:
Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it.
To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law.
Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks immediately.
In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates.
What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population.
These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.
Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.
Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas?
Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there.
In March 2022, my office conducted an inquiry titled “COVID Under Question” to examine COVID and the response measures. Another inquiry was held in August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international health experts, as well as individuals or loved ones who were impacted by the jabs. The inquiry scrutinised all facets of Australia’s COVID response, involving politicians from multiple parties, ensuring a genuinely non-partisan cross-party inquiry.
Channel 7’s Spotlight program revealed widespread public dissatisfaction and concern with the government’s COVID response. Many people are expressing anger and have numerous unresolved questions. Rebuilding trust in federal and state governments, politicians, health departments, medical professionals, media, and pharmaceutical companies cannot happen without fully addressing these concerns.
Call a COVID Royal Commission now!
Transcript
My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on Wednesday 23 March 2022. Another was held on Wednesday 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and relatives of people that the COVID injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia’s COVID response were questioned. Politicians from several parties participated, making it a true non-partisan cross-party inquiry.
Because of the two full days of testimony at these inquiries, my decision-making has been much better informed. That’s what a senator must do. I acknowledge the support of my wife, Christine, as our office team’s workload increased in response to the many serious breaches of Australians’ rights and tens of thousands of deaths due to mandated COVID injections.
Our aim is to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound and flourish. Channel 7’s Spotlight program two nights ago revealed that the public remains very deeply dissatisfied and concerned about governments’ COVID response. Many are angry. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, in politicians, in health departments and agencies, in medical professions, in media and in pharmaceutical companies.
Across Australia, citizens are waking, making an effort to understand for themselves and for Australia. Generally speaking, people are wonderful and deserve to have their needs and expectations of governments met. Citizens are our constitutional democracy’s highest order. As servants to the people, it’s our duty as their representatives to address their questions and concerns. I find it surprising that our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. Listening to their responses in Senate estimates over the last four years, it’s clear they desperately do not betray they’ve made a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest their performance has been exemplary—worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals every Thursday evening. The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a staged standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia—which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group. Heady days, indeed. Those days are over as the reality of their incompetence, self-interest and lies comes home to roost.
To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against a tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must be clear to you now that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; widespread and deep anger remains. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall. I fear where that will lead if it’s not corrected.
Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to the people. Excess deaths, despite statistical sleight of hand, are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a vaccine—a novel vaccine that killed people—is a crime. Banning existing products that have proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of a so-called vaccine is a crime. Covering up this corrupt process is a crime. This is homicide. Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy—an experimental gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing.
Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing that the vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants despite knowing the reverse was true: protection dropped quickly over time, and it did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks is a violation of consumer law in all five of those states. The lawsuit alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people who were criticising its safety and efficacy claims and who even dared to question them—proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022.
The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others ‘to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine’. While Pfizer has indemnity for injuries, under the PREP Act, that indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. The reason this relates to Australia as well is that our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through misconduct from Pfizer, and misconduct there was. Surely, if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. Citizens of Australia deserve this.
Evidence for this lawsuit in the United States was gathered during a grand jury investigation and has now been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate court. It makes for horrifying reading. One, Pfizer’s chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla—a veterinarian, not a doctor—declined government funding in order to prevent the government’s ability to oversee the development, testing and manufacture of the vaccine. That’s not something someone does with a safe and properly made product. Two, Pfizer’s independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a tailor made contract that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers’ interest. Three, contrary to its representations, Pfizer has wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and has kept data hidden through confidentiality agreements—it kept it hidden. Four, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. A judicial inquiry can determine if such a clause was in the Australian agreement as well.
Five, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the effectiveness and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timetable was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Six, instead Pfizer submitted a ‘Hollywood’ version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety data that their real trials did not, and our health authorities bought it.
Seven, we’re three years into COVID, and scientists still can’t review Pfizer’s COVID-19 raw trial data. Eight, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates that the TGA had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer’s ‘special’ data. Nine, Pfizer kept the true effects of its COVID-19 vaccine hidden by destroying the trial control group, invalidating the study. This was not gold-standard research. This was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour.
Ten, Pfizer rigged the trial by excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or who were immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these people when the vaccine was not even tested on these people? Eleven, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, yet that expanded the potential market. Twelve, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse-events database, which was obtained in court processes and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 159,000 adverse events had resulted, including 1,223 deaths.
Thirteen, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse-event reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff. Fourteen, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Subjects had fetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations, and some subjects failed, at more than double the rate of the control group, to become pregnant and to implant embryos, amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study findings, and it lied about the outcome.
My 10 minutes is almost done, and I’m only up to page 24 of the 179-page brief of evidence. There are another 155 pages yet to cover. If it’s not clear to the listeners by now, the vaccine was criminal fraud. I have plenty more to share with you.
