Mater’s Musings #34: Bait and Switch

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:

Ref: Hansard

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.

20 thoughts on “Mater’s Musings #34: Bait and Switch”

  1. Thanks mater, great post.
    Australians have no idea what Australia has become.
    When was this amendment passed ?
    Where could one find the voting record of who was for/against/abstain/absent.


    Report comment

    9
  2. It might be justifiable, might, if the vaccines actually worked and did no harm. But they clearly do not prevent transmission and lose their effectiveness after just two months. And I suspect due to their biochemistry that they produce a lot of subclinical effects in the body that will not be clear for years.

    Then we have seen the completely unjustified banning of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which arguably are even more effective than the vaccines and which are very safe, being on the WHO Essential Medicines list.

    Why is all this happening? I just don’t know. It seems insane.


    Report comment

    24
  3. I’m all for provisional approval.
    If usage is all about a person & their GP making the decision to use it.
    And they know the risks.

    But the provisional approval for vaccines that are then effectively mandatory for huge parts of the population.
    Covered by an indemnity against all adverse reactions?

    It’s fucking dystopian.


    Report comment

    27
  4. I’m all for provisional approval.
    If usage is all about a person & their GP making the decision to use it.
    And they know the risks.

    Yes. I’ve said it in a previous post. I’ve had cancer, and I support the concept.
    It is being abused.

    It’s becoming clear that the drafting of our legislation has been rather loose because we made assumptions about the quality/humanity of our politicians and society. Clearly we must tighten it up significantly in the future and make it far more prescriptive, in order to avoid abuse.

    When considering any new legislation or law, a good rule would be to imagine it in the hands of the most evil person you know, and then imagine what he or she could do to you with it. If it sends a shiver down your spine, tighten it up, or discard it.


    Report comment

    19
  5. 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.

    I think it’s a manifestation, in part, of the “god complex” a lot of these so called elites have.


    Report comment

    18
  6. Hydroxychloroquine was provisionally approved in March 2020 then removed in June 2020 because it was causing serious heart issues.
    didn’t work for Allen West btw

    And?
    Was he forced to take it?


    Report comment

    15
  7. Hydroxychloroquine was provisionally approved in March 2020 then removed in June 2020 because it was causing serious heart issues.
    didn’t work for Allen West btw

    And?


    Report comment

    7
  8. Nice unbiased article there, notaclue.
    Nobody ever claimed HCQ or IVM were 100% effective and they need to be used with other drugs. In this case, were they?
    The heart issues with HCQ is a furphy. They used it late in treatment of seriously ill patients in known toxic doses. The study was set up to fail deliberately.


    Report comment

    22
  9. Mater

    When considering any new legislation or law, a good rule would be to imagine it in the hands of the most evil person you know, and then imagine what he or she could do to you with it. If it sends a shiver down your spine, tighten it up, or discard it.

    A variant on the old adage, “Never pass a law that you would not want your political opponents to administer”?


    Report comment

    13
  10. Providing a Google search result in lieu of a structured argument, with that Google result not saying what the poster thinks it means.

    Now where have I seen that before?


    Report comment

    4
  11. a family member is an infectious diseases specialist.

    at about day zero that person raided every pharmacy inside a 50km radius

    something about hydroxy-chloroform?

    then all of a sudden according to rosie, he was wrong


    Report comment

    9
  12. I think it is important to look at the understanding and intent of the lawmakers who ushered it into the statute books.

    I think it’s important to look at the lawmakers who excepted themselves from their mandatory rulings made for us 3rd class citizens.


    Report comment

    7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *