Say No More!! – ConspiracyOz

Questioning the TGA at Senate Estimates
8th April 2022,

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (“TGA“) and their buddies, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (“ATAGI“)

and the unaccountable Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (“AHPRA“),

have enabled the distortion of science in Australia that has seen COVID vaccines mandated, the minimising of vaccine reactions,

banning of alternative treatments and general COVID mismanagement.

In this final Senate Estimates session before the election is inevitably called I tried to desperately get straight answers

out of Australia’s Chief Health bureaucrats about how they could do so much of this without evidence.

Part 1

This session goes to the over 801 deaths reported around COVID-19 vaccines and the Health Department’s incompetence or negligence

in failing to answer over 47% of my formal questions on notice in 6 months when the deadline was 6 weeks.

I[Roberts] ’d like to table just a portion of the transcript from the previous session in February, 16th of February. There are 15 copies here. Thank you. The latest available TGA DAEN report from your website dated 24th of March, 2022, says there are 801 deaths, 11 of which are attributed to COVID-19 vaccines. So there are 801 deaths reported by doctors. So according to the TGA 801 deaths that doctors have reported as being due to COVID-19 vaccination, doctors reported them. The TGA then steps in and reviews these doctor certified reports and says that there are only 11 deaths attributable to the COVID-19 vaccines. How many of these 790 cases have been reviewed and closed? And how many are still under review?

[Skerritt] Senator firstly, your assertion is not factually correct. Doctors have not said those deaths, 800 and something deaths are due to COVID vaccination.

[Roberts] They’ve reported that.

[Skerritt] There have been reports as we have said before and misplace, doctors will often provide a report and then they say in the report, we don’t believe it’s due to a vaccination in a majority of jurisdictions, a majority of states and territories, there is a requirement for the state and territory health systems and their doctors working between to report deaths that are temporarily associated. In other words injection one day someone has a heart attack a week later. But in many of those cases the doctors indicate that they don’t believe there’s a link. So I think it’s highly misleading to say the doctors say these deaths are due to a COVID vaccine. Having said that, we do as we’ve indicated before we review all deaths in these reports and we follow up for further information including with coroners where coroners reports are done in postmortems, with the state and territory systems. These deaths are generally in health facilities. So there have been post-mortems and there is a thorough medical history on them. And as I’ve indicated before if there is something unusual and there is a possibility that it could be associated with a vaccine, we convene an independent, by independent not departmental staff. We convene an independent expert group of relevant doctors to evaluate whether there is likely causality. And we use World Health Organisation protocols and these approaches are used by regulators globally.

[Roberts] Thank you. So how many of the 790 cases have been reviewed and closed and how many are still under review?

[Skerritt] Senator I would have give, take that on notice

That’s fine. at the current time but the overwhelming majority has been it’s just that obviously it’s a figure that changes by the hour.

[Roberts] Okay. That’s fine. I’d happy to take that on notice, for you to take it on notice. Of any outstanding reported deaths, some could be death related to COVID-19 vaccination. Do you have a timeframe for when the TGA adjudication will be completed?

[Skerritt] Our part is relatively fast once we have all required information, but if, let’s use a hypothetical of someone who has a vaccination on Tuesday and has a heart attack on Friday, they’re in a hospital in Perth, the WA health system reports to us. This is a hypothetical. We obviously require the information from a postmortem that may have been done, had that person say, had AstraZeneca and was it a major thrombosis with thrombocytopenia in their brain? So it also requires postmortems to be done. It may even require a coroner’s report to be done. So the timing at which we can close a case and then if we need to refer it to his expert committee senator does depend on when we get the information from the hospital system, the postmortem and all that. Because otherwise you are working in the dark. And so it’s really important to have that objective information by the professional people who carry out postmortems and if need be, if it has been referred to the coroner, the advice from a coroner, because again that’s their professional role to determine cause of death.

[Roberts] So it’s variable. How long do the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] Sorry.

[Roberts] How long does the TGA reviews take per death?