The last word for today is from South Korea, where a study analysed 4.3 million individuals over three months, comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer’s disease, a 68 per cent rise in depression, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders.
In Australia, following my questions to the Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don’t want to know the answer. They want to avoid the answer and hide the answer. A judicial inquiry is needed to get to the truth, and I call on Prime Minister Albanese to call a royal commission immediately.
Australia co-operated with the Wuhan Institute and America’s NIH on gain-of-function research on COVID, which led to the COVID pandemic. Subsequently, both of these institutes conducted similar research on bird flu and now we have a mutant bird flu outbreak.
When I asked the Health Department if this was a good reason to discontinue gain-of-function research, their response was NO and instead, indicated a focus on refining messaging to deflect criticism. Even more troubling is the admission that gain-of-function research into pandemic-potential pathogens is being conducted in level 3 labs rather than level 4.
One Nation opposes gain-of-function research and believes that the “scientists” responsible for developing the novel COVID virus should be held accountable for the deaths it caused. Gain-of-function research for pandemic-potential pathogens does not pass a cost-benefit-risk analysis and should be halted immediately.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, China did gain-of-function research in Wuhan on COVID, and we had a COVID outbreak. Then China did gain-of-function research on bird flu, and now we have a bird flu outbreak, so I’m told. Minister, will your government ban Australian involvement in gain-of-function research?
Senator Gallagher: I think Professor Kelly has stated the Australian government’s position in relation to reviews that are underway. I don’t know whether there’s more that he can add to that.
Prof. Kelly: I’d just suggest that be directed to the CEO of the NHMRC, who’s undertaken some of these processes previously, and we’ve had a recent discussion about what else we might need to think about.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Prof. Wesselingh: Gain-of-function research is an important component of genomic research across the board and leads the development of a whole lot of things, like drugs and vaccines et cetera. I think the issue that you’re talking about is the gain-of-function research on pandemic potential pathogens and, obviously, that does need to be closely regulated. Australia has a very strong regulatory environment to do that, particularly through the OGTR, biosafety committees across the country and, obviously, the facilities we have, which are PC3 and PC4 facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they levels or standards for infection security?
Prof. Wesselingh: Yes. PC2 is a sort of standard laboratory, PC3 is additional security and PC4 is very high security.
Senator ROBERTS: And ours are 2 and 3?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. All of the work done on gain-of-function in PC3 and PC4 is on pandemic potential pathogens. We have, I think, a really strong regulatory environment to control gain-of-function research in Australia. But as Paul said, we’ve had some additional conversations between the Chief Medical Officer, the OGTR and the NHMRC, in terms of whether there are additional assurances that we should apply to the very small number of gain-of-function activities that occur with these pandemic potential pathogens. We’re certainly looking at that to see the risk benefit and the public benefit of those aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Has research stopped while you’re doing that review?
Prof. Wesselingh: No. We did a very big review of gain-of-function activities, and that has been reported to this committee previously. There were 17 projects that were being conducted. Only four were being conducted with pandemic potential pathogens, and they were all conducted under the controls of the OGTR in PC3 and PC4 facilities; none were being done on COVID; and we continue to use the current regulatory processes in regard to that.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the status of gain-of-function research in the United States? I understand that it was outlawed under Obama.
Prof. Kelly: I’m not really able to talk about what may or may not be the regulations in a foreign country.
Senator ROBERTS:Do you do much benchmarking with other countries?
Prof. Wesselingh: I can comment on that. Gain-of-function research still continues in the United States. We have been watching, with interest, recent developments in the United States, and they have developed a system, similar to the one that I was saying we are currently discussing with the chief health officer, where gain-offunction research can continue; but increased assurances, in terms of the risk-benefit and the public benefit of those activities, are conducted through the US agencies. We’re looking at that carefully, and that’s the basis for our ongoing discussions with the OGTR and the Chief Medical Officer
Coronavirus was the product of 54 years of research aimed at developing a biological weapon. Whether it escaped from the Wuhan Lab accidentally, or was deliberately released, doesn’t matter.
The fact remains COVID-19 is a man-made disaster and those responsible must be held accountable.
During the June Estimates, I asked the Professional Services Review Scheme (PSRS) why there was a 100% strike rate against doctors. I was informed that only a small number of cases make it to the Committee stage after several preliminary steps.
The representative assured me that the system is fair, although she admitted that appeals are restricted to procedural issues and cannot address the merits of the evidence.
While she mentioned that the Committee consists of the doctor’s peers, she did not address my concern about the 100% strike rate.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. At previous estimates, I was told that administrative investigations of doctors conducted by the Professional Services Review Scheme were done in a completely fair manner. Your annual reports reveal that, since 2008, there have been 173 doctors who faced administrative investigations by committees leading to sanctions. How many of those prosecutions were successful, leading to sanctions being placed upon doctors, including suspension of practice?
