'A reckless pursuit of new-technology genetic vaccines'
For the Australian Covid Inquiry Panel
With some post-submission changes, here is what I hope the members of the Panel will see.
By the way, I am genuinely grateful to the present Government and to the Inquiry Panel for the opportunity we have been given as members of the public to submit our evidence on the covid response in Australia.
Submission of Evidence to the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Panel
My name is Ralph Pain. I am a retired mechanical engineer. At times during the pandemic my wife and I cared for her then 87-year old father. We vowed not to infect him, and therefore chose the best immunity available. This we achieved by actively seeking and prompting immunity through infection.
Concerns with the Government response:
1. Coercion to take a medical procedure for an unapproved use
Vaccines were mandated in some jurisdictions for those working with vulnerable people; we were told lockdown restrictions would be tied to the percentage vaccination rate in the population in some jurisdictions; and restrictions to travel and to other services were applied to those who had not been vaccinated.
I think it is fair to infer that these vaccination policies were drawn from a premise that the injections would prevent transmission of the virus, and also that they were approved for that use. However, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) in its Australian PARs (Public Assessment Reports) explicitly denied that transmission was tested:
Pfizer: January 2021 for Comirnaty, "The following questions have not yet been addressed: • Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission."
AstraZeneca: February 2021, "These studies were not designed to assess disease transmission".
Moderna: August 2021 for Spikevax, "The pivotal study was not designed to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from individuals experiencing asymptomatic infections after vaccination. Protection against asymptomatic infection is currently unknown ..."
Further, as evidenced in Mettelman et al (2022)[1], it was known that injections into the body, bypassing as they do the mucosal membranes of the upper airways, are not effective at provoking a mucosal immune response against respiratory viruses:
"... designing effective vaccines that stimulate robust and protective immune responses in the respiratory mucosa has been an ongoing challenge. As a result, the majority of vaccines licensed for influenza and SARS-CoV-2, with the exception of the LAIVs [Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine, in the form of a nasal spray], are delivered distally and rely on systemic innate and adaptive immunity, which may not be sufficient for protection at mucosal sites."
Moreover, as also pointed out in a separate submission by Clare Pain, in all three AusPARs the vaccines were approved only prevent disease, and NOT to prevent transmission. See excerpts below:
Pfizer: Approved therapeutic use: Comirnaty (BNT162b2 (mRNA)) COVID-19 vaccine has provisional approval for the indication below: Active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, in individuals 16 years of age and older.
AstraZeneca: Approved therapeutic use: COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has provisional approval for the indication: Active immunisation of individuals ≥ _18 years old for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2.
Moderna: Approved therapeutic use: Spikevax (elasomeran) COVID-19 vaccine has provisional approval for the indication below: Active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 18 years of age and older.
I suggest, therefore, that health and government officials who imposed rules aimed at preventing the spread of the virus through vaccination cannot be deemed to have carried out their due diligence, and even if they can, by promoting the use of these vaccines for a use that was not approved by the TGA, I suggest they may have acted illegitimately, outside of the authority assigned to them.
The illegitimacy of such actions compounded breaches of ethical rules defined in the ATAGI handbook, which required informed consent of the recipient even for approved uses of a medicine. Further, they compounded breaches of natural law in a liberal democracy by not accepting other ways that a person might choose to not infect vulnerable people, such as by gaining natural immunity through infection.
2. Restriction of use of safe therapeutical goods
The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 establishes a framework for ensuring the timely availability of therapeutic goods (i.e. medicines, medical devices and biological products) that are of acceptable quality, safety and efficacy/performance.
Hydroxychloroquine was known to be effective against SARS-CoV-1 and had been stockpiled any many parts of the world. Ivermectin showed early promise as an antiviral against SARS-CoV-2. Both of these therapeutic goods had been used for decades and had well-known safety profiles, with ivermectin in particular having an excellent safety profile.
However, the TGA restricted the use of hydroxychloroquine on 24 March 2020, and later, restricted the use of ivermectin on 10 September 2021.
The suggestion that existing medicines with well-known safety profiles and already used off label should be restricted for use by prescribing doctors who see a benefit in using them for an individual patient in their care, seems to run counter to the role of the TGA, which is to ensure timely availability.
Further, the reasons for restricting given by the TGA did not stand up to scrutiny. For hydroxychloroquine we were told there were concerns that its use “will create a potential shortage of this product in Australia”. This is difficult to defend anyway for a synthetic off-patent drug that many pharmaceutical companies could make at the time, but was especially difficult to defend given that Clive Palmer had donated a stockpile of the compound to the Government.
We were also told that hydroxychloroquine had “well-known serious risks to patients”. However, these well-known risks are accepted for people with malaria and autoimmune disease. Surely they could also be accepted for treating covid, deemed so severe that the entire economy should be locked down, and for which doctors could prescribe safe doses with informed consent?
For ivermectin, the first reason given for its restriction by the TGA is ironic: people who took it might decide they were safe from covid and not get vaccinated. The irony is that, as we have now seen, the TGA did not restrict the anti-covid vaccines, the recipients of which catch and pass on covid, often repeatedly. Second, we were told that doses mentioned on social media were ‘significantly higher than those approved’. However, the medicine would be prescribed by a doctor, not by Facebook. The third reason was, again, fear of shortages for its approved indications. But there was a competitive pharmaceutical industry available to make abundant quantities of this synthetic off-patent drug.
Given the inadequacy of reasons given for restrictions, the TGA exposes itself to scrutiny over whether its decisions may have aligned with the interests of any pharmaceutical companies that may have been developing alternative, potentially lucrative, treatments for covid at the time, rather than with the interests of ordinary people in Australia.
3. Consideration of other approaches to the pandemic
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (August 2019) appears to have been developed through democratic process. It refers to principles, in particular for: reducing the risk to vulnerable people; minimising disruption to the community and; ensuring that the rights of the individual are upheld as much as possible.
Near the beginning of the pandemic, there was information available that the covid virus was even more contagious than the flu virus. For example, it was reported in March 2020 that covid was twice as contagious as influenza[2]. Further, there was an early source of mortality data that emerged in March 2020 in a study[3] of the Diamond Princess, which emphasised that the covid virus shows "... strong effects of age and comorbidities on mortality risk". This article also provided an estimate of fatality rate of 13% of those over 70s who had already developed symptoms of disease.
With all this information it seemed it would be advantageous to implement the Health Management Plan. Adopting its principles, I suggested to my Federal MP by email at the end of February 2020, "... we need herd immunity to protect vulnerable people. Without a vaccine, herd immunity can be achieved if healthy people volunteer to get the virus and then recover ... Amongst the first priority for going through the infection and recovery process would probably be healthy volunteer health professionals, so they can look after vulnerable people without infecting them." [4]
However, Australia did not follow key principles in its Health Management Plan and instead adopted an approach for preventing the spread of the virus that was similar to that adopted by the Chinese Communist Party. The Australian Government also pursued vaccines at a rate that seemed to me at the time to be reckless.
Recommendations:
1. Due diligence requirements.
Health Officers should be clearly tasked with carrying out appropriate due diligence in relation to directions they impose for taking pharmaceutical drugs, which should as a minimum include a careful reading of the AusPARs for each drug, and also consulting with leading medical researchers, such as immunologist Professor Robert Clancy, on the lack of effectiveness of achieving sterilising immunity in the upper airways through an injection that bypasses the mucosal membranes of the upper airways.
I believe a Royal Commission should be established to find whether Officers breached any ethical rules or acted outside of the authority assigned to them such as by coercing people to accept a vaccine, especially one that was not authorised for preventing transmission.
2. Conflict of interest requirements
There is a possibility that the restricting of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin was not in the best interests of people living in Australia, because both medicines had well-established safety profiles.
I believe a Royal Commission should be established so that government bodies such as the TGA can be investigated to find if there is evidence of any conflicts of interest, including funding from the pharmaceutical companies whose products they regulate, or prospects of future employment by those companies for key TGA staff.
3. Democratic and ethical process requirements
Adherence to democratic processes can be achieved by: a) openly discussing and agreeing a target objective, then; b) formulating a range of options for reaching that objective through open debate, before; c) agreeing on a particular strategy that complies with established ethical standards.
However:
a) Australia's target objective was not openly discussed. Given that it seemed impractical to eliminate such a contagious virus that prevailed throughout the rest of the world, we were inevitably heading for natural herd immunity. We did not openly debate whether such immunity should be delayed and instead be replaced by vaccine-induced herd immunity. Rather, suggestions of natural immunity were ridiculed.
b) Alternative options were not openly discussed, such as protecting just those who were known in advance to be vulnerable and who wished to be protected, or bolstering immune systems with vitamin D3 and zinc, or using known available early treatments.
c) Instead, the government seemed to close down dissenting views and to choose a strategy of simply delaying the inevitable by closing the national borders and locking down economic and social interaction of the whole population for an indeterminate period. Or, were we really waiting for the rushed development of novel-technology genetic vaccines that were not even being designed to prevent transmission? And when the novel technology arrived, although these vaccines were evidently not approved for use in preventing transmission, the government successfully induced almost everyone to be injected several times, through coercion and inaccurate messaging about the prospect of protecting others.
I believe a Royal Commission should be established to identify: governments and government bodies that did not adhere to democratic and ethical processes; inadequate processes that need to be overhauled and reinforced; governance frameworks that need to be re-established; conflicted government bodies that need to be dismantled and rebuilt; and individuals at fault who need to be given an opportunity to reflect.
[1] Mettelman RC, Allen EK, Thomas PG. Mucosal immune responses to infection and vaccination in the respiratory tract. Immunity. 2022 May 10;55(5):749-780. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.04.013. PMID: 35545027; PMCID: PMC9087965.
[2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-03-20/how-coronavirus-covid-19-compares-to-flu/12073696
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32234121/ Russell TW, Hellewell J, Jarvis CI, van Zandvoort K, Abbott S, Ratnayake R; CMMID COVID-19 working group; Flasche S, Eggo RM, Edmunds WJ, Kucharski AJ. Estimating the infection and case fatality ratio for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) using age-adjusted data from the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, February 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020 Mar;25(12):2000256. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256. PMID: 32234121; PMCID: PMC7118348.
[4] My MP replied on 10th March 2020, "... our Government is committed to ensuring that the virus does not spread, so that measures such as the ones you suggest won’t be necessary."
https://expose-news.com/2024/02/01/cj-hopkins-the-verdict/
Berlin District Court, 23 January 2024
My name is CJ Hopkins. I am an American playwright, author, and political satirist. My plays have been produced and received critical acclaim internationally. My political satire and commentary is read by hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. 20 years ago, I left my own country because of the fascistic atmosphere that had taken hold of the USA at that time, the time of the US invasion of Iraq, a war of aggression based on my government’s lies. I emigrated to Germany and made a new life here in Berlin, because I believed that Germany, given its history, would be the last place on earth to ever have anything to do with any form of totalitarianism again.
The gods have a strange sense of humour. This past week, thousands of people have been out in the streets all over Germany protesting against fascism, chanting “never again is now.” Many of these people spent the past three years, 2020 to 2023, unquestioningly obeying orders, parroting official propaganda, and demonising anyone who dared to question the government’s unconstitutional and authoritarian actions during the so-called covid pandemic. Many of these same people, those who support Palestinian rights, are now shocked that the new form of totalitarianism they helped usher into existence is being turned against them.
And here I am, in criminal court in Berlin, accused of disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda in two tweets about mask mandates. The German authorities have had my speech censored on the Internet, and have damaged my reputation and income as an author. One of my books has been banned by Amazon in Germany. All this because I criticised the German authorities, because I mocked one of their decrees, because I pointed out one of their lies.
This turn of events would be absurdly comical if it were not so infuriating. I cannot adequately express how insulting it is to be forced to sit here and affirm my opposition to fascism. For over thirty years, I have written and spoken out against fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism etc. Anyone can do an Internet search, find my books, read the reviews of my plays, read my essays, and discover who I am and what my political views are in two or three minutes. And yet I am accused by the German authorities of disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda. I am accused of doing this because I posted two Tweets challenging the official Covid narrative and comparing the new, nascent form of totalitarianism that it has brought into being – i.e., the so-called “New Normal” – to Nazi Germany.
Let me be very clear. In those two tweets, and in my essays throughout 2020 to 2022, and in my current essays, I have indeed compared the rise of this new form of totalitarianism to the rise of the best-known 20th-Century form of totalitarianism, i.e., Nazi Germany. I have made this comparison, and analysed the similarities and differences between these two forms of totalitarianism, over and over again. And I will continue to do so. I will continue to analyse and attempt to explain this new, emerging form of totalitarianism, and to oppose it, and warn my readers about it.
The two tweets at issue here feature a swastika covered by one of the medical masks that everyone was forced to wear in public during 2020 to 2022. That is the cover art of my book. The message conveyed by this artwork is clear. In Nazi Germany, the swastika was the symbol of conformity to the official ideology. During 2020 to 2022, the masks functioned as the symbol of conformity to a new official ideology. That was their purpose. Their purpose was to enforce people’s compliance with government decrees and conformity to the official covid-pandemic narrative, most of which has now been proven to have been propaganda and lies.
