We’ve now wasted half a year of our lives under medical martial law. And all this over something that was never more than a test pandemic (in more ways than one), over a virus which manifestly only harms a tiny proportion of the population no matter what.
Some pandemic!
If this really was a pandemic with demonstrably many millions dying in a short time from some kind of virus or bacteria, across the world, regardless of age group, it would be as obvious as it is now that none of the predicted horrors scenarios will ever be the case with the Sars-Cov-2 virus.
If nothing else, this crisis has been very revealing, bringing out the worst in humanity.
So, thank you, governments around the world, thank you for wrecking our lives. Thank you for taking advantage of such loosely drafted laws that give you the power to do just about anything you like with us. Thank you for abolishing even the semblance of democracy we had before. Thank you for pretending to care for people and saving lives when in fact you’re causing unimaginably more harm by the nonsensical measures you are imposing. Thank you for causing fear and panic in the population which you know to be the perfect tool to make citizens compliant. Thank you for nothing!
Thank you for nothing also to corrupt scientific advisers and medical doctors who, beholden to pharmaceutical interests and the politicians that feed them, and perhaps seeing their once in a lifetime chance to shine in the spotlight, have thrown the scientific method over board and are aiding and abetting in the biggest crime against humanity the world has ever seen.
Big business has also deserved a thank you for nothing. Surely these intelligent people could see that something was wrong here and would now use their usual influence to prevent the predictable damage that would follow? But of course, big businesses know they can take a hit, whereas their smaller competition couldn’t, and governments would always bail them out anyway, so why would they care? And let’s face it: some of them are laughing all the way to the bank thanks to this scamdemic.
Also a big thank you for nothing goes to the mainstream media around the world, which have proved how utterly compromised and useless they are in exposing and challenging shady and harmful political and economic interests. By unquestioningly falling in line with the governments’ narrative and by committing censorship, they lost the last little bit of credibility they might have had. Thankfully there are alternatives.
As someone who has never for a second fallen for the irrational hype and hysteria, and as someone who constantly questions everything, including himself, with respect to the current scamdemic I keep coming back to the same question:
Why?
All this madness we’re living through right now can only make any kind of sense when you take a very holistic and a historical view. But it’s a bloody scary path to follow.
The technocratic, anti-human dystopia the powers that be are euphemistically calling The New Normal is certainly not a world I want to live in, but we’re headed that way at breakneck speed. I wonder if enough of us will wake up soon enough to throw the fools over board and turn this ship around.
The only rays of hope, that this injustice might one day end, come from the increasing number of people who speak out, perhaps even protest. Medical experts who have maintained or found again their integrity and question the measures. A small but slowly growing number of lawyers and politicians who are prepared to stand up for human and civil rights.
Prof. Christian Drosten is a household name in German-speaking countries. Not so much elsewhere, yet he is a crucially important figurehead in the COVID-19 test pandemic that continues to plague the entire world.
A cult has developed around Drosten, but not quite everyone is a fan. Some people haven’t forgotten that the high profile virologist was already heavily involved in the needless scaremongering in the non-event that was the 2010 swine flu, which led to the development of a rushed vaccine that resulted in a huge amount of waste and some considerable harm to those unfortunate people who got vaccinated and subsequently developed narcolepsy. (Looks like history could be about to repeat itself…)
Despite this, Drosten is the German Government’s only trusted advisor, or was, until recently.
Actually, Drosten is the one who developed the very first PCR test for this allegedly new Chinese virus. On 1 January, the very day he heard about the possible SARS cases in China, and without having any validated scientific evidence, he developed the test. He submitted the test to the WHO within days, and on 21 January, the WHO endorsed it to the rest of the world, even before he published his study! The rest is history. The timeline and arguments that Drosten has committed scientific fraud is available here (in German).
So you could say Drosten is the guy who kicked off this entire madness. Without him developing this test, we would have been none the wiser the world we would have continued along its imperfect but normal path. Well, it’s not quite like that, as the Chinese also developed their own test, presented only shortly after Drosten, according to Prof. Ulrike Kaemmerer, but she does pull apart the sloppy work by Drosten in this interview as part of the German Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss hearings. In any event, Drosten’s test was favoured by the WHO.\
Interestingly, Drosten, in his first NDR podcast on 3 March, Drosten was still saying there was no need to panic about COVID-19.
