An Issue of Human Rights
There is a group of Lawyers known as Advocate Me who have created a 3 Step Process in declining vaccinations from employers. As their website states–
Forcing a medical procedure onto a person is morally and ethically wrong. In spite of what State and Territory Public Health Directives and the media say, we are protected by Common Law, our Constitution, the Federal Biosecurity Act and several International Treaties relating to Human Rights.
Informed Consent and conscientious objection is our right as humans.
The main argument the Government use to coerce the population into vaccination and justify mandates/passports is that we need to protect the community and the vulnerable/elderly. The old guilt trip method. You’re an awful person if you don’t get vaccinated.
But this makes zero sense when it is proven that the vaccinated can both infect and be infected by Covid 19.
Efficacy of the Vaccine
In this 114 page information paper regarding non-consent to mandatory or coerced covid 19 injections (which I highly recommend reading in full, knowledge is power), efficacy of the vaccine is discussed-
As explained in an article published in The Lancet, “Vaccine manufacturers have been publicly conveying high efficacy percentages (between 67% and 95%) based on relative risk reduction (RRR) only. RRR determines the degree of risk reduction for the undesired event in the subgroup that presented it (experimental group) relative to the opposite corresponding subgroup (control group).
However, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine; considers the whole population and has been largely ignored or overlooked in regards to public awareness. According to the article, the ARR’s for each COVID-19 vaccine are, “1.3% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford, 1.2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1.2% for the J&J, 0.93% for the Gamaleya, and 0.84% for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines.”
The efficacy results referred to in the above point, relate to the effectiveness of the vaccine reducing the symptoms and nothing to do with preventing infectious transmission or spreading of the virus.
They Keep Saying This Vaccine Is SAFE & EFFECTIVE. Is it?
The Government, the CDC and our Health Minister, Greg Hunt continually spout to the public that the Covid 19 is safe and effective. An outrageous, dangerous and outlandish claim to make given-
A group of Australian Doctors known as the Covid Medical Network wrote an open letter to All Doctors and Australians titled ‘Primum Non Nocere’ OR First Do No Harm, where they outlined-
“The issue of Covid Vaccines is a controversial and sensitive one. The Covid Medical Network is NOT ‘anti-vax’. We acknowledge vaccination may curb the pandemic and is aimed at reducing hospitalisation and death from SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, we believe, in the interests of transparency and for the sake of individual patient care, doctors should be aware of some important, yet lesser-known issues. We are concerned that many members of the public and some medical colleagues seem unaware of some basic facts concerning the current Covid vaccines.
Only provisional approval for 2 years has been granted by the TGA, for both available covid vaccines, as they are considered investigational. Similarly, in the USA, due to incomplete efficacy and safety data, the available gene-based (mRNA and DNA) vaccines have only been made available by the FDA under Emergency Use Authorisation legislation. The TGA Deputy Secretary, Professor John Skerritt, and Minister for Health Greg Hunt have both made public statements that this vaccine rollout is a clinical trial (effectively an experiment) that will conclude in 2022.
Both available vaccines in Australia are totally new gene-based, nucleic acid (mRNA and DNA) vaccines and viral vector vaccines.
The mRNA vaccine technology, using Lipid Nano-Particles (LNPs), has never previously been used on humans. Both vaccines carry genetic instructions for the host’s cells to make antigen to induce an immune response.
Due to the unprecedented ‘rush to market’ via Emergency Authorisation Usage in the USA, doctors should be aware of the deficiency of many of the established standards for vaccine development which have been bypassed. Of particular concern being the absence of completed Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) studies. Neither were genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies performed. There is also an absence of long-term safety data.
Concerns about biodistribution are also now being raised about both the ‘produced’ Spike Protein and LNP components of the vaccines. Evidence of their delivery and expression systemically, beyond the injection site, is now available, including the unexpected accumulation of LNPs in the ovaries as revealed in the Japanese Ministry of Health animal studies, as well as studies revealing spike protein biodistribution concerns among health workers from Harvard’s Brigham Women’s hospital. Both findings raise significant concerns about future fertility issues for young people. More information.
Concerns have also been raised that the induced Spike Protein itself can act as a pathogen independent of the virus, as has been revealed in the Salk Institute study, entitled: COVID-19 is a Vascular Disease: Coronavirus’ Spike Protein Attacks Vascular System on a Cellular Level.
Doctors, their patients and the general public should also be made more aware of the concerning and unprecedented ‘safety signals’ being raised through official reporting systems both in Australia and around the world. (For more information, see Appendix 2) For example, the adverse events and deaths following vaccination that have been reported to the TGA. Currently 377 deaths (side note the TGA have decided only 4 of these were due to the vaccination??) and 39,077 adverse events have been reported. Although this does not prove causation, the comparison with previous incident reporting experience and comparative reporting systems raises grave concerns.https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-15-07-2021
The issue of the claimed ‘efficacy’ from initial studies has also been criticised regarding the use of Relative Risk Reduction (“95%”) instead of the more useful and appropriate Absolute Risk Reduction (0.7 % – 1.1 %). This critical issue is important in properly estimating efficacy and risk/benefit analysis for particular demographics. These articles may be of help on this issue:COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the roomhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/“
This group of doctors also shared this deeply disturbing account-
The government has decided it is the best arbiter of what information you are provided access to and has threatened practitioners with disciplinary action should they offer any critique against the government’s public health responses, including the vaccine rollout. They have also been inhibited in discussing and recommending early treatment alternatives such as Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, even risking jail for 6 months in Queensland for transgressing such draconian directives and legislation.
John Clark wrote a letter to the Health Minister Greg Hunt in response to his claims that the Covid 19 vaccines are safe and effective. See below for an excerpt, read in full here
I am an Engineer (with First Class Honours) by formal training and a specialist in measurement, which includes data science, modelling, statistics, uncertainty estimation and management etc. Among other achievements my academic performance landed me on the Deans List at the University of Queensland and I was also invited to join the International Golden Key Honour Society. My measurement expertise has resulted in my appointment by the Federal Goverments’ own National Measurement Institute as a “Legal Metrologist”, which means that measurement reports I produce in my field of work are regarded as statements of legal fact and do not require my expert witness testimony. I’m also a researcher, with health being a specific area of focus in my personal research activities over the past 20 years or so…
At one point you were speaking directly about the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines and you made the following unequivocal claim to the event attendees. I took careful note of your statement but it was so short it was impossible to forget. I quote you as follows:
“Both are safe. Both are effective.”
With respect, Mr Hunt, there is ZERO scientific justification for such an unequivocal statement. In fact, the relevant regulatory authorities (TGA, US FDA etc) make claims that unequivocally contradict your claim. These regulatory agencies plainly state that these biologic agents have only been partially tested (notably/alarmingly with nil long-term testing) and are only granted usage authorizations due to a perceived emergency situation which, they deem, justifies authorisation. The entire premise of that authorisation is to permit usage despite the lack of safety evidence normally required.
Furthermore, these “vaccines” are employing quite radical new techniques. The history of these techniques applied to vaccination is relatively short, and this is the first time the technology has been applied in humans to any significant degree. That history is also poor, as pre-COVID animal testing of these techniques as vaccines against other pathogens regularly resulted in high levels of adverse outcomes and even mass death of the animal subjects. Furthermore, a significant proportion of those adverse outcomes manifested many months after innoculation (‘immune enhancement’), which is alarming given that the current experimental COVID vaccine rollout on humans uses the same technological approach with nil long-term testing and no apparent comment by the manufacturers about the issue of immune enhancement and what changes they believe they have incorporated to mitigate that outcome.
To both inform and further illustrate my point, here is the publicly available data to date on adverse reactions voluntarily reported subsequent to administration of COVID vaccines. For brevity I’ll mention only the USA and UK reports:
• In the USA (via the VAERS vaccine adverse reaction voluntary reporting system: https://vaers.hhs.gov/ and https://www.openvaers.com/openvaers
The number of reported deaths associated with COVID vaccination to date totals 6,985. Whilst some of these reported deaths may be unrelated, the following fact is undeniable and stark: this death count in just the first 6 months of COVID vaccine rollout exceeds the total deaths reported from administration of all types of vaccines for all conditions in the USA over the 22 year period from 1998 through 2019 inclusive. So regardless of what proportion of reported post-covid-vaccination deaths are directly attributable to the vaccine, what we can say with certainty is that rate of death reports after COVID-19 vaccination is, at the very least, more than 100 times higher than for pre-COVID vaccines.
• In the UK, the recent (16th) update to their adverse reaction reporting system (the Yellow Card system2), reports the following totals:
– Over 800,000 adverse reactions reported: – Over 1,100 deaths reported
Restated, according to these publicly available statistics the likelihood of an adverse reac- tion or death subsequent to COVID vaccine injection is at least 100 times greater than for any other widely distributed vaccine ever commercialised. There is no prece- dent for continuing with vaccine roll-out with such a high adverse reaction reporting rate.
On that subject, it is public knowledge (although not widely known) that the COVID-19 vaccine suppliers have been granted special indemnity from harms caused by their product. Furthermore, your government has also indemnified persons administrating these substances. There could hardly be a clearer admission by both the vaccine suppliers and government that both parties know these vaccines do not meet normal safety standards.
This is the strongest signal of all that the makers/designers of these experimental biologics DO NOT have confidence that their product is sufficiently safe to ensure that they would make a profit if they were subject to product safety laws like every other goods and services provider. As if that weren’t enough, a steady flow of internal documents from professional peak bodies (medical boards, pharmacy boards etc) are being leaked into the public domain evidencing that these bodies are effectively issuing “gag orders” on their members to prevent them from giving their personal professional opinion on the safety of these vaccines, and that these bodies are threatening their members with heavy sanctions or even de-registration if they don’t parrot official, pro-vaccine positions. On what planet is this conducive to building public trust? If the “vaccine hesitant” are truly misleading people the trust-building response is superior facts and explanations, not suppression. Suppression of professionals from giving their opinions sends precisely the wrong message to your thinking constituents.
To the point of understanding the true level of risk to the population, please be advised that the latest meta-analysis of all significant IFR studies to date conclude that the Infection Fatality Rate for COVID-19 is approximately 0.15%. This is an extremely meticulous collection and analysis of IFR studies from around the world, from which the above estimate of IFR is determined by the highly respected epidemiologist and biometric data scientist Dr John Ioannidis of Stanford University [IOANNIDIS2021].
Minister, please take a moment to recognise that the COVID-19 IFR of 0.15% is about the same as the IFR of a bad flu season.
Put another way, the chance of survival if infected with COVID-19 is approximately 99.85%. Of course, as already pointed out the risk profile is heavily skewed to the elderly and those with very specific health conditions (such as obesity and vitamin D deficiency). https://gbdeclaration.org/focused-protection/
Virtually all the mortality estimates offered by the media and most of the peak bodies (WHO, CDC, Johns Hopkins, Imperial College etc) were far higher than occurred in reality and were often inadequately or inappropriately described.
Major Issues with Reporting Adverse Events in Australia and Globally
The following information can be found here–
Did you know that it is estimated only 2% to 10% of adverse events are reported? For example: Australia specific:
- Quote from Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), a regulatory body and division of Australia’s Department of Health. “It is generally acknowledged that adverse events are under-reported around the world, with estimates that 90-95% of adverse events are not reported to regulators.” Ref 1
- On its website the TGA acknowledges that the reporting of adverse events related to all medications is only voluntary and under-reported. Ref 2
- In 2010, Peter Collignon, Professor of Infectious Diseases from the Australian National University, felt the number of adverse reactions was probably under estimated given the authorities don’t have a congruent and approachable system to monitor people’s reactions. Ref 3
- In 2003, there were more than an estimated 680,000 severe adverse drug events. An estimated less than 2% of severe adverse drug events (ADEs) from primary care are reported to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee. In 2013 only 5% of the reports of ADEs came from GPs. The percentage of GP’s that report ADEs is only 9%. Ref 4
- Passive post-marketing surveillance of adverse events, as used in Australia, results in significant under-reporting. Ref 5
- Although an active surveillance system (AusVaxSafety) for selected vaccines has been implemented in Australia in last 5 years, it would appear that the surveillance stops a mere three days post-vaccination, making it unsuitable for detecting adverse events with a delayed onset. Ref 6
Around the World:
- Quote from Harvard Medical school, USA…. “fewer than 1% of adverse events are reported”. Ref 7
- Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in USA showed that in 2018, there were 412 deaths associated with vaccines. Ref 8. “VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA”. Ref 10. Could we assume the number to be higher if only 10% were reported?
- Similar limitations are found in vaccine science purporting to show that vaccines are safe. Pre-licensure clinical trials of vaccines lack the sensitivity to detect the less common adverse events, or those with a delayed onset. Ref 9
REFERENCES:1. https://www.tga.gov.au/media-release/new-web-service-helps-consumer-reporting-side-effects2. https://www.tga.gov.au/about-daen-medicines3. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=160554. http://archive.i2p.com.au/?page=site/article&id=999; http://www.hconc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/HCC-submission-on-Therapeutic-Goods-Amendment-Bill-2016.pdf5. https://academic.oup.com/inthealth/article/9/3/164/38610416. http://www.ncirs.org.au/our-work/ausvaxsafety7. https://web.archive.org/web/20190813160009/https://paleofam.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf8. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html9. https://vaccine-safety-training.org/pre-licensure-vaccine-safety.html10. https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html
To assist in the uptake of reporting, should you or someone you know have an adverse event to a vaccine (including COVID-19), please report it yourself to the TGA and also the AVN.
Vaccine Mandates Are Illegal
This information is an excerpt from the legal group Advocate Me brilliant letter that you can send to an employer in relation to workplace vaccine mandates. Download free templates here–
Numerous laws, regulations and policies protect the right of informed consent in receiving a vaccine or any medical procedure, including:
- The Commonwealth Constitution which prohibits civil conscription in medical and dental services (s.51(23A)).
- The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) which prohibits vaccination or treatment without meeting the stringent requirements of an individual Human Biosecurity Control Order (s.92), and prohibits the use of force for vaccination (s.95).
- The UNESCO Statement on Bioethics and Human Rights, which states “Any preventative diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason, without disadvantage and without prejudice” (Art.6).
- The Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which relates to interfering with political liberty states “Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person of any political right or duty shall be guilty of an offence” (s.83.4).
- The official Australian Immunisation Handbook, which states that for consent to be legally valid, “It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.” (s.2.1.3).
- The Nuremberg Code, which states “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” (Art.1).
Conclusion
Given that the very elderly, obese and those with co-morbidities are most at risk, it make zero sense to coerce an entire population, including young and healthy people into having a vaccination that has significant safety risks and is experimental, has been shown to have significant and alarming adverse reactions including death and especially given the vaccinated can still get and transmit Covid.
It is only fair and just that people be able to exercise their basic human rights to CHOOSE whether they have the vaccine or choose to naturally support their immune systems, especially given the larger majority of the elderly and vulnerable are already vaccinated (which the Government claims should provide them protection).
There also needs to be an INDEPENDENT thorough investigation into Government policy, conflicts of interest and fear mongering. The Vaccine Passports/Mandates need to be immediately and permanently revoked, given they are immoral, illegal and entirely illogical.
What Can You Do?
Attend peaceful protests.
Sign this petition to STOP QUEENSLAND’S PROPOSED COVID-19 VACCINATION SEGREGATION POLICY. There is only ONE DAY left to do this so do it now and send it to everyone you can.
Share information with your fellow Australians, you can share the posts I do on my instagram @jessie_reimers to your stories, share this blog on your socials and through mailing lists, when we stay grounded and use evidence based, well researched, factual information (not hysterical fake news), we stand a chance in educating and empowering the wider community and leaving the Government with no choice but to end these immoral, illegal and entirely illogical mandates.
Jessie Reimers
