Tony Nikolic

‘Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely – may be pursued too keenly – may cost too much.’ (Spigelman, 2004).

Has this statement by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce in 1846 become the principle to which governments, health regulators, and the pharmaceutical industry proclaim?

Well, perhaps Dr Kerryn Phelps and her wife, in their disclosure just before Christmas 2022 admitting that they had suffered severe side effects from their Covid vaccines, would agree. But why are we no longer seeing the daily media parade at 11 am from Health Ministers, regulators, and fringe-dwelling health bureaucrats with little to no clinical experience with Covid addressing the serious adverse effects and deaths from vaccines?

If we recall, government Ministers and bureaucrats across the country all marched to the beat of the same drum – get vaccinated as the alternative of being ostracised. Losing your livelihood and being publicly ridiculed was too much for the majority. We could not move outside a 5km radius, work, or visit loved ones for fear of transmitting the virus unless we were injected. Strangely the Supreme Court held that this was not coercion, because apparently you had a choice as to whether you wanted to work or travel outside the ‘5km bubble’, but of course, this was predicated on whether you had the jab.

Daily briefings similar to a kindergarten roll call for Australians became a generic message about the importance of addressing Covid in the community with no response to genuine concerns from those seeking relevant, accurate, and scientifically proven data.

It is ironic that given we are entering the third year of the Covid era, Public Health Officials continue to use the only two weapons in the fight against the continual increase in Covid Infections: facemasks and further boosters for prior injections that did not stop transmission, hospitalisations, or deaths.

Meanwhile, antivirals with decades of safety data are now being prescribed despite being made previously illegal and/or banned by regulators, all in an effort to socially construct a perception that the only thing that could save humanity was an untested mRNA injection. Or was this to ensure the Bio Security Act 2015 (Commonwealth) was complied with, ensuring that ‘no other medications were available’, thereby perceivably justifying a national campaign of social and medical coercion? I will leave this logical conundrum for you to grapple with, as many still need help understanding this line of reasoning.

Could the flood of experimental vaccines mandated upon the Australian population have, in effect, put ordinary Australians on trial? Greg Hunt, the former Federal Health Minister, said of the Pfizer and other Covid injections, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ (Roberts, 2022) I would go further and say, in history…

The phrase ‘on trial’ does not solely relate to being tried in a court of law. It can apply when a government observes people to see whether they succeed or fail. It seems that government priorities now depend on getting people to act differently through enforced compliance whilst reducing transparency and accountability measures. (Shergold, 2007; Boughey, 2021)

One could assume that following the rollout of the injections, there are now two groups of people:

  1. Those who complied with the government’s policy to get injected; and 
  2. Those that have now been put on Santa’s naughty list. In return, they cannot work or engage in what was normal life free from government intervention, harassment and, in some cases, State-sponsored police brutality, similar to that of paramilitary organisation exacting extra curial punishment for not complying with the edicts of their grand masters. 

Reminiscent of Trofim Lysenko (Lysenkoism), whose maligned ideological influence dominated biology in the Soviet Union, Lysenko, like the health bureaucrats of today, owe their ascendancy to the repeated promises of fear, doom, and insecurity, topics that worked well in Marxist-driven society.

As Lysenko’s power grew, he smothered scientific debate despite the fact that his strategy was and remains an epic failure. He crushed all opposition by deploying the State’s apparatuses to censor, intimidate, arrest, and execute scientists until the only scientists left standing were those who sold their souls to the Lysenkoism doctrine.

The result was the development of an ideology-based pseudo-science (a mere semblance of science wrapped in politics, State-run media marketing, and ideology) that did not base itself on evidence. Instead, ideology was enforced through coercion and paramilitary doctrines. State apparatuses such as Courts (if one made it to the court) were not there to hear the evidence; rather, they were used to sanitise the public record and act as gatekeepers of truth, holding back knowledge. They held back knowledge using State-sponsored experts rewarded through promotions for their loyal adherence to the cause.

