My Letter to TGA (03.11.2021)
Dear TGA,
There is now no excuse for maintaining the authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
The linked article was released 9 hours ago by the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Please act now and save lives.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Dear TGA,
There is now no excuse for maintaining the authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine.
The linked article was released 9 hours ago by the BMJ: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Please act now and save lives.
Regards,
Michael Kowalik
Forwarded from Beach
Covid19_Researcher_blows_the_whistle_on_data_integrity_issues_in.pdf
584.5 KB
Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial
No solution to the problems of humanity can be derived from the tribal mindset, from the nativist tribal lore or ritual, which derives its meaning and values from the animal vessel of humanity, from its localised, environmental conditioning, rather than from humanity itself - the conscious rational agency from which all meaning and value ultimately derives. Apart from the phenomenologically vague (albeit practically relevant) concept of Anthropos (‘one who is alike’) the first fully developed articulation of pan-humanist moral consciousness on the planet can be traced to Immanuel Kant, who has identified the common seed of humanity in the three fundamental, indispensable laws of meaning/sense. Any belief or ritual that is unconscious of these laws precludes inter-cultural understanding and thus negates humanity as a universal principle. This in turn negates the normative basis of universal Human Rights; the equivocation between tribal rights and human rights entails contradiction.
I have not received any direct response or action from Tanya to my multiple emails regarding the vaccine mandates, but I get this generic PR fluff. By their fruit you shall know them. https://news.1rj.ru/str/NormalParty/328
Vaccine mandates are equivalent to a robber putting a gun to your head and asking for your wallet. If it were “your choice” to give away your wallet, it would not be a robbery, therefore no crime, just a voluntary gift.
The several thousands of unvaccinated health workers who were stood down are just the tip of an iceberg. The majority of the unvaccinated are still using up their accumulated leave and claiming sick leave. When the penny drops there will be tens of thousands medical workers stood down Australia wide, and thousands of patients will die due to the lack of medical care. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-02/qld-coronavirus-covid19-health-staff-vaccine-mandate/100588708
www.abc.net.au
Beds and medical services cut in central Queensland as hospital workers defy COVID-19 vaccination mandate
There'll be some temporary reductions to surgical, medical and mental health beds in central Queensland after more than 8 per cent of the health workforce failed to comply with the COVID vaccination mandate.
An email from Fiona Patten, “Reason Party”, who endorses legal absurdities like the delegation of a non-existent authority to rule the State by decree, presents blanket assertions and value-judgements as arguments, and claims to live in “Wurundjeri Country” rather than in the sovereign country of Australia, therefore a separatist and a supporter of the ultra-right ideology of nativist prioritarianism:
Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting my office.
I apologise for the impersonal reply. Given the number of emails we are receiving on this subject, we do not have the capacity to respond individually.
Sadly, misinformation about Victoria’s proposed pandemic laws is rife.
No one likes lockdowns, no one likes restrictions on our freedoms. I don’t. Lockdowns affect people’s livelihoods, our wider economy and our mental health. We feel lonely and isolated. They weigh heavily. We all want it to go back to the way it used to be before the pandemic. But we cannot forget for a second, that state of emergency and pandemic rules only exist to save our lives and protect public health.
The alternate of blindly ending restrictions does not lead us back to the way it used to be, or where we want to be in the future.
All states across Australia have declared a state of emergency (or equivalent), giving governments and health officials broad powers to limit individual rights and freedoms to protect public health. These laws only exist to protect life. They exist for situations where carrying on as normal puts us all at risk.
State of emergency (SOE) laws, under which we have been operating during Covid-19, are designed for a short-term health crisis. They are not fit for purpose when it comes to managing an enduring pandemic. That is why I have been calling for pandemic specific legislation since March. Our SOE framework lacks transparency and vests power in health officials to make decisions outside their remit, that affect whole of state matters such as the economy.
What is the alternative?
If we had no legislation of this type, there is no way to control the spread of disease in our community and many more Victorians would die. We need a legislative framework for pandemics. But any new pandemic framework must improve on the laws currently in place that govern a SOE.
The pandemic legislation proposed makes welcome improvements. As compared to a state of emergency, the pandemic legislation provides for greater separation of power in the decision making process, makes important transparency improvements including full publication of CHO advice, improves parliamentary oversight via the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, provides for an independent advisory committee, and allows Parliament to disallow health orders in certain circumstances. It is a marked improvement on our current framework.
Some limitations on human rights are unavoidable in circumstances like these. Like a state of emergency, pandemic legislation will necessarily limit some human rights in order for it to function. If it does not limit rights to some extent, it cannot work to curtail the spread of disease.
My touchstone has been this quote from Kristen Hilton in 2020, Victoria’s then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner:
“During a state of emergency, some limitations on human rights may be unavoidable – and these are not decisions we can take lightly. Any restriction on human rights must be necessary, justifiable, proportionate and time-bound.”
No one, including me, like’s their rights being limited – but if the purpose of those limitation is to protect and save life, then it is necessary.
Our choice as Parliamentarians, is not whether we limit human rights or not. It is whether we limit human rights in a responsible way, to save lives, or not limit rights at all and let disease run wild – there is no middle ground. That is why I will ensure, to the full extent of my ability, that the pandemic legislation before the Parliament is necessary, justifiable, proportionate and time bound.
(...)
Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting my office.
I apologise for the impersonal reply. Given the number of emails we are receiving on this subject, we do not have the capacity to respond individually.
Sadly, misinformation about Victoria’s proposed pandemic laws is rife.
No one likes lockdowns, no one likes restrictions on our freedoms. I don’t. Lockdowns affect people’s livelihoods, our wider economy and our mental health. We feel lonely and isolated. They weigh heavily. We all want it to go back to the way it used to be before the pandemic. But we cannot forget for a second, that state of emergency and pandemic rules only exist to save our lives and protect public health.