Mr Topperwien: The 173 practitioners that you refer to were the ones who were referred to committees after a long process. We’ve in fact been asked to look at over 1,800 practitioners. Those 173 were ones out of the 1,800 that we’ve looked at that the director would have had concerns that there was a possibility that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. That concern that the director would have had for each of those cases would have followed an exhaustive process by which they would have looked at samples of their patient records, interviewed the practitioner, looked at the submissions that had been made and then formed the view that for each of those practitioners there was a chance that they had engaged in inappropriate practice. They were not prepared, probably for most of them, to enter into an agreement or the director was so concerned about what looked like their conduct that they thought it ought to go to a committee of their peers to fully investigate what had actually gone on. So the small number of practitioners who end up going to a committee have gone through an exhaustive process prior to even getting there. And, as I said, they came out of 1,800 practitioners.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As I said, there have been 173 doctors who have faced administrative investigations by committees, which is what you’re confirming. I’ve asked you how many were successful. You said 100—
Mr Topperwien: I’m aware that there have been practitioners who have gone to committees where there has been no adverse outcome for them.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that the number of those who were suspended were 171, not including two doctors who passed away.
Mr Topperwien: I’m unable to confirm here and now what those numbers actually are, but I can take that on notice and get back to you with the actual numbers of cases that have gone to committees and, in broad terms, the nature of the outcomes of those cases.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d be happy with that on notice. But my understanding is that, as I said just then, the number of prosecutions that were successful for the review scheme, out of 173, were 171, not including two doctors who passed away. So that’s a strike rate of 100 per cent against the doctors.
Mr Topperwien: Of those who went to committees.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I’m—
Mr Topperwien: Of the 1,800 that we started looking at in the first place, those 1,800 came from many thousands that were first examined by the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that. I accept the 1,800 and 173. But, of the 173, there was a 100 per cent strike rate against the doctors. I went to a barrister to check this out—a reliable barrister who used to teach in constitutional law as well as practice and worked in administration for governments. This finding is an extraordinary result, because no court system goes even close to a 100 per cent conviction rate. How can the scheme claim a fair system with a 100 per cent rate of finding against doctors?
Dr Mahoney: Would it help if I gave some extra context around the cases that come to Professional Services Review?
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know the answer to the question. How can a system claim to be fair when it’s a 100 per cent strike rate?
Dr Mahoney: If I give you the context around it, that will explain it. The department may wish to add to what I’m saying, but there are a whole range of compliance activities that are undertaken by the Department of Health and Aged Care. We talk about a pyramid. You may have heard of it. At the bottom of the pyramid, the very largest number, are the practitioners who get an educational activity helping them to understand why their billing might need to be looked at or how to bill correctly. The next step above that are what are called targeted letters, where practitioners who have been identified as perhaps needing a little bit more help will get a letter that gives them some information about their own data and just asking them to look at it. That’s really all those letters do. The next step that the department has in place is an audit program.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s it called?
Dr Mahoney: Audit.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
Dr Mahoney: That sometimes gets confused with other activities. But the audit program, again, is very specific. It’s done by the department. I can talk about this because my previous role was exactly in doing the work with the compliance section of the department. With audit, it’s very specific. Again, it’s particular Medicare item requirements that can be audited, as in, ‘Did you do a specific thing?’—was there a referral, for example, for a service that requires a referral. The team that do the audit work, that’s what they do. They ask a practitioner to send in a set of documents with the proof that they’ve met a requirement. That’s a compliance activity. They’re the next level up in the pyramid. Then we come up to what’s called the Practitioner Review Program. That Practitioner Review Program is going up the pyramid where the concerns about the practitioner’s billing data or prescribing data is of more concern than any of those lower levels. That, again, is a much smaller group. For those practitioners, their data is looked at very thoroughly by senior medical practitioners who are experienced in practice as well as in looking at this data. If those practitioners think that there needs to be some intervention—the department’s medical staff—then that practitioner is contacted. They are given their billing data. They are given an opportunity to have an interview with one of the medical advisers in the department. The outcomes of those—there are three possible outcomes. The first is that the practitioner has explained their billing data, it makes sense and there is no further action taken. The second, and this is by far the largest group, is where there is some concern. The practitioner is given education about why there is concern with their billing and they are given what is called a period of review to change or to make changes to what the issues are. Then their data is looked at again. Again, the majority of practitioners understand that. They take that on board, they learn it and there’s no penalty. This is all what’s gone on before anybody gets to PSR. The third possible outcome for cases that are of really serious concern to the medical advisers in the department is that those cases are referred to Professional Services Review for the next stage up the pyramid. So we’re getting quite close to the top now. The only ones above us are those that are outright fraud that we don’t deal with. That’s not compliance. I need to add a little bit to that. After interview, a very small number of practitioners will go straight—will get referred to PSR because of the level of their concerns. A small number of practitioners who are given that six-month period of review do not make changes and they may go to PSR as well when their data is reviewed after six months. Then there’s the third group of practitioners that are referred to Professional Services Review. As you would know, under the 80/20 and 30/20 rules, if a practitioner breaches those then the department’s required by law to refer those cases to Professional Services Review. So the only cases that we are looking at in Professional Services Review are those that have already been through all of that and they are near the top of the pyramid. So that’s the context around the numbers that you’re talking about. The further context, as Mr Topperwien has said, is that even of those that get to Professional Services Review, only a small number go to committee. So I hope that helped.
