Australian Doctors are Complicit in Experimentation on the Population
It is the ‘education’ and regulation of doctors that is preventing doctors from practising medicine with integrity in 2020-21.
The Government Therapeutic Goods Administrator (TGA) of Drugs/Vaccines in Australia states that COVID19 vaccines are:
- Experimental and include new untested genetic technology. Hence these drugs only have provisional approval and are not full approved for use in humans.
- The vaccines are not safe. Millions of injuries have been recorded by global government regulators including – anaphylaxis, thrombosis, and coagulation disorders (blood clots), infertility, heart problems (myocarditis and pericarditis), neurological damage (cognitive decline), strokes, paralysis, convulsions, seizures and well over 100,000 deaths.
- There are on average more deaths per day to the COVID vaccines than to COVID-19 disease itself.
- The vaccines are ineffective – they do not prevent you getting or dying from COVID-19 disease, and they do not prevent transmission of the virus in the community. Hence, they are a drug and not a ‘vaccine’ under the WHO’s definition of a vaccine.
- They have only been tested to see if they reduce the symptoms and not to see if they prevent disease.
- They are unnecessary because 99.9% of people under 70 develop immunity through mild or asymptomatic infection. Our immune system develops natural herd immunity in the community through this exposure and the most detrimental action that any government can take is to quarantine healthy asymptomatic people. This hinders the control of infectious diseases in the community. Hence, Sweden did not lockdown its population and the WHO did not provide any evidence that asymptomatic people were a risk to the community in March 2020 when they used this strategy for the first time in history.
- The injection is not specific for COVID-19 disease and the synthetic spike protein that is produced by our cells upon exposure to any coronavirus is toxic to the human body. This includes the development of autoimmune diseases, blood clots and infertility.
Did you see this information reported in the mainstream media? No. Welcome to 2021 where the medical-industry uses framed and manipulated statistics, emotional labels, and anecdotal evidence in the mainstream media to inform you about any drug that they have labelled a ‘vaccine.’
The removal of both scientific evidence and balanced discussion of vaccines in the media has occurred over decades, and we now have a situation where labels and biased information are being used to manipulate your thinking about these drugs. Drugs that are being mandated for HEALTHY people in genetically diverse populations.
This fraudulent promotion of a medical intervention was cemented in 2009 when a government board was set up in Australia to regulate doctors on the “accepted” science for vaccine promotion.
This Federal government agency is called the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Authority (AHPRA) and it is both a government agency and an Australian incorporated business (ABN 78 685 433 429).
In other words, this board controls the knowledge doctors can promote on vaccines and it influences the design and promotion of government vaccination policies. This board has the power to de-regulate doctors and health professionals who make a different risk assessment of vaccines to that provided by this government regulatory board.
Medication for healthy people affects their quality of life and it is doctors who are trained to assess the medical literature for risks and benefits. The AHPRA board has a serious conflict of interest in the regulation of doctors’ knowledge on vaccines, and doctors cannot speak the truth to power if they can lose their livelihoods for doing so.
The risks of vaccines associated with our genetics are now being described as “antivaccination material” and doctors are threatened with de-registration by AHPRA for providing this medical literature to their patients. This includes contraindications to vaccines that have been practiced for 40+ years but have now been arbitrarily removed.
Hence, doctors are now violating the first principle of medicine because they cannot promote their patients best interest first. That is, drugs/vaccines must be given to individuals with advice regarding their own individual circumstances and genetics. This is a key factor in health outcomes with respect to drugs and when this is violated doctors are no longer promoting health in the community. They are promoting sickness and death because many illnesses are linked to our family history and genetics.
The Australian government has now indemnified doctors to give these experimental injections to their patients – injections that are documented to cause serious known and unknown harm in patients. Taxpayers (we) will be paying for our doctors to inflict this harm (and death) on patients without fully informed consent due to government mandates that remove our jobs and right to travel if we refuse.
Over the last few decades doctors have been “educated” in pharma-funded medical schools with industry-funded science. They are taught that anyone who discusses the ingredients of vaccines (drugs) or the serious risks of vaccines, is an “antivaxxer” and a “conspiracy theorist”. This same opinion is provided to the public in the corporate-sponsored mainstream media to denigrate any scientific discussion of the risks of these drugs that are given to healthy people.
Mainstream media has always been a tool to manipulate public behaviour and when the US Congress removed liability from pharmaceutical companies for any harm caused by any drug labelled a “vaccine” in 1986 (because they were paying millions of dollars in compensation for deaths and injuries), this enabled big pharma to minimise the risks of these drugs and to exaggerate the benefits (“life-saving products”) – without providing evidence for these claims.
In 2021 this dismissive ridicule by authorities reached a new low when the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, disrespectfully told ~5,000 WA parents and grandparents at a rally opposing mandatory jabs for jobs, to “Grow a brain” and he stated that “this is about medicine and saving lives”. This statement by this Premier is simply untrue when you ignore the genetics of the population.
High school science students can tell the Premier that a mandatory drug/vaccine, in a genetically diverse population, will cause death and sickness in a significant proportion of the population. Mark McGowan should be removed from his role as Premier for his contempt for the people he serves and for putting the public’s lives are risk with false health information.
Politicians, media, and doctors are using labels to convey a ‘belief’ about vaccines and to stigmatise critical thinking, and this is done without providing any supportive evidence for the implied meanings the words are given. This strategy has been used to support the expansion of national vaccination programs from 1986 – 2021.
Since 1986 ‘beliefs’ that are not evidence-based have been promoted by the media, politicians and doctors by using the following words to promote public health policy:
Vaccines – drugs that have ‘rare’ side-effects and are ‘necessary to control infectious diseases.’ Both claims are untrue.
Infectious diseases – re-labelled as ‘vaccine-preventable diseases’ since 1986 to imply that they can be prevented with a vaccine.
Vaccination programs – falsely labelled as ‘immunisation programs.’ It is known that many vaccinated people do not get immunity after a vaccine is given and they still get the disease.
Catch-Up Schedules – They are not catch-up schedules because most older Australians did not have these vaccines and were never at risk from these diseases.
Antivaxxer – a derogatory term used to describe an educated parent/professional that discusses the risk-benefit analysis of vaccines or ingredients of vaccines. Knowledge of these criteria are necessary to promote ‘healthy’ outcomes from vaccines, yet they are ridiculed.
Conspiracy Theory – derogatory term used to dismiss the serious conflicts of interest in every aspect of global health policy designed by the WHO/GAVI alliance and national vaccination policies designed by governments.
This is a political situation, and it is the influence of corporate money in the political and economic decisions of governments that has led to doctors, governments and the media collaborating to commit a serious crime against their populations by falsely advertising an experimental genetic technology as a ‘vaccine’.
People, including health professionals, are walking into their own deaths and illnesses, due to the false and misleading health information that is being provided by the powerful medical-industry complex to politicians.
This corporate health model has monopolised doctors, industry-funded research institutions, politicians, and the mainstream media to educate the public with ignorance about the risks of vaccines. A situation described as agnotology in the academic literature and if doctors were not gagged by AHPRA (their government/corporate regulatory board) it would not have been possible to violate their medical ethics and commit this crime against humanity that will destroy the genetic fabric of society.
Header image: Australian Skeptics
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Danusia Slowiak
| #
… it is about time to stand up against Big Pharma and say NO. We are not ‘guinea pigs’ (don’t want to offend the animals) to be experimented on. People should be informed about what is going on and be free to say NO without being marked as bad citizens. Please save our Australia and people. Doctors, please stand up for what is honest and right.
Reply
Alan Thorpe
| #
The TGA link is not to their document containing the quotes. When I looked up the TGA their latest safety report says “Vaccination against COVID-19 is the most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from infection.” and “The protective benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 far outweigh the potential risks of vaccination”.
When we have quotes but no source reference, the validity is questioned.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Israeli studies have found that the jabbed are 7 times more likely to become infected compared to the unjabbed. In addition, they found that natural immunity is 27 times better than being fully jabbed.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
It might be called a “conspiracy theory,” but it is NOT a conspiracy theory if it is true. It would then be truly a conspiracy (against the people in this case..
Reply
Terry Shipman
| #
Very good point. The truth can never be a conspiracy theory.
Reply
Richard Noakes
| #
Suppose you went to a horse race and you had a choice of horses to bet on, but the two you most liked were called Pfizer and Covid, so you checked the percentages to see which one would be the one to bet your money on, to win and you saw that Pfizer was 0.84% and Covid had a 99.16% of winning, if you were me, you would bet on Covid every time, because Pfizer was a non starter at best – and that is what you are betting your life on when you have a Pfizer vaccination, or one of the other vaccines on offer now, see below:
Former Pfizer VP: 0.84% ‘Clear evidence of fraud’ in Pfizer study claiming 95% efficacy
posted by Mordechai Sones September 30, 2021 10:58 am
America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) Chief Science Officer Dr. Michael Yeadon yesterday said there is “clear evidence of fraud” in the Pfizer study that purports to claim 95% efficacy in their COVID-19 “vaccine”.
Yeadon was commenting on an article appearing in The Lancet and critiquing a documentary that scrutinized a Pfizer efficacy study, calling the distinction raised therein between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction “accurate”.
The Lancet article, entitled COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness—the elephant (not) in the room, says that although attention has focused on vaccine efficacy and comparing the reduction of the number of symptomatic cases, “fully understanding the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccines is less straightforward than it might seem. Depending on how the effect size is expressed, a quite different picture might emerge.”
The article continues: “Vaccine efficacy is generally reported as a relative risk reduction (RRR). It uses the relative risk (RR)—ie, the ratio of attack rates with and without a vaccine—which is expressed as 1–RR. Ranking by reported efficacy gives relative risk reductions of 95% for the Pfizer–BioNTech, 94% for the Moderna–NIH, 91% for the Gamaleya, 67% for the J&J, and 67% for the AstraZeneca–Oxford vaccines.
“However, RRR should be seen against the background risk of being infected and becoming ill with COVID-19, which varies between populations and over time. Although the RRR considers only participants who could benefit from the vaccine, the absolute risk reduction (ARR), which is the difference between attack rates with and without a vaccine, considers the whole population. ARRs tend to be ignored because they give a much less impressive effect size than RRRs: 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.”
“Pfizer reported that its vaccine showed a 95% efficacy,” explained the documentary, entitled COVID Shot or Not? “That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time. But that’s not actually what that number means.
“That 95% refers to the ‘relative risk reduction’ (RRR), but it doesn’t tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need ‘absolute risk reduction’ (ARR).
“In the Pfizer trial, 8 out of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people out of 18,325 got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low, at 0.88%, which the vaccine then reduced to 0.04%.
“So the net benefit, the absolute risk reduction, that you are being offered in the Pfizer vaccine in 0.84%
“That 95% number? That refers to the relative difference between the 0.88% and 0.04%. That’s what they call ‘95% relative risk reduction’. And relative risk reduction is well-known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead. Which begs the question: How many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines, had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit?”
In response, Dr. Yeadon said: “It’s worse, actually. In the Pfizer study from which the 95% claim comes, there’s clear evidence of fraud.
“Why do I say that? Well, a study which is properly blinded means neither the subject, the study director, nor any other actor knows what each patient has received.
“Patients in clinical trials are obligated to follow ‘the protocol’, which specifies must-dos & prohibitions.
“If it’s blind to the end, how could one group end up with five times as many subjects having their data pulled prior to statistical analysis in the test group compared with the control group?”
Yeadon expanded: “The story of how a large state within India solved its COVID-19 crisis is no surprise to those of us who’ve known since spring 2020 that our governments, media, and tech titans have been acting against our interests, both health as well as democratic.
“We’ve known, for example, that highly qualified physicians and scientists are well able to treat and save most people infected by SARS-CoV-2.
“The methodology is simple: Attack the virus and the inflammatory and ultimately thrombotic disease phases rationally by administering targeted, multi drug treatments.
“These include Vitamin C and Vitamin D but in particular, Ivermectin, zinc and a zinc ionophore such as one of several old antibiotics like azithromycin.
“Used in sequence depending on the presentation, in excess of 80% of patients avoid hospitalization anddeath, including in cohorts we regard as at high risk.
“Peter McCullough and colleagues have put themselves in harm’s way professionally in pressing home these simple messages.
“Two remarkable meta-analyses (the highest level of medical evidence, a review of randomized, controlled clinical trials), authored by Tess Laurie and Pierre Kory, show conclusively that if you could choose only one medical treatment, it would be ivermectin. It’s safe, we’ll-tolerated, off patent and cheap to make, yet HIGHLY effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Reviews by Tess Lawrie and Pierre Kory are in the most read papers this year.
“Yet not one major media channel has bothered to tell us this. Instead, they’ve lied about ‘horse deworming’ drugs and made false claims about safety.
“This is what Uttar Pradesh used in a few short weeks to crush soaring COVID-19 deaths in this large Indian state. They didn’t do much vaccination.
“Vaccination has, separately, been shown by Steve Kirsch’s team, to have resulted in a median estimate of 150,000 deaths shortly after vaccination in the U.S.A. alone.
“They made these calculations solely based on the publicly accessible database which collects adverse event reports, VAERS.
“Additionally, they used mechanistically plausible assessments of the most common, serious adverse events, finding for example that pulmonary embolism occurs at over 400 TIMES the rate observed after any other vaccine types since the database began operations a few decades ago.
“These novel technology gene-based agents cause our bodies to manufacture coronavirus spike proteins, and these alone are responsible for a substantial proportion of the adverse effects of being infected by the virus.
“What have our governments, media, and technology titans been doing in the meantime?
“Rubbishing the experts, attacking the publications, suppressing information everywhere, and banning accounts that persist in telling the truth.”
Echoing remarks by Zelenko Protocol discoverer Dr. Vladimir Ze’ev Zelenko, Yeadon continued: “Having done this for well over a year, I’m confident that their actions comprise deliberate mass murder. Their objective appears to be to keep people as fearful as possible and receptive to vaccination. All of these claims are supported by plentiful public sources.
“But the scandal of depriving people of effective treatments while coercing them into submission to dangerous vaccination is the worst thing that’s happened in the world for decades, arguably forever.”
Dr. Yeadon concluded, urging people to “see the true scale of the lie before injecting their children.”
The Lancet Study
Doctors for COVID Ethics
On The accompanying chart:
Pfizer/BioNtech RRR 95.03% ARR From Jab 0.84%
Moderna (NIH) RRR 94.08% ARR 1.24% From Jab
Janssen RRR 66.62% ARR 1.19% From Jab
Astrazeneca/ Oxford RRR 66.84% ARR 1.28% From Jab
The Lancet
Reply