The covid response in Australia
Were we waiting for genetic vaccines that were not being designed to prevent transmission?
It seems that Australian officials may have imposed therapeutic goods for a use that was not approved by the regulator
Some of the vaccination policies in a number of jurisdictions were: 1) Vaccines were mandated for those working with vulnerable people; 2) we were told lockdown restrictions would be tied to the percentage vaccination rate in the population and; 3) restrictions to travel and to other services were applied to those who had not been vaccinated.
We can see that these policies depended on a premise that the injections would prevent transmission of the virus, and also that they were approved for that use.
However, as we can read in its Australian PARs (Public Assessment Reports), the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) 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 ..."
And in the same documents, the vaccines were approved only to prevent disease, and NOT to prevent transmission:
• 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.
So, while people on the continent of Australia endured the closing down of dissenting views and 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 …
… were officials really waiting for the rushed development of novel-technology genetic vaccines that were not even being designed to prevent transmission?
It is a remarkable fact that when the novel technology did arrive, although it was evidently not tested or approved for use in preventing transmission, almost everyone was injected several times through wide-scale coercion and inaccurate messaging about the prospect of protecting others.
I believe the Government’s response to the virus has involved such a serious breach of our laws, governance processes, and ethics that we need the Covid Inquiry Panel to recommend a royal commission to investigate.
https://maatsmethod.substack.com/p/015-qld-supreme-court-finds-vaccine/comments
A remarkable outcome. Thank you Clive Palmer!
From what I understand, the decision reached is that human rights laws were transgressed, EVEN IF the injections had been a net life-saving intervention. (which of course they were not.)
"When a court is judicially reviewing a decision for unlawfulness under the HRA it does not reconsider a primary act or decision on the merits. The jurisdiction of the Court is ... to determine whether the act or decision is unlawful by reference to the human rights standards in the HRA, not to make a determination on the merits of the matter which is in substantive issue. Relief cannot be granted simply because the court takes a different view of the act or decision on the merits."
So, even if official health directions really had saved 14 or 18 million lives compared with the output of a computer model that merely extrapolated the embedded assumption that the vaccines saved lives to circularly find that the vaccines saved lives ...
AND even if covid had killed a similar number of unvaccinated people, which they did not because covid deaths were amplified by the use of ICD-10 codes intended for early warning of a possible new infection.
... and there were many other causes of death during 2020 and 2021, such as starvation due to economic lockdowns and suicide due to social lockdowns, and over-zealous application of drugs such as remdesivir and midazolam and intubated ventilators for people in hospitals.
EVEN so, our ethical rules developed over hundreds of years, are the rules. Those rules, by the way, are intended for protecting ordinary people not just against the few tyrannical low-empathy control-addicted psychopaths, but against the many well-meaning fools.
https://hatchardreport.com/open-letter-to-the-hon-dr-shane-reti-new-zealand-minister-of-health/
HNZ00013886 says:
“To provide some context, those who have been vaccinated/had boosters are more likely to have high all-cause mortality risk (additional to being aged) than those who did not. Therefore, vaccination will likely be misinterpreted as being associated with increased risk of death. To explain this requires a regression level analysis, which can take upwards of three months based on previous experience.”