[Skerritt] So once we receive the, it’s an iterative thing. So if we have a death report, we’ll come back and we say, “Look, it says headache in the report. Can we get information on whether they had a bleed in the brain?” Now the hospital may respond within hours or they may say, “Look, we’ve got the brain.” And again, this is a bit gory. “We’ve got the brain in the freezer. We will have to conduct some morbid anatomy on that…” Sorry, we’ll have to look at the brain in a postmortem sense. So sometimes it actually can take weeks if they then have to do those laboratory and other forensic tests. Once we get the information we move as quickly as possible. And we also move as quickly as possible to report any reports of death. So for example, the very first report of death which was in April last year, I think we reported it within 24 to 48 hours of the group concluding that it was associated and we do so in our weekly updates. Now, fortunately there have been no confirmed deaths due to vaccination this year. And there’s also been no confirmed cases due to thrombosis with thrombocytopenia this year.

[Roberts] Okay, thank you, Australians, our constituents want to know who is accountable for this process? Who decides whether the death was a COVID-19 vaccine death and who certifies if this is the case.

[Skerritt] So if it’s due to vaccination it’s the role of the Therapeutic Goods as a safety regulator. But acting on, as I said on the advice of this external panel and with the commitment and responsibility of publishing weekly safety updates on which report this information.

[Roberts] So you are the head of the TGA so it’s your responsibility.

[Skerritt] Yes.

[Roberts] So you’re accountable.

[Skerritt] Yes.

[Roberts] Okay. Thank you. Who’s on the expert committee?

[Skerritt] There is no fixed expert committee. It’s really important to emphasise that if say a death was due to some neurological condition, we have a large number of neurologists. There are some, it’s not a standing committee. And so there is no fixed membership Senator. If it’s a cardiac thing, we’ll have cardiologists and we’ll have cardiac pathologists. And there’s so many subspecialties in medicine these days. And so the composition of each panel is different depending, because we want the best scientific and clinical expertise.

[Roberts] Okay. So I’ve asked you Dr. Skerritt or Professor Skerritt sorry, about the questions raised at previous Senate estimates rounds. And if you refer to the transcript of the February 16th Senate estimates. If you go down the bottom there, you’ll see that you’ve twice failed to deliver what you have promised. We asked first in October and we had a six-week deadline for that

[Skerritt] Sorry Senator, you asked for what in October?

[Roberts] The process, by which deaths reported by doctors are reviewed by the TGA.

[Skerritt] We’ve provided every-

[Man] They haven’t.

[Skerritt] Every response to every… We’ve provided them through to the government. Every response to every question on notice .

[Roberts] Well, then ministers, who in the government is responsible because Professor Skerritt, you said, I asked you again in February 16th, after the, four months after the first request in October. And I said, “Could we have that process in writing?” And you said, “I believe it has been provided but we can provide it again.” And I said, “We haven’t received it.” And you said, “We can provide it to you.” They’re categorical.

[Skerritt] Senator-

[Roberts] So now it seems to me minister that the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is saying he’s provided to the government but the government hasn’t provided it to us. What’s going on?

[Skerritt] I can’t comment on the process following that. What I can say is if you wish to write to me please write to me and I can provide in .

[Roberts] Professor Skerritt, we’ve asked you twice and twice… And once we were put on notice and last February, just two months ago, you told us personally you would get it to us. This is the first I’ve heard about having to write to you about it.

[Skerritt] Well, I don’t deliver responses to you directly, Senator.

[Roberts] So then I asked the government what’s interceded because we have not got the material from the TGA.

[Chair] Do we have a question on notice number that we’re talking about?

[Roberts] Yes, we do.

[Chair] That would be very handy to have so that we can ask somebody to check that.

[Roberts] Question number 14, details of how a decision of death due to COVID vaccination is made?

[Chair] So what was the question on notice number? Do we know?

[Roberts] So that was back in October. I don’t know that one

[Chair] Senator we’ll take what you’ve just requested on notice and and get you an answer. Because it seems to me that there there’s a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Roberts] Twice.

[Chair] I think adjunct professor Skerritt has indicated he would provide what you’ve requested. So we will endeavour during a break to be able to get to the bottom of that and respond to you today.

Quite sure somebody is listening to us at the moment that we’ll be able to follow that up for us.

Minister, can you follow up my questions from October as well too, please? ‘Cause I’ve got like lots of questions outstanding.

I will certainly have a look at that, but-

[Roberts] Yeah, we have a huge number outstanding something like generally there are 61 of a 136 questions on notice outstanding from the last Senate estimates. That’s around 45% of the questions we’ve asked. We’ve asked a lot of questions, but that’s our right because we do it not only for ourselves but on behalf of our constituents. 45% of the questions have not been answered. So if-

[Chair] If you could leave that with me Senator-


[Chair] And I’ll respond to the committee as soon as I’m able to get an answer.