The Lysenko phenomenon is the most extreme but by no means the only example of the perversion of science by ideology (as seen in Germany during the second world war and later prosecuted through Nuremberg), often with the acquiescence of the scientific community. Over the past three years, legislation has been introduced to silence medical practitioners/scientists in California (USA) and Queensland (Australia), which does not give us confidence that nothing of the kind could happen today in what used to be legally obliged participatory democracies. Perhaps the parliamentary Ministers and health bureaucrats during Covid have aligned themselves with this doctrine…?

It is apparent that politicians and so-called experts had not seen any scientific data to support their claim that the vaccines were safe and effective because we know now that the manufacturer did not have this data. So, what evidence did ATAGI, State-sponsored experts, and the TGA rely on to approve these vaccines if the manufacturer did not have that data available? The TGA states on its website:

Before any Covid-19 vaccine is approved for use in Australia, it will be subject to the well-established and rigorous assessment and approval processes of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

One of the most poignant examples relates to the experts and high-level politicians all over Australia and the world stating that the science supported their claims when in fact, no such science existed.

We heard many notable prominent people go on the public record and state (words to the effect), ‘if you get vaccinated you will not get the virus’ or ‘get vaccinated to save your grandmother and family’.

Well, all you have to do is refer to the statement of Greg Hunt above relating to the World’s biggest ‘clinical trial’. So who is telling fibs? The manufacturer, doctors, health bureaucrats, and/or politicians? Or, is this a well-coordinated program where it is the consumer who must work out the dangers as to who is responsible (similar to the Abbott and Costello movie): ‘Who’s on first? No… Who is on second!’ Or will the doctors and injectors be thrown under the bus and held to account under the learned intermediary doctrine (LID)?

The Lysenko affair stands as a classic example of how politics can corrupt and undermine the rational, proven approach of the evidence-based scientific method. Subtle subversion of the scientific method occurs at many levels, but as with Lysenko, there must be a root and branch adoption by the highest institutions of power to ensure that the burden of proof for the ‘commoner’ is perceivably futile. And those who question the ideology are publicly ridiculed by the Fourth Estate (media) and reprimanded for daring to challenge ‘their’ agenda with evidence.

The traditional common law method of induction in our legal system is the principle of a fair trial (Spigelman, 2004) yet, according to Phelps in her recent submission to Parliament:

The burden of proof seems to have been placed on the vaccine injured.’ (Phelps, 2022)

I too have written previously about the burden of proof being shifted so far that the consumer must prove a product or medical device is dangerous rather than well-resourced multi-national pharmaceutical companies to prove they are safe. In simple legal terms, the bar is so high, it is difficult for anyone to suggest that any future plaintiffs may have a fair hearing.

The High Court has provided an opinion relating to the burden of proof and how it can be managed in Kuczborski v Queensland (2014) inter alia, in which it was noted that the Parliament may reverse the onus of proof, but will this be enough if its interpretation is misguided?

For people to have confidence in any system, it needs to be perceived as open, balanced, transparent, and operate without fear or favour; this is something that has yet to occur because all we have seen is censorship, exclusion, ridicule, and propaganda which is creating the impression of an alternate reality, one where truth has been manipulated to become misinformation, and misinformation has become truth.

Many may not be aware from the Kassam Judgement that 6,000 individual patient medical records, 50 per cent vaccinated and 50 per cent not vaccinated were before the court. Of the 6,000, only four people passed away due to advanced Covid (that is, they arrived at the hospital too late). More telling is that Dr Bryan Tyson provided the (anti-viral) treatment protocol to the Supreme Court of NSW that assisted the remaining patients (5,996) in recovering. Yet the State expert Prof Kristine Macartney was declared an impressive witness even though Prof Macartney conceded that she had never treated a Covid patient. Still, we know that this was a golden opportunity for the administrative bodies to take notice for the sake of community safety, but did they? Indeed, the mystery of Lysenko’s Australian-adopted science continues to evade logic.