Mask mandates do not work against airborne viruses. This had been understood and acknowledged by medical experts for decades prior to the spring of 2020. It has now been proven to everyone and acknowledged by medical experts again. The science of mask mandates did not suddenly change in March of 2020. The official narrative changed. The official ideology changed. The official “reality” changed. Karl Lauterbach was absolutely correct when he said, “The masks always send out a signal.” They signal they sent out from 2020 to 2022 was, “I conform. I do not ask questions. I obey orders.”
That is not how democratic societies function. That is how totalitarian systems function.
Not every form of totalitarianism is the same, but they share common hallmarks. Forcing people to display symbols of conformity to official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Declaring a “state of emergency” and revoking constitutional rights for no justifiable reason is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Banning protests against government decrees is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Inundating the public with lies and propaganda designed to terrify people into mindless obedience is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Segregating societies is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Censoring dissent is a hallmark of totalitarianism. Stripping people of their jobs because they refuse to conform to official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Fomenting mass hatred of a “scapegoat” class of people is a hallmark of totalitarianism. Demonising critics of the official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems. Instrumentalising the law to punish dissidents and make examples of critics of the authorities is a hallmark of totalitarianism.
I have documented the emergence of all of these hallmarks of totalitarianism in societies throughout the West – including but not limited to Germany – since March of 2020. I will continue to do so. I will continue to warn readers about this new, emerging form of totalitarianism and attempt to understand it, and oppose it. I will compare this new form of totalitarianism to earlier forms of totalitarianism, and specifically to Nazi Germany, whenever it is appropriate and contributes to our understanding of current events. That is my job as a political satirist and commentator, and as an author, and my responsibility as a human being.
The German authorities can punish me for doing that. You have the power to do that. You can make an example of me. You can fine me. You can imprison me. You can ban my books. You can censor my content on the Internet, which you have done. You can defame me, and damage my income and reputation as an author, as you have done. You can demonise me as a “conspiracy theorist,” as an “anti-vaxxer,” a “covid denier,” an “idiot,” and an “extremist,” which you have done. You can haul me into criminal court and make me sit here, in Germany, in front of my wife, who is Jewish, and deny that I am an anti-Semite who wants to relativise the Holocaust. You have the power to do all these things.
However, I hope that you will at least have the integrity to call this what it is, and not hide behind false accusations that I am somehow supporting the Nazis by comparing the rise of a new form of totalitarianism to the rise of an earlier totalitarian system, one that took hold of and ultimately destroyed this country in the 20th Century, and murdered millions in the process, because too few Germans had the courage to stand up and oppose it when it first began. I hope that you will at least have the integrity to not pretend that you actually believe I am disseminating pro-Nazi propaganda, when you know very well that is not what I am doing.
No one with any integrity believes that is what I am doing. No one with any integrity believes that is what my tweets in 2022 were doing. Every journalist that has covered my case, everyone in this courtroom, understands what this prosecution is actually about. It has nothing to do with punishing people who actually disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda. It is about punishing dissent, and making an example of dissidents in order to intimidate others into silence.
That is not how democratic nations function. That is how totalitarian systems function.
What I hope even more is that this court will put an end to this prosecution, and apply the law fairly, and not allow it to be used as a pretext to punish people like me who criticise government dictates, people who expose the lies of government officials, people who refuse to deny facts, who refuse to perform absurd rituals of obedience on command, who refuse to unquestioningly follow orders.
Because the issue here is much larger and much more important than my little “tweet” case.
We are, once again, at a crossroads. Not just here in Germany, but throughout the West. People went a little crazy, a little fascist, during the so-called covid pandemic. And now, here we are. There are two roads ahead. We have to choose … you, me, all of us. One road leads back to the rule of law, to democratic principles. The other road leads to authoritarianism, to societies where authorities rule by decree, and force, and twist the law into anything they want, and dictate what is and isn’t reality, and abuse their power to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
That is the road to totalitarianism. We have been down that road before. Please, let’s not do it again.
N.B. A German version of the statement is available in Aya Velázquez’s article and on Bastian Barucker’s blog
https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/aussie-wins-case-over-covid-vaccine?publication_id=745287&post_id=141253150&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=u79ub