On the Open Thread, Makka says: October 16, 2021 at 9:27 am
“The fact is most people threw their lot in with the Man long ago. Credit cards, mortgages, the o/seas holidays, keeping up with the Joneses. Debt up to the eyeballs. To service it there can be no interruption whatsoever to income. Then there is the family ties spread across the wide brown land. That’s life as we know it and for it to continue the turds governing us know the vast majority will comply just to get on with it. The bud has blossomed and died long ago.”
In maybe 2014, I woke one morning with a premonition. Well, a hunch … or maybe a clue.
Why are so many Australian’s so keen to be part of a medical trial? A question for the ages, right?
The answer is simple: they probably don’t know they are.
Let’s start with the mother of all lies from our very own Health Department.
What utter bullshit!
A ‘Full Assessment’ (as most people would understand it) would result in a ‘Full Approval’ – not a shortcut Provisional Approval.
As for, “This is the same process as any vaccine approved in this country”, I’m left speechless that they think they can get away with such lies. This is almost ‘Actionable’.
Let’s go to our noble Health Minister:
There’s that ‘Full and Thorough’ bullshit again.
Hint Greg: you are either lying or being lied to. Either way, get a grip of it and start telling the truth to those who pay you. Start understanding the risk involved before allowing mandated vaccinations to continue.
And as for our fearless Press:
Dear God, “Full Approval”! Another outright lie. The weasel words around Emergency Approvals is just the gravy on top. I guess you can’t inform your readers that our Provisional Approval is the equivalent of their Emergency Approval if you’ve just told them that the vaccines have Full Approval.
Wonder no more why a good portion of the populace are calling the hesitant “Anti-Vaxxers”, “Anti-Science” and other assorted goodies. They have no idea what’s going on, by design. Those who they should be able to trust, are just outright lying to them.
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.
“The question was posed much more narrowly. It was not why were we jailed?
Nor why did those who remained free tolerate this lawlessness?
Everyone knows that they didn’t realize what was going on, that they simply believed (the party) that if whole peoples are banished in the space of twenty-four hours, those peoples must be guilty. The question is a different one: Why did we in the camps, where we did realize what was going on, suffer hunger, bend our backs, put up with it all, instead of fighting back? The others, who had never marched under escort, who had the free use of their arms and legs, could be forgiven for not fighting – they couldn’t, after all, sacrifice their families, their positions, their wages, their authors’ fees. They’re making up for it now by publishing critical reflections in which they reproach us for clinging to our rations instead of fighting, when we had nothing to lose.
But I have all along been leading up to my answer to this question. The reason why we put up with it all in the camps is that there was no public opinion outside.
What conceivable ways has the prisoner of resisting the regime to which he is subjected? Obviously, they are:
So, then, it is obvious to anybody, as the Great Deceased liked to say (and if it isn’t, we’ll ram it into him), that if the first two have some force (and if the jailers fear them), it is only because of public opinion! Without that behind us we can protest and fast as much as we like, and they will laugh in our faces!
It is a very dramatic way of obtaining your demands – standing before the prison authorities and tearing open your shirt, as Dzerzhinsky did. But only where public opinion exists. Without it-you’ll be gagged with the tatters, and pay for a government issue shirt into the bargain!”
–Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, ‘The Gulag Archipelago’, Vol 3, p93
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.
From March 2018 (obviously before Covid), NSW Health has had a policy of ‘Mandatory’ vaccination for Category A healthcare workers. Agree or disagree with the policy, it must be said that at least they apply the policy equally to those who can’t have it, and those who won’t have it. At least on paper.
It’s an irrefutable fact that, regardless of the reason, a person who is unable to have a vaccination represents an equal risk to someone who refuses to have it. Equal application of the policy demonstrates an honest commitment to the stated intent, that of limiting the spread of Influenza within the health system. It demonstrates that the motivation is genuinely preventative in nature.
Compare this with the proposed medical apartheid that is being proposed in various jurisdictions around the country. What is going to be the situation with those who are medically unable to receive a Covid vaccination? Are they going to be given a pass, whilst the Refuseniks are held at arm’s length from mainstream society? I think the answer will be revealing as to the true motivation of the policy.
If it’s genuinely about prevention, everyone not vaccinated will be treated equally. If it’s a punitive measure, some pigs will be more equal than others.
I think I know the answer, but good luck to the Premiers navigating this one.
“Is there a complexity to verifying the actual cause of death?”
Professor Brett Sutton (Victorian Chief Health Officer):
“Not necessarily. So, for deaths from coronavirus, anyone who’s a confirmed case who dies is classified amongst coronavirus deaths. So it doesn’t have to be definitively from coronavirus, and in some instances, you know, in aged care, there would’ve been some residents who were already receiving palliative care who became infected with coronavirus so it’s not definitive about whether they’ve died with or from coronavirus. I think it’s fair to say that coronavirus is a very serious infection in anyone in aged care, but for classification purposes, and reporting purposes, that’s the definition.“
“Is the data, for what it’s worth – I know it’s stripped of a lot of the normal warnings that you put on this data and the explanations of the data. But is the data correct as far as it goes?”
Professor John Skerritt (Deputy Secretary of the Therapeutic Goods Administration):
“Well, without the explanation, it’s quite misleading. So what it says is that 495 people have had reports given to us that there was a death, sometime, days or perhaps a week or so after they had a COVID vaccine. Now, as you know, thankfully more and more people every day are being vaccinated. And sadly, in Australia, 170,000 people die every year, 3250 Australians die every single week. And so, it’s not surprising that two days after, say, a Pfizer vaccine, some people will die, the same way two days after going and seeing a doctor about something totally unrelated, they will die or two days after catching a bus. So really, it’s not the cause and effect thing. And when we’ve looked at cause and effect, we believe that there’s a total of nine reports of deaths that can be associated to vaccines, and this is against a background of 20 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines being given in Australia. Nine out of 20 million doses.”
Queensland Health has released guidance on attributing Death to the Covid Vaccines, complete with numerous examples:
“While death following COVID-19 vaccination is not an expected outcome of health care, in practice not all post-vaccination deaths will be vaccine-related but rather as a result of the person’s underlying health conditions. This document seeks to provide guidance for medical practitioners when certifying cause of death when a person has recently had a COVID-19 vaccine.”
It makes you wonder how those 800 odd elderly Victorian ‘Covid’ deaths, around August last year, might have looked had such clear and generous guidance been published.
Would the general public still be stupefied with fear?