I was speaking to a Health Professional the other day (one who is very preoccupied with reading medical papers), and it evolved into a friendly discussion about the vaccines and the mandate. It’s rare that such discussions remain civil nowadays, but he clearly didn’t support mandating medical procedures, so it was fruitful and light-hearted. What did surprise me from the discussion was that he was initially under the impression that at least one of the vaccines was Fully Approved by the TGA.
In case you’re unaware, all of them are still but ‘Provisionally Approved’. If a medical professional is this ill-informed, is the government REALLY providing sufficient information to the general public? If the public were to know, would they appreciate what it means?
A judge in New Zealand recently ruled that Provisional and Fully Approved Therapeutics were equally valid when it came to vaccine mandates.
This brings us to the essential question of why the Provisional Approval pathway was introduced into the Therapeutic Goods Act in the first place. I think it is important to look at the understanding and intent of the lawmakers who ushered it into the statute books. Here is one of the speeches (by Senator POLLEY) accompanying the amendment:
There are some brutal truths in this speech which does no favour for the situation we find ourselves in or the way in which the provision is being wielded.
The potential risks must, however, be weighed against the potential benefits. In many situations it is the patients themselves who must weigh up these risks and benefits, hopefully with the guidance of health professionals.
Senator Helen POLLEY
Unfortunately, the privilege of weighing up these risks and benefits has been removed from our purview. Health professionals no longer provide merely guidance.
Recognising that these medicines are based on early clinical data, it’s important that doctors, health professionals and, most importantly, patients fully understand and appreciate the risks involved.
Senator Helen POLLEY
Most people don’t (because the government would prefer it that way), but even if they do, does it matter when a mandate is in force?
With access to a medicine being given without the level of clinical data that would normally be provided, it is foreseeable that new information will show some of these medicines to be less effective than first thought, and there may be greater or new risks that weren’t known at the time.
Senator Helen POLLEY
Sounds like a great scenario in which to force the treatment on people, doesn’t it?
There will be strict conditions under which a medicine will be available through the provisional approval pathway. It will be for patients with unmet clinical needs for serious health conditions.
Senator Helen POLLEY
Strict conditions alright…YOU MUST HAVE IT! Do healthy people have “unmet clinical needs for serious health conditions”?
Let’s even forget, for a minute, that the standard criteria for the Provisional Pathway were bastardised and further abridged to cater specifically for the passage of these vaccines. If anyone seriously believes that this pathway was intended for, or is in any way an appropriate method to introduce mandate revolutionary, unproven vaccines, please, I beg you, send me a pound of whatever it is that you’re smoking or snorting. Frankly, I could do with the relief! Ignorance is bliss, even if it’s chemically induced.
No, this is an incredible abuse of legislative power.
Just as Health Order’s were really only envisaged to isolate small, infected pockets of our communities, for the good of public health, the ‘Provisional Approval’ pathway was clearly only intended to provide hope for dying and doomed ‘patients’ for whom no amount of risk was unacceptable. Both instruments have been abused beyond what could have been imagined…outside of the evilest of minds.
We must not forget the cavalier attitude that politicians of all persuasions have adopted towards our health, our choices, our freedoms.
Leave a Reply