Evidence is now emerging from NSW Health data indicating that it is the jabbed presenting high levels of hospital admissions. The media have not hyped the message that the unjabbed may not be at significant risk, but the data is telling if anyone decides to examine it closely without bias

Almost 18 months later from the plaintiffs in Kassam adducing evidence and placing their stake in the sand, documents emerged from Pfizer revealing this untold truth to all that there was neverany research to support the experts making representations that the injections reduced or stopped transmission; a topic very quickly deflected or ignored in the legacy media networks. Indeed, Australia’s chief health officers conceded they had never read the Pfizer nonclinical report, so where on earth did experts and politicians get their information from if it was not the manufacturer?

Perhaps government experts should have called upon the Kassam plaintiffs’ experts, who had demonstrated extraordinary insight when they made submissions in the NSW Supreme Court to Chief Justice Beech-Jones at CL that lockdowns do not stop transmission, nor does the Covid injection provide lasting immunity or stop transmission rates, thereby rendering any lockdowns and fines nugatory and legally unreasonable. However, anyone questioning such anomalies were labelled ‘anti-vaxxer’, a bullying term that strangely also attaches to those who have been vaccine injured.

But who benefits from this forced clinical trial – Big Pharma! Perhaps this is why the burden of proof has shifted from the manufacturer to the consumer. Or could this be a military operation whereby the military, acting as prime movers, deployed vaccines as militaristic countermeasures against a perceived biological attack? (Altman et al, 2022). In either case, both do not accord with transparent democratic processes and appear to contravene the Nuremberg code. The court created this code (U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial) to combat gross institutionalised overreach and mass experimentation on populations. It has become clear that there are apparent complexities associated with institutions providing a balanced approach to accessing information to allow consumers to meet the burden of proof.

Presently the consumer has an insurmountable task to establish any causal link between injury or death. Rather than engaging in an adversarial struggle with the opponent, they find themselves battling a government-sponsored ideology promulgated by the legacy media that places pressure on institutions to toe the line, thereby unreasonably shifting the burden of proof on the consumer. Perhaps next, we will see the vehicle manufacturers rely on consumers to do their own car crash tests, too; only time will tell.

By virtue of the preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof has been switched so much that it has legally muzzled the consumer/patient/doctors, and scientists in what should be a balanced system governed by the Rule of Law. Even where a consumer may seek information, it is often an unreasonably tedious and costly threshold because it is difficult for a consumer to gain access to the data under Freedom of Information laws. A sentiment shared by Sir Anthony Mason (2007), who stated: ‘The Freedom of Information Act 1982 had proven to be a “substantial disappointment.’

This has placed a disproportionate disadvantage on individuals who cannot have confidence in a system perceived to be broken by the significant erosion of certain key administrative institutions and values. Some of these issues involve the institutions of government withholding key documents such as vaccine procurement contracts from the public or the documents relating to the discussions of the National Cabinet meetings about the federal and state government rollout of jabs.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has been able to establish with governments a special type of privilege within the legal system, which has made it very difficult for consumers to demonstrate that vaccines (along with many other pharmaceuticals) can ever be at fault for anything.

This privilege often carried through lobbying and grants, has been aided to a great extent by medical regulatory bodies such as the TGA and APHRA, silencing those that seek to question or challenge the increasing concerns surrounding the safety and efficacy of these drugs. (Burger, 2020)

These facts raise a very relevant question as to whether the onus of proof has shifted to such an extent that pharmaceutical companies are just ‘too big to fail’ or is it just part of a counterfeit business plan where million-dollar settlements are factored into the business plan – yes! Preempted.

Without engaging in litigation and risking costs orders, consumers are held hostage by an almost prohibitive costs regime restricting access in matters of significant public interest. Perhaps this is the goal of Lysenkoism, or perhaps not? The same cannot be said for multi-national companies who are prepared to defend their special privileges at any cost!

Australians like Phelps and many others before her, who fell into line to take their shots, are suffering. Many only took their shots to save their jobs, but now they are still waiting for compensation. All over the world, millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions are living with severe adverse reactions, including the suspected deaths of ‘children’. These people are not just statistics in some database – no, they are human beings, family members, and loved ones that deserve to be heard, but is it an uncanny coincidence that cases coming before Courts ‘globally’ appear to be dismissed often with adverse costs orders, despite the laser-focused temporal correlations being evident?

Individuals now face difficulties after suffering a vaccine-related injury. Many Australians are still awaiting compensation after more than one year of lodging their report to the TGA. Indeed, a forensic pathologist report of patient (X) (also tendered in the Kassam case) directly linked a vaccine to the death of a 51-year-old father. This family is still waiting for compensation and still waiting for the TGA to list the death on their public website. Perhaps these delays are not intentional due to a large number of reports that have clogged the system. But suppose the daily media parades announcing the deaths of the elderly with comorbidities on the hour were sufficient, then why are we not seeing the same treatment for those injured by the so-called vaccine or gene therapy now?

Has the ‘pat on the back’ given to many Australians from the government for complying with their policy to get vaccinated become a ‘slap in the face’?

As suggested in the journal articles reviewed, what is becoming increasingly clearer is that the experts claiming boosters improve protection against the XBB variant may be the ones engaging in disinformation, and this squarely places them at potential risk of breaching the California and Queensland legislation relating to disinformation.

Why were government officials left in the dark if the Kassam plaintiffs knew this truth from publicly available scientific data 18 months ago? This is clear, the state of scientific knowledge was available in 2020, and by the time Kassam went to the hearing, that knowledge had progressed sufficiently to provide protections for Australian citizens. But, this was not to be. Since our letter dated July 7, 2021, to Brad Hazzard and Co in response to community concerns about the safety and efficacy of the various Covid vaccines, we have unfortunately seen these numbers increase considerably. We raised questions relating to the conduct of some of Australia’s highest institutions, such as the TGA and AHPRA, aligned universities, and health bureaucrats all vying for research grants and recognition.

Our letter, written before vaccine-related injuries and deaths were as bad as they are now, clearly articulated these risks and essentially puts politicians and courts on notice. We are still waiting for a response from the government addressing these concerns.

Sadly, many Australian citizens have paid the ultimate price as a result, and many families were unaware of the true state of scientific knowledge because it was censored, ridiculed, and shunned. Although a clear vindication of the Kassam plaintiff’s position is on the cards, it is too late for many families who have lost loved ones, something we warned would occur. However, there are many courageous and ethically minded senators and politicians from all over the world, such as Senators Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic, Malcolm Roberts, Matt Canavan, Ralph Babet, Pauline Hanson, Craig Kelly (former MP), Senator Rand Paul, Rob Johnson (USA), and European parliamentarians who have continually voiced concerns over the manner in which the injections were rolled out across their respective continents.

Lawyers from around the world have united, strongly driven by perceived injustices against humanity, such as Aaron Siri, Thomas Renz, and Reiner Fuellmich et al., and have launched actions and continue to do their duty to ensure the Rule of Law is followed internationally.

Lessons learnt over the past few years have taught us that the idea of informed and valid consent has become a thing of the past with relentless labelling of people as ‘anti-vaxxers’ that chose to seek information about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. In fact, what Dr Kerryn Phelps and others injured by the vaccine have come to know is that in exchange for speaking out about their vaccine injury, they are rubber-stamped as anti-vaxxers, the go-to attack line by the captured legacy media.

We have been directly involved with matters concerning long-serving police members (without disciplinary records) who have been dismissed from employment for electing, under their ‘informed consent rights’, not to comply with the Commissioner’s Direction to be vaccinated. These hardworking Police Officers, who only 12 months earlier were labelled heroes, cannot find employment in other industries, such as the security industry, because the Commissioner has sacked them for misconduct and classified them as not having sufficient ‘integrity’. Minister Paul Whelan MP, in his second reading speech to Parliament, on November 13, 1996, said:

The vast majority of police are, of course, hardworking and honest. They are constantly let down by the corrupt and incompetent. It is essential that these undesirable elements are removed to allow talent to blossom and performance to improve.’

He further stated:

The government recognises that the authority to terminate employment under the Commissioner’s confidence provisions vests considerable power in the Commissioner … checks, and balances are required to ensure that it is only used as it is meant to be, and is neither exceeded nor abused.’

Whilst we deeply respect our Police forces, I merely point out that Lysenkoism appears to be thriving in Australia in 2023.

Similar to Maoist China we have also seen Fair Work Commission members sent into reeducation for towing the party line. One stark example is Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd[2021] FWCFB 6015 Deputy President Lyndell Dean stated that mandatory immunisation could not be justified in ‘almost every workplace in Australia’.

‘All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia,’ she said. ‘It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.’

In a move from Maoist China, Deputy President Dean was removed from hearing any further vaccine-related cases and was required to undertake ‘re-education’. Anyone who understands history will tell you that similar conduct occurred in China if one did not adhere to the Communist party line.

Many brave professionals worldwide risked their livelihoods to fulfil their duty to raise the alarm about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing Covid policies. These ethically minded doctors, scientists, and social advocates, such as Prof Jay Bhattacharya, Prof Gupta, Prof Martin Kulldorff, Dr Peter McCullough, Prof Clancy, Dr Malhotra, Dr Phillip Altman, Dr Hobart, Dr Sabine Hazan, Dr Maryanne Demasi, Dr Chris Neill, Dr Cosford, Prof Brighthope, Dr Ryan Cole, Dr Bryan Tyson, Dr Michael Palmer, the late Dr Zelenko, Prof Robert Clancy, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Ivor Cummings, Dr Ah Khan Syed, Arkmedic, Nicki Evans, and JikkyLeaks (to name a few); along with tens of thousands of others, signed the Great Barrington Declaration. Many social media personalities also spoke out about the experimental vaccines’ effects on ordinary Australians’ daily lives, such as Graham Hood, John Larter, and prominent journalists Alan Jones, Rowan Dean et al. I dread to think how worse our society would be if it were not for these individuals.

In 2014, I co-authored a book chapter in the International Handbook of Whistleblower Research (Faunce, Nikolic, and Morgan, 2014), concerning pharmaceutical manufacture and distribution in the context of the US False Claims Act, 31 USC (FCA), a system that includes provisions that prohibit:

  1. presenting a false claim; and
  2. making and using a false record or statement material to a false claim.

A successful whistleblower receives 10-30 per cent of the monetary settlement as compensation. This not only incentivises integrity but also places corporations on notice that wrongdoing will be dealt with swiftly. The bonus is that the FCA has a Civil and Criminal component. This means that Australian citizens are deputised to ensure wrongdoers, no matter how powerful and well-resourced, will be held to account.

It should be noted, not all corporations break the law, but some (such as the pharmaceutical industry) have a significant history of settlements relating to wrongdoing at a global level.

Under the FCA, there is no requirement to prove specific intent to defraud under the FCA. The standard of proof encompasses actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, and reckless regard. Indeed, my previous work in this area (including Senate Submission in 2017) demonstrated that the pharmaceutical industry has made settlements in the billions of dollars with the Department of Justice in the USA. Hardly a conspiracy theory or misinformation, but rather, fact and evidence of a corporate sector infected (no pun intended) by a relentless desire for self-aggrandising behaviours that tend to factor in billion-dollar settlements in their business plans. The late Professor Faunce referred to these as ‘business plan frauds’, sold under the guise of ‘it’s for your safety’, indeed, a bitter pill to swallow for many families who have lost loved ones during this mandated clinical trial.

Despite precise scientific and verifiable data (Sorensen and Zelenko, 2021) coming to light from brave doctors and scientists, many of whom have been deregistered or shunned publicly for their scientific opinions, we have seen regulators and decision-makers withhold this truth from the Australian people. Why?