[Roberts] If that’s the last question chair on this round and then we’ll come back later. If vaccine injured people are from identifiable subgroups say due to specific health conditions, why did you not proactively allow medical exemptions from these groups, for these groups? For example, those with comorbidities?

[Skerritt] The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s not involved in provision of vaccine exemptions.

[Roberts] Well, who the hell is because we’ve had so many doctors tell us personally and nurses that it’s almost impossible to get an exemption. And I know of someone who got his first shot and then had a severe reaction to it and was required by his employer to have a second shot. We’ve heard this so many times.

[Man] Senator-

Senator innit?

[Dr. Murphy] The chair of ATAGI will be here at 10 o’clock and ATAGI is responsible for determining the conditions under which people would, vaccines contraindicated a very small list of conditions, that the chair ATAGI would be happy to answer that I think when he comes.

[Roberts] Thank you.

[Chair] Okay. Thank you.

Part 2

Doctors and other health professionals feel great pressure to not report adverse events or sentiment which could undermine the vaccine rollout.

Health Bureaucrats continue to deny such pressure exists despite official guidelines saying that Doctors could be de-registered

for opposing supposed public health measures from the government.

AHPRA threatens to deregister Doctors but is a private corporation with no accountability to the Senate or the Australia Public.

[Roberts] Chair, Can I just ask something that I forgot to ask before I noted rather than interrupt Professor Skerritt? You mentioned that of the reports that you received from doctors about deaths, some explicitly say, it’s not due to the vaccine. Are you aware and what are you doing about the fact that have been told by a number of doctors that they are afraid to report vaccine deaths? Are you aware of that and what are you doing about that?

[Skerritt] I’m not aware of that and any doctor or individual, or even you on behalf of a constituent with the relevant information can report a vaccine adverse event, doesn’t have to be a death, it can be a sore arm. Any individual can report directly to us, so–

[Roberts] Do you do any auditing to make sure that process is being followed or that you’re getting reasonably accurate numbers?

[Skerritt] So as I’ve indicated, the reporting is two things. Firstly, it’s mandatory within a majority of states, but not all states. Although quite interestingly, the state that is the most active in reporting adverse events for their health system is Victoria and it’s not one where in law is written down it’s just seen as part of their medical practise. There is no force of law that says if Dr X out in the suburbs sees an adverse event that they must report. Reporting of adverse events is not mandatory in Australia. It would require this place to change a therapeutic goods act.

[Kelly] Senator, can I just point out, I feel I need to say something here. There there’s been over 11 billion doses of vaccine given around the world, 11 billion doses. The risk benefit profile of all of the vaccines that are in common use and the ones certainly that the TGA has regulated here in Australia is overwhelmingly in favour of benefit. There is no conspiracy here.

[Roberts] Do we have the numbers on that list?

[Kelly] 11 billion doses have been used? We would’ve seen problems in 11 billion episodes of doses if they were there.

[Roberts] Why did you use the word conspiracy because in my experience, most of these kinds of derailments are due to incompetence or gutlessness in terms of not looking at the figures. I’m not accusing you of either of those, I’m just saying that’s my experience but you raised the word conspiracy. Now,

[Kelly] I do raise the word conspiracy–

[Roberts] Are you aware that some doctors here and overseas have done the research and they say that as few as 1% of adverse events are being reported. Some are saying as few as 10%. So you multiply the deaths due to the vaccine. You multiply the adverse events due to the vaccines by in one estimate by a hundred or by other estimates by 10.

[Dr. Murphy] Senator, we don’t believe that that’s a relevant comparison.

[Roberts] You don’t believe it, but that’s what doctors are telling me.

[Chair] Senator Robert please let witnesses respond.

[Kelly] So I’ll pass it to John in a moment. But I think, just to be clear I’m not accusing anyone of conspiracy here but that there are conspiracy theories around. I think we have all heard them and they have affected, particularly in some of our more vulnerable parts of our population and I’m referring here to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In a way that has caused harm and I feel it’s my role as the chief medical officer to look at that from the Australian perspective. I’ll let John answer about the issue, Professor Skerritt about the the issues you’ve raised in terms of reporting. We do know there is under reporting of a range of matters in many countries, but one of the main reasons that the statistics you and Senator Rennick, have both mentioned about the number of reports that the TGA has looked at extraordinary number, but the vast majority, almost all of those have been shown to have another explanation. And that is not hiding things, that is a totally transparent the TGA reports on every week, regularly. So that’s why I mentioned that word, but please to be clear–

[Chair] I’m gonna go to Senator Grogan–

[Skerritt] But just to… Sorry, Paul, just to explain. I do agree that for some other medicines you might only have 10 or 5% of adverse events reported but for the COVID vaccines to use that cliched word there’s been an unprecedented communication approach to doctors, hospitals, health systems and the public about coming forward with adverse events. We want people to report adverse events. So firstly, there’s been a lot of awareness. So for example, among the doctor networks we have a video conference, it was every two weeks and there’s other video conferences that are held even more frequently. It’s now every four weeks. In fact, there’s another one tomorrow. And that has the heads of the IMA the heads of the College of General Practitioners, many leading doctor and communication groups. And again, one of the consistent messages is report adverse events even if you don’t think that there’s a likelihood of them being associated. So I would say for the COVID vaccines there’s greater awareness than there ever has been for any other medical product. The states and territories, as I’ve said, either have mandatory adverse event reporting for vaccines or they have pretty well old systems such as in Victoria. And thirdly, there’s been a tremendous investment in what we call stimulated and active reporting. So through AusVaxSafety a proportion of people who get vaccinated get SMSs at regular times and are contacted. So you’re not requiring men to say, “I don’t feel well,” it’s an adverse event they’re asked and followed up. Do you have any ill feeling, any adverse events how you going? Taken together, I think we have probably the most comprehensive picture of safety of these products and we have had for any medical product ever on the market in Australia

[Roberts] Professor Skerritt, I’d urge you to have a look at the systems for reporting because I’ve had a number of reputable credible doctors tell me that they are aware of adverse events not reported because the AHPRA is intimidating doctors. Professor Kelly, if I could just mention that the word conspiracy used to be used quite a bit in the past for exactly that. Vague claims. But the word conspiracy now is used as a defence to ridicule someone who’s raising a genuine issue. So that is quite often when I see the word conspiracy. It’s used to deflect so that’s why I brought up–

[Skerritt] Senator I think that… Frankly, AHPRA wouldn’t know if a doctor reported an adverse event to us for name of a reporting doctor is anonymous and confidential, they cannot take action. So how on earth could AHPRA sanction a doctor who reported an adverse event to the TGA? They wouldn’t know.

[Roberts] Well, how can we get AHPRA here and ask them directly? Because they’re away from our scope they’ve been taken away from our scope by understanding 2017. They’re giving edicts to doctors in this country and doctors are looking me in the face in massive groups, groups of 40 or more, in suburbs in Brisbane, telling me, that they’ve lost the doctor-patient relationship. They have to abide by health directives and AHPRA is doing that.

[Skerritt] Senator, I simply do not believe that AHPRA has told doctors not to report adverse events. I think that I’d believe a flat earth policy before that.

[Chair] We’re gonna go–

[Roberts] How do we get AHPRA here?

[Chair] Senator Roberts has jumped in after I was about to hand to Senator Grogan–

[Roberts] Chair, how do we get AHPRA here? Because they’re not accountable to the–

[Chair] We have tried that before, and that’s a separate issue. We’re not gonna discuss that right now. We’ve taken that to the government before.

Part 3

The TGA has been morally deficient in their blind acceptance of overseas data provided by the pharmaceutical companies to approve COVID vaccines.

Despite this, they bat away any criticism or safety concerns as simply a conspiracy theory.

As I said, conspiracy theory is “used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question” and what did one of our Chief Health Officers respond to that? “

It is and I’ll be using it that way”. The contempt these bureaucrats have for openness and transparency is palpable.

[Roberts] Your office obtained de-identified clinical data, patient data from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. And did that data form your decision on the vaccine, or did you just accept what the manufacturer said?

[Skerritt] So Senator, of a long established process is that we receive an aggregate submission looking at the analysis of a patient data. And then during the review both our clinicians who review that data carefully and also our advisory committee for medicines which is composed of eminent clinicians across various disciplines, we do go back and ask a series of questions to the company, but of the global regulators only the US Food and Drug Administration, obtains individual patient data as a course of practise, so-

[Roberts] So the answer is no?

[Skerritt] So we do not obtain individual patient regulator. We’re simply not resourced to do so.