Even when MERS was in the news in 2014, Drosten was saying things that are diametrically opposed to the claims he is making today, things that would land all those who do not strictly adhere to the COVID-19 Government-imposed narrative in hot waters. In this article which appeared on 16 May 2014 in the German economic magazine Wirtschaftswoche, he comments, when asked about the usefulness of high-frequency application of the PCR test in Saudi-Arabia:
Yes, but the method is so sensitive that it can detect a single hereditary molecule of this virus. For example, if such a pathogen scurries across the nasal mucosa of a nurse for a day without her getting sick or noticing anything else, then she is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill people were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually in perfect health are included in the reporting statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia. In addition, the local media have been cooking up the matter to unbelievable heights. […] In the region there is hardly any other topic in the TV news or daily newspapers. And doctors in hospitals are also consumers of this news. They also consider that they should keep an eye on this disease, which is very rare in Saudi Arabia. Medicine is not free of fashion trends.
Unbelievable, isn’t it? And it gets better. Asked about what should be done about the excessive focus on this disease, he says:
It would be very helpful if the authorities in Saudi Arabia were to revert to the previous definitions of the disease. After all, what interests them first are the real cases. Whether symptomless or mildly infected hospital employees are really carriers of the virus is questionable in my opinion. Even more questionable is whether they can pass the virus on to others. The team of advisors to the new Minister of Health should distinguish more clearly between medically necessary diagnostics and scientific interest.
Interestingly, he sings such a very different tune today. Sure, it’s a different virus that does seem to pass amongst humans. But even today, neither he nor anybody else from the establishment cares about the definition of a case. In these heady Covid days, you test positive and you’re a “case” no matter what. Better still, you die not matter how, if you have that RNA sequence in your system, you’re sure to be counted as a Covid death. And the media of course are only telling the truth now in his view, because they’re faithfully repeating what he says and giving him a great platform. Perhaps the fact that German channel NDR has even given Drosten his own podcast series is telling. Ambitious virologist are only human.
Drosten could soon find himself in hot waters himself. A group of German lawyers are in the process of launching class action law suits in the US and Canada, suing Drosten and his team, for bringing onto the market a let’s call it unsuitable product, on which all the harmful government measures that were taken are ultimately based. Interesting approach. A translation of the very good interview with the lawyer spearheading this initiative is available here.
There are also fascinating revelations around Drosten’s status as a professor, including the mysterious circumstances around his PhD thesis, and the many interesting relationships and conflicts of interest Drosten enjoys, in hearing 22 of the German Stiftung Corona Ausschuss.
This is a collection of legislation, articles and correspondence that relate to compulsory vaccination in Australia, including a possibly mandatory Covid-19 vaccination. I’ve taken care to be as thorough as possible, but it’s a work in progress. If I have made any mistakes or misinterpreted something, or there is something I’ve forgotten, please get in touch.
Australia – ultimately it’s about how much punishment you can take
The Biosecurity Act 2015 gives the federal government sweeping powers over the population. Specifically, under s61(f)(ii), vaccination (see s92) is one of the measures that can be prescribed under a human biosecurity control order. Now, under s74, a person only needs to comply with the measure if the person either consents to the measure, or the Director of Human Biosecurity has given a direction for the person to comply in accordance with s72(5)(a) and either: 7 days have passed and the person has not made an application for review of the decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in accordance with s80 of the Biosecurity Act2015, or the person’s application has been rejected and the Administrative Review Tribunal requires the person to comply with the measure. It’s worth reading the small print to s74. Note 1 says if a person doesn’t comply, they could commit an offence under s107. That section poses a pretty severe threat, with the penalty being 5 years imprisonment or 300 penalty units (currently A$66,600), or both. Note 2 refers to the expenses that occurred in complying with an order (s108), meaning that the government would have to pay for the vaccination. The only solace would come from Note 3, which states that “generally, force must not be used to require compliance with a biosecurity measure (see section 95).” But what does “generally” mean? Well, s95 clearly states that vaccination is a procedure for which “force must not be used against an individual“. The note to this section refers to other measures, so that’s where the “generally” comes in.