What has become clear is that Australia needs an effective anti-corruption fraud system similar to the US to combat fraud, conflicts of interest, and scientific misconduct by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to safeguard and protect the rights of citizens.

What we need to do is adopt the government’s position during Covid of ‘dob in your neighbour if you suspect they are breaching Covid restrictions or not wearing a mask’. Yes, as my submission to the Australian Senate in 2017 (relating to whistleblower protections), we need to enhance our whistleblower laws so we can reward and protect whistleblowers who make the ultimate sacrifice of risking their career to protect the public purse from unscrupulous persons seeking to enrich themselves and at the same time, imperil the lives of Australian citizens. It is time to expose those engaging in corporate wrongdoing and overhaul how grants are administered and to whom, why is the TGA funded to the tune of 96 per cent by the companies it is meant to regulate?

Exposing wrongdoing should not be a unilateral objective where governments dictate that neighbour turns on neighbour. Instead, the Rule of Law suggests that the same principles should apply to corporations. That is, employees and citizens should be allowed to adopt the government position and expose wrongdoing at a corporate level too, right…?

If one ever wanted to manufacture a consensus, follow the billions of dollars in grants, and that is where the science is taking us, but remember, science is not about a consensus; it is about evidence. Aaron Kheriaty, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre commenting on censorship and disciplining of doctors, said:

It’s a way to force scientific consensus where none exists by threatening physicians who challenge the government’s preferred Covid policies, threatening them with the most severe form of professional punishment that a doctor could receive, which is discipline against the doctor’s medical license.’ (Demasi, 2022)

Cases such as these demonstrate Australia’s legislative gaps because, as it presently stands, wrongdoing and scientific misconduct appear to be incentivised, whilst integrity and the traditional scientific method, using evidence, are ridiculed and systematically attacked.

There are obvious dangers for any legally obliged society when institutions and peak bodies support and select only one side of scientific information while suppressing alternative viewpoints. Where obvious conflicts of interest are revealed, as in the study of governments and the media constantly disinforming the public, legislative measures need to address such gaps without fear or favour. As stated by Fabien Deruelle:

Consequently, the unscientifically validated vaccination laws, originating from industry-controlled medical science, led to the adoption of social measures for the supposed protection of the public but which became serious threats to the health and freedoms of the population.’

Indeed, a critical safety concern is the aviation sector, where pilots and aircrew have been mandated to undertake a provisionally approved injection that does not stop transmission or sickness. Presently there are cases filed against Virgin, Jetstar, and Qantas relating to various complaints about the manner in which mandates led to the firing of staff. But no doubt, pilots are responsible for hundreds of souls, and mandating an experimental injection that does not prevent transmission may imperil many citizens’ lives.

An alarming progression has become apparent that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) government body that regulates aviation safety in Australia has implemented a ‘multi-crew endorsement’ scheme which allows pilots to continue flying ‘despite the presence of medically significant conditions which would otherwise pose an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation’. Further studies relating to rates of myocarditis post-jab are estimated at 25,000/per million, which equates to 1 in every 40 people. Indeed, the magnitude of the symptoms may vary according to the ‘batch’, but the damage in many (if not immediate or short term) may invariably be a long-term issue that our health system will need to cope with in the future.

This future does not look bright when observing information from the CDC about its VAERS safety signal analysis. This data, based on reports from December 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA Covid vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and highly concerning cardiac, neurological, immune-system, and menstrual adverse events (to name a few) among US adults. Further, the data also shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for these vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for other vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009. With mortality rates increasing all over the world strangely coinciding temporally with the release of the injections globally, one can only infer that if there is a conspiracy, it is not with those who are calling for the immediate cessation of the jabs because they do not do what was represented.

As if there were no other coincidences in other government bodies around Australia, the chief medical officer of CASA boasts on social media that she ‘chairs two boards, director of three more, owns four medical practices and a Covid clinic’.

