Posts

Restoring Trust or Reinforcing Control?

,

Australia has now established a Centre for Disease Control (CDC) with a substantial budget, however the enabling legislation failed to outline a clear set of guardrails for this organisation.

The legislation states that the CDC will serve as the “source of scientific truth” on pandemic-related matters, which is concerning.

During COVID-19, the Government required health authorities to lie consistently to promote a medical response that we are now seeing was deadly and damaging to Australians.

With the credibility of our health professionals in tatters, the government has created a new body to serve as the “one source of truth.”

I asked several questions to understand the scope of this new body and the process by which they will establish this “one truth,” yet I remain none the wiser.

As you watch this video, ask yourself: is the attitude of these senior public servants acceptable for a Senate Estimates hearing?

Transcript

CHAIR: I also need to move the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: I need to ask some questions about the recent enabling legislation for the CDC. I note the enabling legislation for the CDC received royal assent three weeks ago, so I am surprised to see you here so
quickly.

Ms Wood: Is that a question?

Senator ROBERTS: How long had preparations for the CDC been going on?

Ms Wood: The commitment by the government to create an Australian Centre for Disease Control was made in the election before the one last held.

Senator ROBERTS: In 2022?

Mr Comley: Yes, 2022.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that. How much was spent preparing for an Australian CDC prior to the legislation passing parliament?

Ms Wood: The preparation activity for the CDC is one of the activities undertaken in the interim CDC group, so there are a lot of different activities. We can probably give a funding amount for one of the divisions which is largely responsible for the establishment activities: the policy development, the drafting of the legislation and the staffing considerations associated with setting up a new agency. We could probably take that on notice but it’s not a figure I have.

Senator ROBERTS: You could take it on notice to find out how much was spent in a parallel agency or department?

Ms Wood: The interim CDC is part of the department at the moment. We can take you through the high-level budget descriptions for that group and the activities, inclusive of which is establishment activities for the statutory agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This may be a guess—was it around $250 million? Can you take it on notice?

Mr Comley: There were actually three tranches of funding that came through budget and MYEFO measures. I think that number is broadly correct.

Senator ROBERTS: $250 million is broadly correct?

Ms Wood: That’s correct.

Mr Comley: Over four years, not up to the year.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a lot of money. It’s not really enabling legislation.

Mr Comley: Let’s go back a step—

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of money spent on it.

Mr Comley: There are functions and then there’s legislation. The CDC was an election commitment by the government in 2022. Work immediately commenced on what it would look like. There was already a public
health group within the department that did the sum of this work, some of which had been built up through COVID and the pandemic response. Some of those functions continued, but some money has also been appropriated to build up new functions of the CDC, such as data integration and surveillance systems, which will prepare Australia better for a pandemic. The legislation has the effect, though, of creating an independent body. So there are probably two different things here: one is the functions of the CDC, much of which transfer from the existing department; and the second is the legislative basis on which it operates, particularly the Director-General of the CDC, independent of government when providing advice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That was an excellent summary. Who’s the director? Is there an interim director?

Mr Comley: At the moment, Ms Wood is the head of the interim CDC. There has been a selection process that I’ve been undertaking for the new director-general—no decision has been made yet as to who that is—bearing in mind that the CDC commences on 1 January next year.

Senator ROBERTS: What is your intent to fund, commission, conduct or cooperate with others on virus research, including what is commonly called gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: As the secretary has indicated, there will be a commission appointed by the minister for the CDC once it’s a statutory agency. They’ll obviously have responsibility to determine the work program in detail. We can take you through the research as a concept under the legislation, if that assists.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please. What about gain-of-function research?

Ms Wood: The CDC won’t be—I think this was indicated earlier—conducting research on matters that are in the remit of other organisations. The CDC is a complement to the Commonwealth public health capability. It will not be taking over or otherwise leaning in on research conducted by any other Commonwealth entities, whether that’s NHMRC or the Gene Technology Standing Committee.

Senator ROBERTS: We know that the CSIRO has admitted to conducting gain-of-function research, both here and in China. Will you assume responsibility for any aspect of the CSIRO’s Australian Centre for Disease
Preparedness in Geelong?

Ms Wood: The CSIRO is obviously a different organisation. The CDC will work with it, but the CDC is not inheriting or having functions transferred to it from the CSIRO, if that’s the question.