The alternate of blindly ending restrictions does not lead us back to the way it used to be, or where we want to be in the future.
All states across Australia have declared a state of emergency (or equivalent), giving governments and health officials broad powers to limit individual rights and freedoms to protect public health. These laws only exist to protect life. They exist for situations where carrying on as normal puts us all at risk.
State of emergency (SOE) laws, under which we have been operating during Covid-19, are designed for a short-term health crisis. They are not fit for purpose when it comes to managing an enduring pandemic. That is why I have been calling for pandemic specific legislation since March. Our SOE framework lacks transparency and vests power in health officials to make decisions outside their remit, that affect whole of state matters such as the economy.
What is the alternative?
If we had no legislation of this type, there is no way to control the spread of disease in our community and many more Victorians would die. We need a legislative framework for pandemics. But any new pandemic framework must improve on the laws currently in place that govern a SOE.
The pandemic legislation proposed makes welcome improvements. As compared to a state of emergency, the pandemic legislation provides for greater separation of power in the decision making process, makes important transparency improvements including full publication of CHO advice, improves parliamentary oversight via the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, provides for an independent advisory committee, and allows Parliament to disallow health orders in certain circumstances. It is a marked improvement on our current framework.
Some limitations on human rights are unavoidable in circumstances like these. Like a state of emergency, pandemic legislation will necessarily limit some human rights in order for it to function. If it does not limit rights to some extent, it cannot work to curtail the spread of disease.
My touchstone has been this quote from Kristen Hilton in 2020, Victoria’s then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner:
“During a state of emergency, some limitations on human rights may be unavoidable – and these are not decisions we can take lightly. Any restriction on human rights must be necessary, justifiable, proportionate and time-bound.”
No one, including me, like’s their rights being limited – but if the purpose of those limitation is to protect and save life, then it is necessary.
Our choice as Parliamentarians, is not whether we limit human rights or not. It is whether we limit human rights in a responsible way, to save lives, or not limit rights at all and let disease run wild – there is no middle ground. That is why I will ensure, to the full extent of my ability, that the pandemic legislation before the Parliament is necessary, justifiable, proportionate and time bound.
(...)
(...)
Yours sincerely,
Fiona Patten
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Leader of the Reason Party
Chair, LC Legal and Social Issues Committee
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council
Wurundjeri Country
Unit 1, 747 Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC 3056
Yours sincerely,
Fiona Patten
Member for Northern Metropolitan Region
Leader of the Reason Party
Chair, LC Legal and Social Issues Committee
Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council
Wurundjeri Country
Unit 1, 747 Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC 3056
Vaccine mandates imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026.
The most trending article in BMJ’s history and yet not a single news network has covered this event. Total media blackout. Pfizer falsified data in their Covid vaccine clinical trials. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
If you value public safety, avoid using face masks in social settings, and beware of the people who do. They could snap without warning, for no apparent reason. Mask rage is real. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787
Forwarded from Normal (Michael Kowalik)
This is why the face-mask mandates for adults hurt children the most: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=apzXGEbZht0
Being unvaccinated is not a choice; we were born that way. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026.
Any doctor who took the Covid vaccine, let alone endorsed it, is not fit to practice medicine.
Vaccine mandates and passports trample the fundamental principles of medical and professional ethics.
1 Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. The situation is akin to mandating that people must submit to genital alteration in the interest of public health, or they will be largely excluded from society.
2 Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Covid-19 is a natural phenomenon, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.
3 Medical consent must be free - not coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of a valid medical consent. If it were morally permissible to prevent deaths during pandemics at the expense of free medical consent, then the right to medical consent would not exist at all, because there is no morally relevant difference between preventing millions of deaths and one death. Every illness can cause death, and even medical experimentation in a death camp may lead to future prevention of deaths, so if we believe in free medical consent at all, we must respect it for all medical interventions.
Being unvaccinated is not a choice; we were born that way. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.
I have fully developed the underlying argument here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026 SAVE and SHARE.
1 Vaccine mandates imply that all humans are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be biotechnologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race. The situation is akin to mandating that people must submit to genital alteration in the interest of public health, or they will be largely excluded from society.
2 Covid vaccines are known to occasionally cause deaths of healthy people. When an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is being economically coerced to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die ‘in the course of employment’ as a direct result of their mandatory participation. This goes against the fundamental principles of medical ethics and workplace safety. It may be objected that Covid-19 also kills people, but these two categories of deaths are not ethically equivalent. Covid-19 is a natural phenomenon, whereas deaths resulting from mandatory vaccination are mandated deaths, a legalised killing of some people for the alleged benefit of the majority.
3 Medical consent must be free - not coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of a valid medical consent. If it were morally permissible to prevent deaths during pandemics at the expense of free medical consent, then the right to medical consent would not exist at all, because there is no morally relevant difference between preventing millions of deaths and one death. Every illness can cause death, and even medical experimentation in a death camp may lead to future prevention of deaths, so if we believe in free medical consent at all, we must respect it for all medical interventions.
Being unvaccinated is not a choice; we were born that way. The right to preserve our innate characteristics without being discriminated against is paramount.
I have fully developed the underlying argument here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107026 SAVE and SHARE.
This tells me that the end of covid vaccine drive is in sight. Endure. https://www.rt.com/business/539511-biontech-shares-plunge-pfizer/
RT
BioNTech shares nosedive on news of whistleblower report & Covid pills
Shares of German biotech company BioNTech, which co-developed a Covid-19 vaccine with US company Pfizer, took a dramatic 20% plunge on Friday in the wake of a damning whistleblower report.