Fraud within the Health Sector is of grave concern for Australia because it has become apparent that knowledge is being held back by power. The institutions that should protect civil liberties and human rights have drifted into the background, fearful that their actions will attract media attention. Medical and scientific minds who were leaders in their field became ostracised, silenced, banned from public events, and removed from social media at the behest of so-called fact-checkers. This censorship of our medical and scientific community can only be compared to the tyrannical governments of the past, Maoist China and Stalinist USSR. If anything, this pandemic has shown us that, ‘truth is knowledge that has been held back by power’, and as we all know, truth is always the first casualty of any war.

This is not a traditional war because the enemies of truth have now relabelled it as misinformation and conspiracy theories. It was Robert Kennedy Jnr who said that the use of ‘vaccine misinformation’, ‘Is being used as a euphemism for any statement that departs from official government policies and pharmaceutical industry profit-taking. It has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. It only has to do with what the political implications are.’ Yes… The Lysenko playbook!

Wasn’t science once about an open and vigorous discussion between medical experts with consideration of all relevant data to develop and expand our knowledge of new and emerging diseases and find solutions to public health issues? When did it become the responsibility of governments and regulators to override and dictate clinical decision-making by threatening to deregister those who raised any concerns that perhaps an experimental drug may be contraindicated and pose a greater risk than the perceived benefit being offered?

Further to our request of July 7, 2021 to the Hon Brad Hazard and Federal Ministers, pharmaceutical companies continue to refuse production of the procurement contracts for the vaccines under the legal principles of commercial in confidence. Something that appears to be supported by the government but is no less qualified. Our invitations for open debate about the science were rejected, and this remains the case to date – our experts in a public discussion with your health bureaucrats and Ministers.

But what of the injections being mandated upon the citizens of Australia? Is it not reasonable or fair for Australian citizens to understand what they are being ordered to inject into their bodies during a clinical trial? Do they not have a say in what their taxpayer dollars are purchasing? We must remember there is no such thing as government money, it is taxpayer money, and the government are merely stewards holding on to that money in trust for the Australian people; when this is understood, we will see progress.

As more and more people become affected by these experimental vaccines, will our government and judiciary realise that a terrible injustice has been committed on the Australian people (whether a minority or not)? And those who promoted mandating these drugs against the cries of experts who tried to raise the alarm should be investigated and held to account; only time will tell.

In the spirit of Lysenko, while some brave journalists have been taken off the air for daring to raise scientific evidentiary data or encouraged not to report on adverse reactions, some appear to be cut from the same cloth. Walter Cronkite, perhaps one of the world’s bravest journalists, once remarked about the futile efforts relating to military intervention in the Vietnam War. Close to the end of the war in Vietnam and noting the futility of losing lives on both sides, the late Walter Cronkite stated: [inter alia]

‘… But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could …’

One thing is becoming clearer each day. More people are being harmed by the reckless indifference of Australia’s institutions by not recognising that the only rational way for this country to move forward is to acknowledge the wrongs, prosecute those responsible, and ensure that our highest institutions remain independent and free. Although contracts may have been signed, legal scholars understand that one cannot contract out of potential fraud, false claims, or criminal conduct leading to multiple harms against citizens.

We must stop mandating vaccines immediately and ensure that those who have lost their jobs as part of the national coercion campaign are returned to work immediately with compensation. All pecuniary fines are refunded, and those injured and deceased receive a dignified compensation package.

However, before this can occur, this country must acknowledge the position it is in presently and recognise that the privileges of the past must not lumber the consumer with such a ridiculously high burden of proof to imperil the lives of a trusting society. Suppose we have not learnt the dreadful lessons from thalidomide, asbestos, tobacco, DDT, and agent orange (to name a few). In that case, we are almost certainly doomed to place generations of Australian citizens in the care of a suboptimal healthcare system that is controlled by self-interested groups who can run experiments with little to no accountability.

This article is dedicated to all the people around Australia and the world who recognised the personal and professional risks but undertook their duty to protect the community and the principles of living in a free, participatory democracy where it is the Constitution that shackles the institutions of power, not its citizens.

Source –