[Roberts] Okay, that’s fine, I just needed the answer. So the TGA with all of it’s resources didn’t take the opportunity to review you the approximately 44,000 records on the vaccine testing. Yet you improved it to inject into millions of Australians?

[Skerritt] I don’t agree, but we didn’t take the opportunity to review the results for trials. We spent many person months. In fact, probably several person years, you aggregate the size of a team of clinicians and others looking at that data. We looked at that data on 44,000 people and the trials was very carefully.

[Roberts] What clinical testing was done in Australia on the COVID-19 vaccines.

[Skerritt] So for there were some vaccines that have had early stage trials done in Australia but it is not a requirement, but medicine or vaccines are clinically trialled in Australia, if it were a requirement we’d have far fewer medicines and vaccines on the market. We look for trials done in comparable populations. So we assume a trial done on an American is gonna be transferable to the Australian population. However, if there are trial groups missing such as we have a lot of Australians of Asian descent we’ll look at that in a trial data too.

[Roberts] So you also assume then that a trial by an American pharmaceutical company done on Americans is just acceptable?

[Skerritt] We Don’t assume it’s just acceptable. We look at, as I’ve mentioned, the total amount of data for Pfizer is over 220,000 pages. And so that would fill many pallets of paper if it were deposited in the middle of this room. So we scrutinise, we review that data at extreme length. We spend thousands of man and woman hours reviewing that data.

[Roberts] But no testing here.

[Skerritt] We test the vaccine here in a laboratories. As I mentioned earlier, we have about 105 laboratory staff.

[Roberts] So are those tests to make sure that the control batches comply with the current batches in this country, or are they actually testing the vaccine for its efficacy, for its safety?

[Skerritt] The tests are looking, well they relate to safety because they check the vaccines composition. They check that there’s no contaminants in it. And they check that it aligns with the requirements of-

[Roberts] So you’re not testing the vaccines efficacy or safety or risk?

[Skerritt] We are looking at safety in a post market sense. The data from FDA and Safety comes from clinical trials that are being conducted globally. And I would add the same approach is accepted by all world’s major regulators, including Europe. So the European Medicines Agency, which regulates for European Union does not require trials to be done within Europe.

[Roberts] Are you aware there are major concerns about the FDA processes in America and many of the health agencies in America being completely tainted by pharmaceutical companies, conflicts of interest.

[Skerritt] TGA makes independent sovereign evaluations of vaccines, the government expressly rejected, this government expressly rejected a possibility of TGA automatically accepting US FDA decisions. So government position, and it was the accepted in this place when a bill went through the house was for TGA to continue to make its own sovereign decisions. And we don’t always make the same decisions as FDA around medicines and drugs.

[Roberts] And you rely upon various committees-

[Skerritt] Yes, we do.

[Roberts] For approval of different types of drugs, including vaccines.

[Skerritt] We rely on them from advice. So we have an active advisory committee for vaccines and an advisory committee for medicines, for example, that will go to treatments.

[Roberts] Have you assessed that committee’s composition for conflicts of interest?

[Skerritt] Oh, very much so Senator and, first of all-

[Roberts] Can we get a copy of that?

[Skerritt] Senator, there would be individual personal information we could provide, I don’t think it’s appropriate to say, well, doctor so is X, but we could explain both the process and we could explain those candidates who were not considered-

[Roberts] Yes, please.

[Skerritt] So within those constraints, of course we would very welcome to-

[Roberts] We’ll take from there.

[Skerritt] It is absolutely important that the people on the committees do not have a conflict of interest.

[Roberts] I agree.

[Skerritt] It would corrupt the process.

[Roberts] Last question on this topic before I move on to a second one. Were the COVID-19 vaccines ever tested upon zero to four, four year olds? And could you please provide a copy of the data to prove that the vaccine is safe for young children and babies?

[Skerritt] The vaccines are not approved for zero to four year olds. So they have not been approved in this country or in any major global regulator areas, there is an approval in China for a Chinese made vaccine, I think down to age three. But when I look at the US, when I look at Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe they are not approved in that age group.

[Roberts] When will they be approved?

[Skerritt] It depends on the date of it’s submitted to us and whether it’s accessible.

[Roberts] Are you expecting at any time in the next three months before the new parliament comes in?

[Skerritt] I can’t predict that we may receive an application midyear but it is really dependent on the completion of trials, and on the quality of the data.