In conclusion, ultimately you cannot be physically forced to be vaccinated in times when a biosecurity control order is in place, but the threat of a hefty fine and serious jail time would pretty much twist anyone’s arm. It’s little consolation that a vaccination procedure would have to be carried out “in a manner consistent with” appropriate medical standards and/or appropriate other relevant professional standards (s94), whatever that might mean.
The relevant sections are:
Biosecurity Act 2015 s61(f)(ii)
Biosecurity Act 2015 s72(5)(a)
Biosecurity Act 2015 s74
Biosecurity Act 2015 s80
Biosecurity Act 2015 s92
Biosecurity Act 2015 s94
Biosecurity Act 2015 s95
Biosecurity Act 2015 s107
Biosecurity Act 2015 s108
The Australian Constitution
This tweet by former Victorian Treasury economist Sanjeev Sabhlok, dated 24 Oct 2020, suggests that section 51xxiii(a), which gives the federal parliament specific legislative powers, does not give the Australian federal parliament the power to make vaccinations mandatory.
That might be so, but given the Australian states are all happily riding the COVID-19 band wagon, they could be easily persuaded by the Federal Government to each enact identical state-based legislation.
Department of Health
I wrote to almost all Australian parliamentarians on the issue of compulsory vaccination against Covid-19 in August 2020. On 28 September I received a response from an assistant secretary from the Immunisation and Communicable Diseases Branch. The letter outlined in some detail the requirements for any vaccine to be registered in Australia. The letter concludes:
While the Government supports immunisation, it is not compulsory and people maintain the right to choose whether to receive a vaccination.
Ref MC20-036183
This statement, whilst on its face reassuring, does not mean that the government’s position can’t change in future, nor does it mean that citizens won’t have to suffer negative consequence if they don’t have themselves vaccinated.
Interestingly, mandatory vaccination via the backdoor, using a combination of carrots and sticks, was at least on the table on 20 Aug 2020, when the Deputy Chief Medical officer made this statement.
As of 4 Nov 2020, the Health Minister is still confirming that future COVID-19 vaccination will remain voluntary.
On 13 Nov a media release by Prime Minister Morrison includes references to Australia’s COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, stating that vaccines are “not mandatory, but strongly encouraged.” For obvious reasons, he didn’t want to mention the ”small print“ in that policy. At to bottom of page 6:
While the Australian Government strongly supports immunisation and will run a strong campaign to encourage vaccination, it is not mandatory and individuals may choose not to vaccinate. There may however, be circumstances where the Australian Government and other governments may introduce border entry or re-entry requirements that are conditional on proof of vaccination.
On 4 December Health Minister Greg Hunt, whilst proudly announcing having secured many million additional doses of vaccines from two further manufacturers, once again confirmed that Covid-19 vaccination will be free but not compulsory. He is no doubt banking on a so far world class compliant Australian public in all things Covid-19, the fact that Australia has a very high vaccination rate anyway, and of course he doesn’t have to twist anybody’s arm when industry players are doing that for him.
Recently the national air carrier Qantas confirming that international passengers will have to be Covid-19 vaccinated. Whether they can legally do so is another question, but that extra scare factor should get most travel-starved people to quickly roll up their sleeve.
What will definitely become compulsory though is the registration of your Covid-19 vaccination in the Australian Immunisation Register. Legislation to that effect was introduced into the House of Representatives on 3 December.
Victoria – Vaccination can be made compulsory for healthcare workers
The provisions allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to direct certain health workers to undergo compulsory vaccination. Institutions that fail to comply risk their registration being suspended or revoked.
So ultimately, for the individual health worker it depends on how much your job means to you.
The relevant new sections are:
Health Services Act 1988 s42(1)(ca)
Health Services Act 1988 s42(2B)
Health Services Act 1988 s100(1)(da)
Health Services Act 1988 s101(1)(da)
Health Services Act 1988 s102(1)(da)
Health Services Act 1988 s105A
Ambulance Services Act 1986 s10(4)(ca)
Ambulance Services Act 1986 s10(4A)
New South Wales – Uncertain whether a person can be forcibly vaccinated in an emergency situation
The situation in NSW appears unclear at this point in time. The Biosecurity Act 2015 allows the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Skills and Regional Development to declare an emergency, and they can authorise an officer to “require a person to undergo any treatment measures or require treatment measures to be carried out in relation to a person”, but only in the case of an emergency. The definition of ‘treatment measure’ includes vaccination. However, section 53(1) explicitly, even when emergency order is in place, can only require an “external treatment measure”, in other words, not a vaccination.
It appears the powers and limitations under Part 5 Emergency orders contradict Part 9 which relates to biosecurity directions, so the situation seems unclear.
Biosecurity Act 2015 s7
Biosecurity Act 2015 s134(1)(b)
Biosecurity Act 2015 s51(e)
Biosecurity Act 2015 s53(1)
Biosecurity Act 2015 s122
Biosecurity Act 2015 s112(1)(c)
Western Australia – Any person (including children) can be forced to be vaccinated under serious public health incident and emergency powers
The relevant provisions of the Public Health Act 2016 commenced on 20 September 2017, and they equip a relevant officer with very wide “serious public health incident powers”, including the power to “direct any person to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated, as specified by the officer”, without a warrant being necessary to enter premises or vehicles to carry out the procedure. And “an authorised officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with”. This includes the forced removal of a person’s clothing, including underwear. There is no definition of “reasonable force” in the Act.
The relevant sections are:
Public Health Act 2016 s157
Public Health Act 2016 s158
Public Health Act 2016 s184
Public Health Act 2016 s185
The situation around the world
As of 9 December 2020, the Swiss Government states vaccinations will be free but not compulsory.
Articles and documents from Australia and around the world
Below are additional articles that may be of interest.
Health Ministry may recommend mandatory coronavirus vaccine law, The Jerusalem Post 10 Nov 2020 (Israel’s Health Ministry director-general Prof. Hezi Levy is quoted as saying he “would like to push forward a law like this and to require people for whom there isn’t a health risk to get vaccinated.”
US OSHA’s Q&A regarding Covid-19 vaccine (As at 21 May 2021 the website states that if an employer makes vaccination a condition of employment, than any adverse reaction to the vaccine is work-related.)
Germany’s most outspoken medical practitioner, Bodo Schiffmann, has received a tip-off from a colleague, alerting him to the fact that in the state of Baden-Würtemberg at least, certain medical doctors (GPs, pediatricians, ENT, lung specialists) can register their clinic as specializing in coronavirus; this is called a “Corona-Schwerpunktspraxis”. The form is available here. What is not on the form is the handsome sum that each clinic allegedly receives: euro 12,500 per quarter to make itself available to run SARS-Cov-2 testing and to treat COVID-19 patients. What is certain though is that in addition to that sum, clinics can receive euro 200 per practitioner per day for spending 8 hours on this focus area, and for each consultation, they get euro 10 extra for testing each suspected COVID-19 patient, and an additional euro 100 per 20 tests carried out (see here). Go figure!
I wonder if similar incentives are being offered in other parts of the world.
I wanted to attend the anti-lockdown protest at Sydney Hyde Park on 5 September 2020. Unfortunately, I arrived a little later than planned, and by the time I got there, the entire event was already over. I spoke with some eyewitnesses who gave me some additional information, one of whom kindly allowed me to use footage she took of arrests that were made.
It sounds completely ridiculous, but in the only Australian state where human rights are at least to some extent protected, Victoria, nobody seems to have even thought of seeking those protections, and worse, the population of that state currently has the most severe restrictions in place, restrictions that fly in the face of human rights, under a government that can only be described as tyrannical.
The law which could potentially been used to fight the draconian measures in place is the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The relevant section of the Act is extracted below. It states that “reasonable limits” can only be imposed when certain relevant factors “can be demonstrably justified.”
According to Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko, the World Bank was ready to provide Belarus ten times more money than the country asked for if they would emulate Italy’s response to COVID-19, whilst the IMF continues to ask the country’s government to introduce quarantine measures, isolation, and a curfew. As this article in the nation’s official news agency reports, Lukashenko refuses to comply, calls the demands nonsense. His country is one of the few that has largely ignored the virus craze that has captured most nations.
If the allegations are true, it is just one more indication that COVID-19 is not about a virus, but about a more sinister political or ideological agenda. It would be interesting to know what kind of pressures have been placed on Sweden…
Lukashenko’s relevant speech of 19 June 2020 can also be seen here, interpreted into German. This article by Thomas Röper also comes to the conclusion that the IMF plays an active role in dramatising the COVID-19 situation and make funds conditional on compliance instead of simply assisting countries to soften the impact of the crisis.
