I know I’ve touched on this topic in a previous post, but as Winston Churchill said:
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.”
This is a direct cut and paste from the Therapeutic Goods Regulations:
Part (2) is a new addition to the latest version of the Regulations. Inserted specifically to cater to the new ‘vaccines’…obviously!
You’ll notice that it has removed, amongst other things, the requirement to provide “preliminary clinical data demonstrating that the medicine is likely to provide a major therapeutic advance”, as long as the medicine is designed to treat or prevent COVID-19.
That leaves us with pretty much only one requirement to get Provisional Registration for a COVID vaccine…a plan to collect and provide safety and efficacy data at some point in the next 6 years, after it’s been unleashed on the public.
Unbelievable that such a low bar can be set for something now being effectively made mandatory, but wait…
If there is no longer a need to demonstrate “that the medicine is likely to provide a major therapeutic advance”, why has Ivermectin been banned for treating COVID based on the claim that:
The head of Australia’s pharmaceutical regulator said there is no credible evidence ivermectin works to prevent or treat COVID-19.ABC Morning Show
Surely someone can provide Professor Skerritt with a plan to collect data over the next 6 years?