[Roberts] Thank you, let’s move on then to the next topic. Can a COVID-19 vaccine enter and affect human DNA? Now a Swedish study and I’m gonna table this. A Swedish study has demonstrated that it could and while the paper, which is being distributed, at section four states, and I’ll quote, “At this stage we do not know if DNA reverse transcribe from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.” So they’re acknowledging that, “the fact is that the Australian government may have not independently confirmed whether it does or not.” So the question is, have you done so, have you kept us safe?

[Skerritt] So we are familiar with this paper. It is actually quite widely discredited in the medical community for a number of reasons. Firstly, reverse transcriptase of the type required are not commonly found within cells, are not commonly found within the nucleus. And if this were plausible, you’d argue as I mentioned earlier, probably all of us sitting here have 20,000 genes and 20,000 mRNAs that are making various proteins on time. You’d have all those proteins clogging up the nucleus. The second issue is that the amount of messenger RNA used in this study was not the physiological levels. It was a very high level of messenger RNA. So this paper was published in a second or third tier journal and it’s been fairly widely discredited. And again, I’m happy to provide a bit more information on what experts in the field have said about this particular study.

[Roberts] Yeah, I’d welcome that. But my question was not whether the paper was good or not. The question is, has the Australian government independently confirmed whether the material does transcribe or not? So my question was, have you done that? And have you kept us safe from the possibility of that?

[Skerritt] We do not believe it can plausibly-

[Roberts] So that’s a belief?

[Skerritt] For scientific evidence does not show-

[Roberts] Can we see that scientific evidence, please?

[Roberts] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] If could take that on notice.

[Skerritt] Yes.

[Roberts] Thank you. Secondly, did the TGA issue authorization solely based upon the basis of the manufacturer’s data?

[Skerritt] To which for vaccine, are you talking about?

[Roberts] Pfizer?

[Skerritt] So every medical product is submitted on the basis of, sorry is reviewed on the basis of a submission that a company or other sponsor makes. In every case, there are questions sometimes in the case of one of the COVID vaccines but I think questions numbered in the hundreds. There are many questions where we go back and request further data. We also look at data from studies if that vaccine is for example, already on the market as professor Murphy mentioned for AstraZeneca and Pfizer, where there was already use overseas, we look at that data, but the process is that the data does come from the organisation that submits it, but we don’t take it at face value. We drive pharmaceutical companies crazy by asking them dozens and quite often hundreds of questions and ask for more things.

[Roberts] Why did the TGA just refer to the manufacturer that and take their word for it? I know you just said-

[Skerritt] Well, as I said, we don’t take their word for it. Otherwise we’d just be a rubber stamp. You might as well bother having a-

[Roberts] That’s my concern.

[Skerritt] We are not a rubber stamp. What do those people do all day? And I think it’s fair to say. When you’ve had, at the time we were reviewing the vaccines we had teams of people working seven days a week. So they were extremely busy reviewing hundreds of thousands of pages of data-

[Roberts] My concern-

[Skerritt] And these are very highly qualified people Senator.

[Roberts] My concern professor Skerrit is that there have been so many contradictions so many reversals of data, so many denials, so many orders, so many instructions, so many absurdities throughout this whole COVID and I call it a mismanagement.

[Skerritt] That’s your assertion?

[Roberts] That is my assertion. And there have been so many absurdities so many contradictions we’ve got one state predicting another state. We’ve got one state contradicting itself within over a period of weeks. We’ve got so many of these that people are rightly very very suspicious and concerned.

[Skerritt] Well, I would also add the fact that Australia of course has a very high vaccination rate. And while there are some individuals who are suspicious or concerned about the data, a massive majority of Australians have chosen to become vaccinated. I’d also add that there is one national medicines regulator who has a role of looking at the safety, efficacy and quality of vaccines.

[Roberts] Okay, my next question goes to, is from constituents, many constituents. And I’d like to tell over these, please. I’m not tabling the questions. I’m tabling handout, listing reports and scientific publications on the toxicity of graphene oxides to living organisms.

[Skerritt] Oh, yes, it’s toxic.

[Roberts] My constituents have asked me to ask you about a recent UK study, which has formed the basis of criminal charges in that country. “Due to the presence of compounds including, graphene oxide in COVID-19 vaccines.” Graphene oxide is not on the ingredients list. Have you tested specifically for graphene oxide, or other unlisted chemicals in the COVID-19 vaccines?