Senator ROBERTS: That has. It’s confirmed some of my fears, but I’ll explain that in a minute if we need to. Isn’t this strike rate of 100 per cent of those who get referred to a committee indicative of a system loaded against doctors with little or no chance of a doctor being able to raise a fair defence to allegations made?
Dr Mahoney: No. They have chances right through the whole process, as I’ve described, or all the processes at the department of health.
Senator ROBERTS: I got that. You’ve given me the answer—it’s no, in your view.
Dr Mahoney: At Professional Services Review, they again have chances to explain, describe and discuss.
Senator ROBERTS: The system is loaded against doctors, in our view, having listened to some doctors and consulted legal advice. Is it because in the process there’s no meaningful opportunity to challenge or explain the evidence being given against the doctor? My understanding of legal practice, which is pretty limited, is that there are two aspects. A case has to be taken through the process properly. If it’s not taken through the process properly, it’s dismissed. But if it’s taken through the process properly, then they consult the evidence. If the evidence is sound, there’s a conviction. If the evidence is not sound, it’s dismissed. So process has to be followed and evidence has to be strong. Now, doctors cannot appeal the merits of the evidence. They can appeal the process. So your process is fine, but they can’t appeal the evidence. Is that correct?
Mr Topperwien: I’d just say here that the practitioner has multiple opportunities at the PSR end of the process to challenge the evidence, bring their own evidence and have their own witnesses. They have a lawyer in virtually every case, and the evidence that is the—the substantive evidence on which the committee makes findings is the doctor’s own practice notes. It’s the doctor’s own evidence that shows that they have engaged in inappropriate practice. They have every opportunity to put other evidence if they choose to.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it correct that a result of the process is that appeals are limited to arguments about process and not about merit or evidence of the case?
Mr Topperwien: They have an opportunity to take an action in the Federal Court at any stage of the process about whether we have acted fairly and have taken into account irrelevant considerations. We’ve not taken into account irrelevant considerations. Those are the bases on which a challenge may be made in the court.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as I said, the doctor can appeal the process but not appeal the merits of the evidence.
Mr Topperwien: That’s right.
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, perhaps I’d add some more context about the scheme—the PSR. Where people are referred to committees, that’s a committee of their clinical peers that hears evidence and makes recommendations and determinations about their clinical practice from a place of clinical expertise.
Senator ROBERTS: In theory that’s correct. But in practice it’s not.
Ms Shakespeare: I don’t think we would accept that either.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. At the next Senate estimates maybe we can talk further—or maybe before then if you’d be willing to. Would you be willing to engage in a conversation before then?
Ms Shakespeare: About the makeup of committees for the PSR? I think that’s probably something that we would be able to engage in.
CHAIR: Senator, via the minister’s office we can seek a briefing for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, an earlier review of the scheme said the scheme must be overhauled to make it fair and allow appeals to be made on merit. What’s your government’s timetable for a review of this system?
Ms Quinn: Senator, there have been a number of reviews conducted around the Professional Services Review. You would understand that it’s established under the Health Insurance Act, so it is a lawful—
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no doubt it’s lawful.
Ms Quinn: And considered by the parliament of the time. Concerns about possible inappropriate practice, as you said, are able to be elevated to the courts.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that perfectly. I’ve had it explained before and now again today very well. I understand that it was recommended earlier in a review that the scheme must be overhauled. I want to know the progress of that and when is it going to be done.
Senator Gallagher: Let me see if there’s—
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I also make it clear that fraud hurts the taxpayers. I detest it and it must stop. So we’ve got no problems there. I also can see that a doctor who stands up and has got the courage of his or her convictions can go right through that process and won’t buckle. I can see some doctors will buckle because it’s just too much. They’ll let go. So some strong doctors, I believe, are being punished. That’s what I would like to talk to. I don’t want to raise individual cases with you. That’s not my position. I’m not an advocate for individual cases. I just wanted to understand the process better. So I look forward to a conversation.
Mr Topperwien: We are happy to talk to you in general terms about how the process works, the way that the scheme is structured, the qualifications of the practitioners who are on our panel and who are appointed to committees and how that appointment process works.