Senator ROBERTS: That is the question.

Prof. Kidd: If I can insert, the oversight of gain-of-function research is the responsibility of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s been bandied around. It’s sometimes in his purview; and sometimes it’s not in his purview. So it’s in his purview?

Prof. Kidd: Responsibility for the oversight of proposed gain-of-function research is.

Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO has a substantial live animal experimentation agenda, although the animals aren’t alive for long. Will you sanction live animal experimentation as part of your new role?

Prof. Kidd: Do we have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in this section, Secretary?

Mr Comley: I don’t think so, but I think the senator’s question goes to a different question, which is more about research methodology. The other thing I’d comment—and Ms Wood or the others at the table can expand
on it—is that it’s not envisaged that the CDC would undertake research itself. That’s not the primary role of the CDC. I don’t think it needs to turn its policy mind to that question of animal research.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I’ll finish early, with the mind to get back on the treadmill with the TGA.

CHAIR: You’re getting better and better, Senator Roberts. I’m very impressed. Senator Liddle?

/2 Comments/by

Mandates Must Go for Defence Service

,

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

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

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

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?  

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

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates  

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?  

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?

,

During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.

I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.

Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?  

Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?  

Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?  

Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.  

Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?  

Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?  

Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice, please.  

Mr Turnbull: Sure.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?  

Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?  

Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.  

Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—  

Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?  

Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.  

CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?  

Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?  

Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy. 

 Senator ROBERTS: Because they—  

Mr Turnbull: They set the parameters.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you 

/by

A Case Study in Avoidance

,

This exchange during Senate Estimates with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) sums up just how bad Estimates has become under the Albanese Labor Government.

The TGA is well aware that Senators only have a few minutes to ask questions, and they understand that the more they can stall, the less likely it is they’ll have to say anything that could cause problems for their Minister—regardless of the truth. Because of this, the Minister will not require the “witness” to answer the question, nor will the Committee Chair—both of whom are Labor Senators.

My first question was a genuine attempt to clarify misinformation circulating online about aluminium intake. The answer was a simple “yes.” Keep that in mind when you watch the video. Instead of confirming the obvious and allowing us to move on to another question about aluminium in vaccines, the opportunity was taken to stall for time by debating whether the question should even be asked at all. Dr. Lawler, Deputy Secretary of the Health Products Regulation Group within the Department of Health, oversees the agencies and committees the Government uses to spread responsibility, avoiding accountability. He was exactly the right person to direct these questions to.

The data I presented was straightforward: the level of aluminium in vaccines is unsafe for infants by an order of magnitude. Yet the TGA spent a great deal of time on their pre-prepared responses insisting that vaccines are safe. They refuse to accept any data showing that this level of exposure is causing health issues in infants. I then asked whether our vaccines had been subject to gold standard testing—a term used on many occasions by “witnesses” attending Estimates to defend COVID vaccines – yet suddenly, the gold standard is no longer relevant to … vaccines! Suddenly, testing a product against a double-blind placebo (saline) is now considered “unsafe,” despite this being the standard for a century?

In reality, what Big Pharma has been doing for years—and what the TGA has allowed them to do in Australia—is to compare new vaccines (or medications for that matter) against existing ones, rather than saline. If the harm detected is the same as that already being caused by the “placebo” medication, it’s deemed safe. This is not how things should be.

I will continue this line of questioning until we get a proper inquiry into the level of heavy metal contamination in infant vaccines.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again, especially Professor Lawler. Before I start, can we deal with a statement I hear on the internet all the time—that you get more aluminium in your food than you do in vaccines. Aluminium in food is ingested at 0.3 per cent. In vaccines, it’s ingested at 100 per cent. Individual results may vary. Is this a fair statement?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure where you’re seeing that. I don’t have the information you’re referencing in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you whether it’s accurate.  

Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that is necessarily a question for the TGA to respond to. We can provide you with information on the process that we undertake in terms of the evaluation and authorisation of therapeutic goods, including vaccines. Is this a claim that the TGA has made?  

Senator ROBERTS: No. That’s my understanding. What is the TGA’s recommended maximum daily intake of aluminium for a child aged six months, please?  