[Skerritt] We have and other regulators have assessed the vaccines. There is no graphene oxide in any of the vaccines.

[Roberts] Have you tested?

[Skerritt] I would have to take that on notice but we have no evidence, we do-

[Roberts] You have no evidence, but have you tested for that?

[Skerritt] I said, I’d have to take that on notice but I am absolutely confident. There is no graphene oxide vaccines, why on earth would you put it in there?

[Roberts] That’s what people want to know?

[Skerritt] Yeah, why on earth would you do that?

[Roberts] But we talk about that-

[Skerritt] That probably sounds like some conspiracy theory again, Senator.

[Roberts] That’s usually used as a term to ridicule the person asking the question.

[Skerritt] It is and I’ll be using it that way.

[Roberts] Okay.

[Skerritt] But to think that someone, and it’s not directed at you Senator, but to think that someone would put graphene oxide into a vaccine would amount to a conspiracy theory.

[Roberts] We may have some interesting material for your next sentiments.

[Skerritt] Thank you Senator.

[Roberts] Yes, you’ve already explained that graphene oxide is toxic to humans.

[Skerritt] Oh, yeah.

[Roberts] Professor Kelly, your response to Senator Rennick’s questions about the denial of people wanting to go overseas, from going overseas because of their global commitments. I’ve heard that so many times, minister whether it be from the leader in the senate, previous it was on the senate, Senator Corman, in answer to my request for data as to why we’re complying with UN requirements and UN policies, I get told because we have to comply with our global commitments. I understand that the Omicron variant entered Australia at a time when only vaccinated people were allowed into the country?

[Kelly] That’s correct, Senator.

[Roberts] Thank you, that’s all for me right now. And I’ll come back with ATAGI.

Part 4

AHPRA is an unaccountable private organisation that holds the threat of de-registration over the head of any Doctor

who dares give advice against vaccination counter to the Government line.

They must be held accountable and the primacy of the confidential doctor-patient relationship must be restored.

[Roberts] Through this quickly then, I’d like to table this. My questions are for ATAGI because that’s where I was directed by the gentleman at the table now. Thank you. It’s in regard to AHPRA, this is from their website and I’ve also got another page on their website. Which I’m not tabling, but I’m happy to do so if needed. Dr. Crawford, are you there?

[Dr. Murphy] Here’s for AHPRA question might not be relevant, it’s ATAGI, senator. So let’s ask you a question and we’ll see…

[Roberts] Okay we’ll ask a question to everyone then. Well, some, this is on ATAGI and national boards. Position statement goes back to 9th of March, 2021 right from the start, pre-vaccine. While some health professionals, practitioners, sorry, may have a conscientious objection to COVID 19 vaccination. All practitioners, including students on placement must comply with local employer, health service or health department policies, procedures and guidelines relating to COVID 19 vaccination national boards regulate individual practitioners and not health services or state and territory health departments. Down the bottom of this notice, it says, any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation programme, including via social media, is not supported by national boards. And the doctors read this, may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action. So that was very, very clear. Then there’s a social media guideline which I won’t go through now. So I, is anyone aware of John Larter, who is a experienced paramedic who took a vocal stand against mandatory vaccination in his industry against mandatory vaccination. AHPRA moved swiftly on him and Larter told the media that he was not even given an official reason for his suspension when it happened. Ros Nealon-Cook is a psychologist who took it upon herself to warn Australians on social media of the severe and widespread harm being caused to child development and mental health by prolonged lockdowns. She was instantly suspended for her trouble. The more concerning one, these are all of concern in August of 2021, the COVID medical network published an open letter titled “First Do No Harm”. The COVID medical network’s open letter did not list any authors. So APRA went to the Australian securities and investments commission ASIC, and found out the names of the three directors of the COVID medical network. Two were doctors and their medical licences were immediately suspended. The COVID medical network was formed in 2020 to provide the public with informed evidence based advice concerning lockdowns and other matters that differs from that of the government and its bureaucratic instruments. The organisation runs a weekly video conference that is tuned into by hundreds of Australian health practitioners, professionals, sorry. The other, one of these doctors who were suspended, Robert Brennon was given written reasons for his instant termination. APRA accused him of spreading, quote, Medical Misinformation, unquote via the COVID medical network open letter because this is the words that APRA used, the content of both the letter and the video contrary to New South Wales public health orders because I’ll say that again, the content of the letter and the video are contrary to New South Wales public health orders enforced at the time and have the potential to undermine public health strategies by potentially influencing medical practitioners and the community not to be vaccinated. Then they go on, APRA, to say, it is not our role to evaluate the scientific validity of the letter. Our concern is that the letter strongly argued a highly polarised position contrary to public health order. In other words, the position argued by Dr. Brennon and the COVID medical network might be scientifically correct. And the position of the Australian government scientifically incorrect but as far as APRA is concerned. The crime lies in contradicting the government’s position.

