Yesterday I spoke to support an amendment to the Workplace Health and Safety Bill that made it illegal to discriminate against someone on their Covid-19 vaccination status.

Yet again the amendment failed to get up because Labor and the Greens voted against it.

What’s astonishing about this is that the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison himself said this week that Covid vaccine mandates were never recommended by the Federal Health Department outside of Health settings.

So why are politicians, bureaucrats and companies still mandating them. It’s certainty not because of health reasons is it?

Chamber: Senate on 9/03/2023
Item: BILLS – Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2022 – In Committee
Speaker: Rennick, Sen Gerard

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (12:49): I would like to talk to this amendment, and I start by noting that just this week former prime minister and the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, said that when he was prime minister the advice was that mandates weren’t advised in any setting other than health settings. The question is: why do we have mandates and why are employers imposing mandates that weren’t actually the advice of the government medical authorities themselves? That in itself shows that these mandates are completely unnecessary. We have also got evidence from the FDA. They themselves admitted in November 2020 that there is no evidence the actual vaccines stopped transmission. We’ve subsequently found out that they not only didn’t stop transmission but haven’t stopped infection. What is the purpose of discriminating against people in the workplace if it doesn’t actually stop people from getting sick?

If you look at the initial outbreak of COVID and COVID generally, the people who were most at risk were older people who weren’t working. In the working-age population, where people are healthy, there is a very low risk of actually getting seriously ill from COVID. Why have we gone out and imposed all these draconian mandates, the lockdowns, the border closures and everything like that happened earlier on? Why are we still here in March 2023, two years after the start of the vaccine rollout, imposing these mandates? They are completely pointless. Not only are they completely pointless; they are cruel and unnecessarily because for the last 18 months, from late October onwards, I have daily received messages from people who have been injured by the vaccine.

A lot of these injuries are in people who were healthy and young and would not necessarily have become seriously ill from COVID. There are also people who had pre-existing conditions—and I’m referring to Natalie Boyce who had an antiphospholipid condition and was at risk from taking the vaccine because the vaccine uses phospholipids both in its lipid nanoparticle that encapsulates the spike protein, or the mRNA that coats the spike protein, and yet again, when it crosses the cell membrane, the cell membrane is also made up of phospholipid. We know that when these trials were carried out, they weren’t performed on people who had immune conditions, so it is a great risk. We’re putting healthy working people at great risk by imposing mandates on them.

I might add that a lot of these mandates are out of date because a lot of workplaces are saying you can actually still work for them if you’ve had two shots. There are people who would have got two shots back in August to November 2021, and even if you look at the initial trial data it was only good for about 35 days, so their immunity from the vaccine is no longer relevant anyway. A lot of these mandates are just in place for the sake of imposing power, command and control, rather than actually doing anything substantial.

I note that Senator Chisholm said we have proper protections in place around the COVID vaccine. I want to touch on this nonclinical evaluation report yet again, for the umpteenth time, because it seems to me that people in this chamber don’t actually want to read it. If you actually read it, you would see how pointless these vaccine mandates are. The one that I think is really important to start off with is that in their trials it was shown that there is an almost similar microscopic lung inflammation observed in both challenge control and immunised animals after peak of infections at day 7, day 8. In other words, they knew from the get-go that there is no difference between those animals that were vaccinated and those animals that weren’t.

Let’s have a look at the risk we’re taking here. We know what the risk from COVID is because we have about three years of data now and we know there is a very low risk of people under 60 in the healthy working-age population actually getting seriously ill from COVID. Here’s the risk we are taking, if we go on the initial trial data: there was no distribution or degradation data on the antigen-encoding mRNA.

In other words, we have gone and used an entirely new form of vaccine and we’ve coded the mRNA inside the lipid nanoparticle codes for a spike protein. But they never tested how quickly it degrades in the body or how far it travels throughout the body. And that’s very, very important, for a couple of reasons, because the normal vaccine will stay in the shoulder, because it’s a much, much larger protein.

I mean, I know the word gets thrown around a lot—the lipid nanoparticle—but it actually does mean something. It’s one billionth—one to the power of negative nine. That is a very small molecule. What that means is that it can cross the endothelium, get into your bloodstream and then travel throughout your body. We know that because this paper shows, on page 44, increases throughout nearly all the body organs. I’ll just concentrate on one of them. In women’s ovaries, the concentration doubled from day one to day two, and then they stopped the trial. Women are born with only one set of eggs, oocytes, and they get inherited. They’re passed on by generation.

So, to recklessly impose this on our children is incredibly risky. Yet again, weigh it up against the risks of COVID to children, whom we know have very few ace receptors on their cell, versus the risk of what this can do. And this is the other thing about this product: this product uses transfection. Unlike most natural organisms or molecules in the body, they can cross the cell membrane only with either the use of an enzyme or the use of an ion channel.

Senator RENNICK: No, no, no: this vaccine was designed—and this is where the 30 years of research went in—with the lipid nanoparticle to cross the cell membrane without having to use an enzyme or an ion channel. What that showed in here was that you’ve now got 60 to 80 per cent of infection of all cells in all organs, okay? So your normal vaccine, your antibodies—you’ll get the antigens in your shoulder, and your antibodies will come in and they’ll kill the foreign body in your shoulder. In this particular pathway, they are giving you a vaccine that travels throughout your body, can enter any cell, and then it’ll take over your cell’s ribosomes, which are part of the organelles inside the cell, that will produce the protein, a spike protein. That will induce an autoimmune response. It’ll create both B cells and T cells. Now, your B cells are okay; they’re helper cells—they create antibodies to fight antigens. But your T cells are known as killer cells. They come in and they kill your own healthy cells. Yet again, we’re exposing people to this risk that is completely unnecessary.

But not only is it completely unnecessary; it’s incredibly dangerous if it goes wrong. Now, it won’t happen to everyone, because the fact of the matter is that this product had to be stored at negative 70 degrees. We know how much of the mRNA was degraded by the time it left the TGA: about 40 per cent. If you look at the batch results, about 40 per cent of the mRNA had already been degraded by the time it left the TGA. So, I can assure you that by the time it gets on the back of a truck and goes across the Australian roads, or it’s sitting in some esky out at Bunnings, most of it’s degraded. So, consider yourself lucky if you got it and you didn’t get sick. But if you’re one of those people who got a proper shot of it—and when I say ‘shot of it’, that also is a bit of Russian roulette, because they put five doses in one vial—that, again is how risky? Very risky, because fats don’t necessarily emulsify evenly. If you read the instructions, you’ll know that you’ve got to sit there and you’ve got to tip this little vial up and down 10 times, but you can’t shake it, because you’ll degrade the mRNA, so you’ve got to do this slowly.

Do you think they were doing this slowly in Bunnings when there was a queue for the football? I would doubt it. But if you’re unlucky and, say, they don’t turn it upside down 10 times and let it emulsify properly, and you just happen to get the fatty bit on top which has got the actual lipid nanoparticle, you could get the hot shot; you could get all five doses in one. Then again, you could also get another random element to this, which is—if you actually read this document—the size of the lipid nanoparticle was between 45 nanometres and 180 nanometres. In other words, there is a variance within that lipid nanoparticle of 450 per cent. I mean, what sort of quality control is this?

So, I would ask that people do support this amendment. People have a right to choose what goes into their body and they shouldn’t be the playthings of unaccountable pharmaceuticals and bureaucrats.

Source –