Prof. Lawler: By mouth as a recommended daily intake?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Prof. Lawler: I don’t believe that the TGA sets a recommended daily ingestion of aluminium, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the daily maximum for a child of six months that can ingest aluminium in food?  

Prof. Lawler: I would suggest that those are probably questions best posed to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The US Food and Drug Administration recommends exposure of five micrograms per kilogram in infants. At six months, the average weight of an infant is seven kilograms, making the maximum daily exposure 35 micrograms. The Infanrix hexa vaccine contains 825 micrograms of aluminium per dose, which is 24 times its safe daily limit. Do you accept injecting children at 23 times the safe level? Do you accept that this unsafe aluminium exposure is a contributing factor to aluminium derived autism?  

Prof. Lawler: I will throw to Dr Dascombe in a moment. I will answer a couple of the things there in reverse order, if I may. The first is that, in answer to your second question, no. I don’t believe that there is a recognised regulator—I’m happy to be corrected—that does.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than relying on someone else, do you have any data or research?  

Prof. Lawler: I’m just trying to answer your question. I don’t believe that there is another regulator. I’m just using that as back-up. We have seen no credible safety signal that aluminium load either in single or scheduled immunisation delivery is a contributor to autism. The second thing I would say is that I am not sure this is the forum, nor do we have the time, to clarify the distinction between injected and ingested aluminium. They are quite different biomechanical processes. I don’t think the two are comparable. I will ask Dr Dascombe to add to that answer.  

Dr Dascombe: I echo the comments of Professor Lawler. Neither the TGA nor any international regulator has detected or confirmed any safety signals relating to any vaccine and autism. This is also supported by the weight of scientific evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is the TGA guidance for the injection of multiple vaccines into a six-month-old at the same time causing amplified aluminium? Each of those doses has aluminium adjuvant, a preservative, so each of them is 24 times the daily safe limit.  

Prof. Lawler: My apologies for breaking in, Senator. There are a couple of points on that. It is not the practice or the role of the TGA to make recommendations on immunisation schedules. That sits within the province of ATAGI, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. I would also highlight that we have frequently responded to questions around the aluminium load in the vaccination schedule and their consequences. Most recently, but perhaps more recently, is a Senate question on notice 24-003075. We have discussed it in this place a number of times.  

Senator ROBERTS: You see the problem. Just one vaccine can be 24 times over the safe daily limit. You are recommending injecting multiple of them at the same time. These infants could be getting over 100 times the safe limit and you just keep on injecting them right in there and then claim aluminium poisoning isn’t the reason they come down with autism in some cases the very next day. How can you justify this?  

Prof. Lawler: I will answer those questions in reverse order, if I may. I will answer the second. There is no indication that the vaccination schedule is linked to autism. Indeed, it has been highlighted not just today but previously. There’s no credible evidence that there is a linkage between vaccination and autism. As I just indicated in my previous answer, it is not the role of the TGA to recommend vaccinations. We assess them for safety, quality and efficacy. It’s the role of ATAGI to recommend the vaccination schedules.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you tell the pharma companies to reduce the aluminium preservatives down to safe levels so you can get parents to trust your vaccine again and the parents can trust your advice again?  

Prof. Lawler: There are a couple of elements in your question. We evaluate the submissions from sponsors and evaluate the process of manufacture and quality control to ensure that the balance of risk versus benefit is appropriate. That is a determination that we make not only in the authorisation but also in the post-market monitoring through our pharmacovigilance of any therapeutic good with the inclusion of vaccines. In terms of trust, we recognise that there is an active campaign to undermine the trust of regulators, the TGA particularly. We undertake to restore or bolster the trust of the public, which I have to say was during the pandemic and is still, despite some narratives, at a high level. We seek to do that through education and guidance. We do that through being very clear and transparent about what we do and by addressing dis- and misinformation when and if it occurs.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many vaccines in the Australian schedule have been subject to a gold standard trial, meaning specifically a randomised double blind placebo control study where the placebo is saline and not another vaccine?  

Prof. Lawler: I recognise that you weren’t here before lunch. We had a conversation with Senator Antic regarding the use of the term ‘gold standard’. We recognise that the use of a placebo control randomised double control trial—there are a number of different terminologies used—is of a very high standard and presents robust and dependable evidence. The challenge, of course, is whether something constitutes a gold standard in the way that you have used it. It actually very much depends on context. We use controlled or blinded trials or placebo trials when we are interested in determining the difference between a control arm and an intervention arm. This is really effective when we’re looking at incremental improvements in therapies or when we’re looking at the introduction of new therapies. The challenge we have, of course, is that when there is an established therapy that has been shown over decades using both documented and real-world evidence to be both safe and effective, it is ethically questionable—and, in some instances, ethically indefensible—to use a placebo in that non-intervention arm. I will give you two examples, if I may. We have vaccine preventable diseases, and we have a very clear demonstration of reduction in not only mortality but morbidity in those diseases. Let’s choose polio and small pox, diseases that have had a specific impact for many decades and have led to untold suffering. One of them has been eradicated by the use of vaccines and one of them has been virtually eradicated. If we were to introduce placebo controlled trials for those drugs, that would be horrendously unethical. We would be essentially and knowingly infecting children with a disease that could kill, paralyse or maim when we know that there is a way of preventing that. That’s not ethically defensible.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you are saying is that there has been no double blind placebo control study where the placebo was saline and not another vaccine?  

Prof. Lawler: No. What I am saying is that would not be an appropriate approach to be taking today with the vaccines we use.  

Senator ROBERTS: Has it been taken in the past?  

Prof. Lawler: I also would highlight that the introduction of vaccines occurred some time ago. And also—  

Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done?  

Prof. Lawler: I will let you finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it has not been done, then, the tests?  

Prof. Lawler: Whether these—  

Senator ROBERTS: A double blind trial?  

Prof. Lawler: Well, we’ve actually already taken on notice to provide concrete evidence on which of those vaccines has been subjected previously to blinded control trials.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?  

Prof. Lawler: Dr Anna Peatt from the national immunisation division will respond to that.  

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.  

Dr Peatt: Senator, could you please repeat the question? I didn’t quite hear it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. How many COVID vaccines have been destroyed because they aged out? What was the purchase cost for those products?  

Dr Peatt: Senator, I would have to take that question on notice. I don’t have that available with me today.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was close to 35 per cent of the multibillion-dollar COVID vaccine supply binned or trashed?  

Dr Peatt: I would have to take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you specifically to tell us whether or not it was 35 per cent.  

Dr Peatt: I don’t have that figure in front of me.  

Senator ROBERTS: I am asking for you to just say what the figures are. Can you confirm that is 35 per cent of what we bought?  

Dr Peatt: Yes, I can do. 

/3 Comments/by

Update 7: COVID, Control and the Cost of Compliance

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He said: 

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

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

/5 Comments/by

When Trust is Betrayed

, ,

They promised safe and effective. What they delivered was sudden and unexpected.

For years, I’ve defended the doctor-patient relationship against bureaucratic overreach and pharmaceutical influence. The COVID response exposed regulatory failure, destroyed trust, and harmed hundreds of thousands of Australians who trusted the medical establishment.

One Nation will shut down the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and its related crony committees, end the revolving door between regulators and industry, and demand a royal commission into the COVID response.

Australians deserve truth, justice, and a health system free from corporate control.

Transcript

‘They promised you safe and effective; instead, they delivered sudden and unexpected.’ So reads the billboard erected by NZDSOS—a group of 9,000 New Zealand doctors, health professionals and academics. There are 9,000 of them; courage is contagious. Their byline is, ‘It’s time to remove the government from the consultation room.’ 

For many years, I’ve spoken about the primacy of the doctor-patient relationship. I’ve spoken against the insidious influence of health bureaucrats creeping into that relationship—influence exerted to benefit the pharmaceutical industry over the interests of everyday Australian patients. I’ve spoken about the abuse of power and regulatory capture of Ahpra and health regulators. In recent months, I have joined the fight against the Queensland health department’s decision to destroy biological samples taken from 10,000 volunteers and used to test the safety and efficacy of COVID injectables. A bad decision that, I’m happy to say, has been overturned. Thank you, Premier Crisafulli from Queensland. I always say ‘injectables’ because these dangerous, killer products are not vaccines; they’re a biological experiment which failed. Tens of thousands of people died, and many more live with adverse reactions, which is bureaucrat-speak for them having their health and lives destroyed. 

One Nation will close the Therapeutic Goods Administration and its related crony committees, filled as they are with personnel that pharmaceutical companies employed, funded, educated and now seek to regulate. Australians were healthier and safer when the health department made these decisions with the benefit of close parliamentary scrutiny. We must go back to that system. One Nation is preparing legislation to prevent the revolving door between parliament, the Public Service and private industry, so a person cannot go from regulating big pharma to working for big pharma. We continue to call for a royal commission into our COVID response. We must understand how the disproportionate, homicidal response to a bad flu killed many tens of thousands of people and maimed many more. Justice must be served or more people will die. (Time expired) 

/1 Comment/by

Time for Transparency: Aviation Safety Demands Answers from CASA

,

I spoke with Brent on 2SM about to the recent and concerning medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots and the disturbing lack of accountability from CASA regarding the impact of vaccine mandates on aviation safety.

We need proper cardiac screening and transparency about potential vaccine injuries among pilots. The public deserves to know the truth about what’s happening in our skies.

CASA’s wilful blindness to these serious safety issues must end.

Transcript

Brent: I said we were going to be talking to Malcolm Roberts this morning. He is on the phone. Two recent medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots, one who collapsed in the cockpit, another who suffered chest pains mid-flight, have sparked fresh questions around aviation safety and pilot health post-Covid. Now, pilots, if you remember, were required to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Remember, no jab, no job. That’s what they were saying. No jab, no job. But could there be lingering medical issues going undetected? And are the regulators doing enough to stay ahead of it? Senator Malcolm Roberts raised the matter during Senate’s estimates. He joins me now. Good morning, Malcolm.

Malcolm Roberts: Good morning, Brent. How are you?

Brent: I’m well. Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule. We really appreciate it. Okay?

Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome. Pleasure.

Brent: When you asked about these incidents in Senate estimates, what was CASA’s response and did you get the sense that they’re really taking it seriously?

Malcolm Roberts: No, they’re definitely not taking it seriously. Their response echoed or exuded the word indignant. They’re indignant. I’ve asked them many questions about the vaccine injuries, the jab injuries, Fred, and they have been willfully blind, in my opinion. That’s my honest opinion. They have given me nothing. When I first asked about the jabs being mandated by Qantas and Virgin, they said, “Well, that’s their business.” They are responsible for any new medication coming into the airline sector to be tested at low altitude. That has not been done. When I asked them on whose advice they ignored Qantas and Virgin’s jabs, they said, “The experts.” On whose advice did you basically approve the vaccines? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The international experts. I never got a name. They will not take responsibility, that’s why I say they’re willfully blind. And we know from pilots, Fred, that there are many with serious problems.

Brent: Pilots already undergo regular medical checks, but is there a case for adding cardiac screening now, just as a precaution, given what we know post-Covid?

Malcolm Roberts: Yes, and we know that in states, the United States of America, the screening levels were increased considerably just to get more people through. I know from talking to a lawyer who’s helping a whistleblower prosecute Pfizer, that he was told by a Southwest Airlines pilot and Southwest Airlines is the biggest domestic carrier in the United States with about 23% of the market, almost a quarter. They tell me that 1,000 Southwest Airlines pilots failed their medical.

Brent: A thousand?

Malcolm Roberts: A thousand. We worked that out on back of envelopes stuff to be about 5%.

Brent: Gosh.

Malcolm Roberts: 1/20th. So there’s a serious issue, and we’ve heard from Australian pilots that there are people who are damaged who are flying, but they won’t report because they could lose their jobs.

Brent: The U.S. Defence study back in 2021, it raised concerns about myocarditis in young fit people including pilots. Shouldn’t that have been a trigger for more action here? Malcolm?

Malcolm Roberts: Definitely. But no matter what we raised with CASA, they just ignore it. They ignore the regulations about testing, requiring testing of new medications at low pressure, low and [inaudible 00:03:25] high altitude. These are significant rules that they’re just ignoring. They’re not taking responsibility for doing their job. I find CASA and in particular, it’s chief expense to be uncaring, and I don’t think they’re doing their job properly. That’s my honest opinion. They just seem to run away from their responsibilities. She is the top of the heap when it comes to airline safety in this country and she, in my opinion, she’s not behaving responsibly.

Brent: U.S. flight surgeon, Teresa Long sounded early warnings about health, heart risks with these mRNA vaccines. Malcolm, has there been any similar discussion or concern raised by aviation doctors in Australia?

Malcolm Roberts: Pilots have raised it with me. Former pilots who refused to get the jab who still stay in touch with their former colleagues have raised it with me. They’re very, very concerned about this. Very concerned. There have been doctors and pilot officials who’ve raised it with me, as well.

Brent: Do you think the public would be reassured if little word, big meaning, CASA simply looked at a short-term cardiac screening programme for pilots just to be on the safe side of things?

Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And what’s the fear about this? If a pilot is found to be liable or more prone or has a heart problem, then the public is going to be safe, safer by giving him treatment. That’s the first thing. If they find no one at all, and I don’t think that’ll be the case, then at least we’ve had that confirmed and the public can be at ease. But one of the things is they’re afraid to the whole, when I say they, it’s not just CASA, it’s the whole health establishment are afraid to do that because once they find the data themselves, they can’t ignore it, then they’d have to admit to what they did was inhuman by mandating untested, not properly tested vaccines in this country. So people are just burying it. I mean that sincerely. People in the health departments there at state and federal level, health agencies like APRA they’re burying this. They don’t want to.

Brent: So is it fair to say that CASA-

Malcolm Roberts: I hope we’re not going to be burying passengers soon.

Brent: Is it fair to say that CASA is just deliberately covering up myocarditis cases?

Malcolm Roberts: I would say that they’re in group think, they don’t want to admit it and it’s willful blindness. So you interpret that as deliberate in my view, they’re being deliberately negligent, which is deliberately not wanting to look at it because of what they might find, and I don’t think they know it, but medical authorities know that there’s a lot of heart problems with the vaccine with those vaccinated with the Covid shots.

Brent: Senator, this isn’t about panic, is it? It’s about trust.

Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely. It’s about trust, responsibility, and accountability. And the federal government, state government, we have got a problem in this country. The number one issue in this country, Fred, is that there is very low level of accountability. When I square up at Senate estimates, I’m holding them accountable and the liberal and labour governments, which I’ve had experience with both, they’re not on the side of the public. The number one problem in this country is shoddy governance that is based on ignoring the hard data, the hard evidence,

Brent: Trying to dust it away, hide it under the rug, as they say. Look, more transparency and a few extra checks would go a long way in keeping people confident when they simply step on a plane.

Malcolm Roberts: Yes, we’ve had senior pilots telling us that they admittedly retired rather than face the mandates or who voluntarily just refused to accept the mandates. They are very, very concerned and we know that the heart injuries globally from these shots, and it’s not just Astrazeneca, it’s also Moderna, also Pfizer. They have seriously raised a sign, raised the incidence of heart problems.

Brent: No jab and no job. That was the saying during this whole thing. No jab, no job, so we lost lots of excellent pilots. May I ask you, in your experience and the people that you talked to, have you found that because pilots lost their jobs, there’s a shortage of good pilots? Are pilots that didn’t take the jab, are they now getting their jobs back?

Malcolm Roberts: I don’t know. I make statements only based on data and I haven’t got the data with me on that, but I do know, I know the data that we have lost many, many fine nurses, paramedics, ambulancemen, doctors, firees, police officers. We have got some people who deliberately avoided the mandates and stood down or resigned or worse, stood down. We had a bloody nurse pregnant, stood down in January. Some of these places have still got mandates on and it’s basically inhuman. They didn’t test the shots properly, Fred, we know that they didn’t test them, yet, they mandated them and they said basically to people employed in all those industries and services that I just listed, they said basically, “If you want to feed your kids, you’ll get the shots.” That is inhuman. That is just disgraceful.

Brent: Did you say you had a nurse? I just want to repeat this, you had a nurse in January of 2025, she lost her job. Is that right? Because she hadn’t had a jab in 2025.

Malcolm Roberts: Sorry, January, 2024. My mistake. January, 2024.

Brent: Okay.

Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And she was basically suspended at work, off work suspended at various times in the previous three years since the jabs came in, the mandates came in and then they sacked her.

Brent: Gosh, we’ve just got to get rid of these mandates.

Malcolm Roberts: And the injections that were approved provisionally for people in this country, the medical authorities in this country are now saying healthy infants, children’s and adolescents aged less than 18 years of age are not recommended to receive Covid-19 vaccine.

Brent: Absolutely. They’ve changed their mind.

Malcolm Roberts: Yeah, so we’re going to see the TGA, we’re going to see APRA blacklisted from social media like I was suspended for saying exactly that healthy infants, children, adolescents should not be given the shots, I was blacklisted, suspended from social media. Are they going to be suspended? There’s not even a fuss about it. We know that Astrazeneca’s been withdrawn because of the court decision in the United Kingdom.

We need a royal commission. We need a royal commission to get to the bottom of this because there is a lot of lies being told, a lot of inhuman decisions, and now we find out that so many things, the premiers are telling us so many things in the Covid response, a fraudulent Covid response, are wrong and they’re not based on the science. They’ve admitted that, and we knew that because the different states had different approaches and some states had different approaches from one day to the next. They didn’t follow the data. There is no scientific evidence, empirical hard evidence. There’s been no serious testing. Pfizer cancels its tests early because they were killing people in their own test group who’d got the shots, and I asked the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration responsible for provisionally, approving the shots in the first place, what testing they did. Oh, Senator Roberts, we didn’t do any testing. We relied upon the FDA in America, the Food and Drug Administration, which does America’s approvals.

And we knew at that time, Fred, at the time, the TGA told me that, we knew that the FDA had not done any tests and relied purely on Pfizer’s evidence. Pfizer’s evidence, and Pfizer is now being questioned seriously about the efficacy of the test. We’ve had tens of thousands of, let’s be blunt homicides, they are homicides, in this country and millions worldwide homicides because the testing has not been done properly at all. What testing was done was not proper at all. It was very, very brief.

Brent: All right, Malcolm Roberts, we’ll leave it there today. As always, thank you for making yourself available to talk on the Chris Smith morning show. Chris will talk to you again. No doubt. Keep up the good fight, Malcolm.

/2 Comments/by

Federal Police Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.

It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?

It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.

Transcript

CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk. 

Senator ROBERTS:  So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked. 

Senator ROBERTS:  On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment. 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  I haven’t been promoted yet! 

Ms Van Gurp :  Senator, sorry! 

Senator SCARR:  It’s coming now—just hold off! 

Ms Van Gurp :  It’s past my bedtime! 

Senator ROBERTS:  It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot? 

Mr Kershaw :  I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated. 

CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, the AstraZeneca brand. 

CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing. 

CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.  

/4 Comments/by

Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman

, ,

Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?

In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.

We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.

To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.

With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.

A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.

Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.

Tune in for a powerful conversation.

/6 Comments/by

Huge Win! Federal Police to Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

I was surprised and overjoyed to hear that the Australian Federal Police will be dropping their vaccine mandate, which has been in place for more than three years. The facts about COVID vaccines are becoming increasingly clear and hard to ignore.

I only wish they had recognised these facts earlier, sparing their dedicated employees, who want nothing more than to do their jobs properly and with care, the unnecessary hell they faced.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This is just a comment in your support that’s not requiring an answer. You have police stationed overseas as well, so it’s a far-ranging jurisdiction. Is it fair to say that a lot of your officers might be working harder to cover more work than they used to?

Ms Van Gurp: Certainly, the complexity and volume of our work is up; that’s correct. We put a lot of effort into our operational prioritisation through our A-TACC and how we prioritise our workforce resources across those changing priorities day-to-day to make sure that we’re delivering outcomes for the Australian community.

Senator ROBERTS: You mandated compulsory COVID vaccinations through the commissioner’s order 10 in 2021, and you reiterated it in 2022. In 2024, you’re still mandating it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s not needed or necessary. Why are you still forcing good people who want to do good police work to sit on the sidelines over what they choose to put in their body?

Ms Gale: I might start the response and then hand over to the acting chief operating officer again. What I would say in relation to that particular policy, which is currently a commissioner order, is that we are in the process of revoking that particular order. The COO can talk to the governance arrangements that we’ll be undertaking while we go about the process of revocation, but I can assure you that we are in the process of revoking that particular order.

Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like a decision has been made.

Ms Gale: Yes.

/4 Comments/by