[Chair] Senator Roberts, so you have a question?

[Roberts] Yes I do, why is AHPRA allowed to do this? And what are you doing to make sure AHPRA is held accountable? Because they’re not as far as I know, to the parliament.

[Dr. Murphy] So APRA is a creature of all governments. So it’s a creature of all state territory governments and the Commonwealth government. It has its, and it has a range of boards of experts. So there’s a medical board and there are boards of nursing and paramedicine. And I think the message really is in that that final statement that said that promotion of statements or advice that contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seek to actively undermine the national immunisation programme has been determined by APRA and by its expert boards as being unprofessional conduct. And we would support that contention by AHPRA.

[Roberts] So can I get access to that evidence from a AHPRA?

[Dr. Murphy] What evidence?

[Roberts] That it’s the best scientific evidence.

[Doctor Murphy] Well, I think the best I think professor been giving you the best scientific evidence all morning, about the the benefit of vaccination. And I think that’s just, there are scientific standards that are well established in the literature.

[Roberts] Can I get the evidence? Not statements and opinions about the evidence. Can I get the evidence?

[Dr. Murphy] We can give you lots of evidence?

[Roberts] No can I get AHPRA’s evidence? They’re touting, but remember Dr. Murphy, it’s not only, what might be scientific, it’s also about the contradiction of the public health statements

[Dr. Murphy] Senator, if you would like to provide that information to us, we can investigate it on notice and go back to AHPRA

[Roberts] Provide what to you?

[Dr. Murphy] And understand what you…

[Roberts] This information?

Yeah, yeah. If you can provide it to us,

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

We can follow it up.

[Roberts] Final question.

[Chair] I’m just conscious of time. Cause I’ve got four other senators now, asking to ask questions.

[Roberts] I’d like to know why ATAGI is not here in person. And also I’d like to know…

Professor Crawford is here online. He’s actually based in Melbourne, senator, so…

[Roberts] Thank you. That’s all I needed to know. I’d like to know the relationship between, Dr. Murphy, between the boards, APRA and the AHPPC. And the final question, public health is quite often used these days in America and in Australia as a catch-all for the community, public health, when, and that’s why orders are given and people are supposed to follow them. But public health is a nonsense. It’s not an entity. The primary public health goes back to the primary relationship between a doctor and a patient. In this country, now, are you aware that there is not a relationship between many doctors and their patients because the doctor has got a puppet master behind him telling him what him, what he can and cannot say.

[Dr. Murphy] The Individual relationship between a doctor and his patient is sacrosanct and APRA would not have any problem with a doctor.

[Roberts] Dr. Murphy, they have.

[Dr. Murphy] AHPRA would not have a problem with a doctor having an individual discussion with his or her patients around vaccination. What this is talking about is the public promotion of misinformed and wrong scientific evidence. So that’s what they’re concerned about, bringing the profession in to distribute and undermining public confidence.

[Roberts] But what I’m talking about is doctors who are very concerned.

[Chair] Senator Roberts your time has expired now we’re going to move on, I’m sorry.

[Roberts] Just one minute. What I’m very concerned about is doctors who are telling me personally that they cannot give advice because AHPRA is sitting behind them. So what they’re getting is a public health dictate when they go to the doctor, not advice.

Well if you can provide evidence of that

[Roberts] Yes, I will.

We’ll be happy to investigate.

[Roberts] Who do I provide it to?

[Kelly] And Senator, I’m very happy to provide a definition of public health as a public health physician. Is it actually a recognised AHPRA profession. And that is me and there are others in the department that have that. And I would refer to my opening statement about what the definition of a public health physician does and how that works. It’s about protecting the population at the population level and preventing death at the population level. That is not in any way to take away the importance, absolute vital importance of the individual doctor, individual patient relationship. It’s a different part of the profession.

[Chair] Okay, thank you.

[Roberts] Thank you…

Posted on May 11, 2022, in ConspiracyOz Posts. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: