You may not be familiar with the name Clemens Arvay. Arvay was an Austrian biologist and ecologist, a prolific writer who tried to unite humans with nature. Two of his earlier books are available in English.
Arvay was well known in the German-speaking world as an early critic of the disproportionate and irresponsible Covid measures governments imposed on their citizenry.
From the beginning he was vehemently opposed to the introduction of mRNA and vector-based so-called Covid ‘vaccines’, warning of the possible consequences of allowing the distribution of these insufficiently tested and dangerous substances. He correctly predicte in August 2020 that big pharma would exploit Covid to push the wider introduction of these new ‘vaccine’ technologies. Sure enough, Australia’s first mRNA vaccine manufacturing facility is already under construction.
Arvay wrote articles and two books on Covid, and he produced numerous informative videos. He also appeared in talk shows and in an early meeting of the German Corona Investigative Committee.
I enjoyed Arvay’s contributions, as he always expressed himself in a passionate but measured and rational way, explaining his reasons for opposing Covid measures, especially the so-called ‘vaccines’. Arvay was prepared to debate anyone who would take him on, and he always did so respectfully.
But in the press and on social media he was either ruthlessly heckled, ridiculed, dismissed, or, like most other prominent critics of the official Covid narrative, he was ignored, canceled and censored.
Why do I speak of Clemens Arvay in the past tense?
Recently the story broke that Clemens Arvay ended his life in mid February. The exact circumstances of his death will remain private. However, one of his friends, the Viennese psychiatrist Raphael Bonelli, who knew him well, attributes it to the relentless public criticism and bullying Arvay was experiencing, although in recent months Arvay had completely withdrawn from the Covid debate to focus on writing a thesis and another book.
Bonelli has spoken with Arvay’s mother, who told him that her son left a note behind in his backpack which read ‘die machen mich fertig’ – which could be translated as ‘they are destroying me.’
We may never know for sure what drove the 42-year-old father of a young boy to suicide, but I can imagine that Bonelli’s conclusion is correct.
In his videos, Clemens Arvay always came across to me as a highly intelligent, down-to-earth and sensitive man who took great pride in his work and his reputation as a serious scientist. He was clearly offended when character assassins tried to smear him. It is quite likely that it was the continued vitriol he faced that got to him.
Clemens Arvay’s sad and tragic death should be a wake-up call in our increasingly woke cancel culture. No matter how much we disagree with others, no matter which side we’re on, it is unacceptable to resort to personal attacks, to shut out and shut up those we don’t agree with.
The currently prevailing censorship culture shuts down scientific debate on Covid, climate and many other issues. This is not only counter-productive, toxic and destructive, but can also be quite deadly.
Below is the translation of a media release of a German court of 16 December 2021. The court stepped at least partially outside the official narrative by deciding to suspend a law (at last for now) that only allowed those vaccinated against Covid and those who can prove they have recovered from Covid enter non-food retail stores commencing on 2 December 2021.
This decision is significant, especially as Germany‘s legislature will soon discuss the introduction of compulsory Covid vaccination for the general public, something that has already been flagged by the Austrian government.
The decision will be published in full here. I used DeepL to translate the original text of the media release, with minor adjustments.
Temporary suspension of the 2-G regulation in the retail sector
The 13th Senate of the Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court, in a decision issued today, provisionally suspended Section 9a (1) and (2) sentences 1 to 3 of the Lower Saxony Ordinance on Infection Prevention Protective Measures to Contain the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and its Variants of November 23, 2021, as last amended by Ordinance Amending the Lower Saxony Corona Ordinance of December 13, 2021 (hereinafter: Corona Ordinance) (Ref.: 13 MN 477/21). This legal regulation orders a prohibition of access in certain businesses and facilities of the retail trade for customers who have neither a vaccination certificate nor a proof of health (so-called 2-G regulation in the retail trade).
An applicant, who also operates retail stores with a mixed range of products in Lower Saxony, objected to this regulation by filing a motion for a judicial review, claiming that the infection protection measure was not necessary and was also incompatible with the general principle of equality.
The 13th Senate essentially agreed with this. The 2-G-regulation in the retail trade in the concrete design according to § 9a para. 1 and para. 2 sentences 1 to 3 of the Corona Ordinance is currently not a necessary protective measure. The suitability for achieving the infectious disease objectives is already reduced by the numerous exceptions in Section 9a (1) sentence 2 of the Corona Ordinance, which are unquestionably necessary. In the retail food trade alone, which is not covered by the 2-G regulation, the vast majority of daily customer contacts take place. The necessity is also doubtful. The Senate had already complained several times that reliable and comprehensible findings on the actual infection relevance of the events in the retail trade were missing. It was not evident that research into infection environments had also been intensified by the state of Lower Saxony in order to increase the accuracy of the protective measures. A simple transfer of findings on the events in closed rooms of sports and leisure facilities (cf. press release No. 62 of 10.12.2021) does not suggest itself in view of considerable differences to the events in the retail trade. In any case, the latter would appear to be regularly characterized by a shorter dwell time of customers, a lower customer density, a lower number of direct personal contacts (face-to-face), lower physical activities and a better enforcement of hygiene concepts. In addition, as in many other everyday situations, customers could be required to wear FFP2 masks in retail settings. According to recent findings, respirators of this level of protection – assuming proper use of the mask, which can certainly be enforced in retail establishments and facilities – are likely to reduce the risk of infection to such an extent that it can almost be neglected. In its ControlCOVID strategy to prepare for the fall/winter of 2021/22, the Robert Koch Institute does not envisage the exclusion of unvaccinated customers from the retail trade, even for the highest warning level. The Corona Regulation, on the other hand, orders the 2-G regulation already from warning level 1, which is characterized by a mild infection incidence. Even at the currently applicable warning level 2, the legislator considers the incidence of infection to be controllable. The 2-G-regulation in its concrete formulation by § 9a para. 1 and para. 2, sentences 1 to 3 Corona-VO only makes a very small contribution to the reduction of such an infection. This could be reduced by a FFP2 mask obligation to a level irrelevant for the occurrence of infection. In contrast, there would be considerable interference with the fundamental rights of unvaccinated customers and business owners. In this relationship – controllable infection incidence, low effect of the infection protection measure and considerable encroachment on fundamental rights – the 2-G regulation in the retail trade currently proves to be inappropriate. The new Omikron variant also does not require a different evaluation – when objectively considering the current state of knowledge known to the Senate or presented by the state of Lower Saxony.
The 2-G-regulation in the retail trade in the concrete design according to § 9a para. 1 and para. 2 sentences 1 to 3 Corona-VO is also not compatible with the general principle of equality. There were no discernible objective reasons why, for example, garden center goods, floricultural goods including goods from the horticultural retail trade and goods for the repair and maintenance of electronic equipment should be included among the “goods for daily use or for the basic supply of the population” exempted from the 2-G rule, while DIY stores remained subject to the 2-G rule without restriction.
There are no serious public interests that would prevent the temporary suspension of the regulation, which is likely to be unlawful thereafter. Taking into account the infection protection measures taken in the previous Corona ordinances and the current infection situation in the state of Lower Saxony, the 2-G regulation in the retail sector is not an essential component in the strategy of the state of Lower Saxony to combat the pandemic. This also does not follow from the decisive political determination in the meeting of the Federal Chancellor with the heads of government of the federal states on December 2, 2021.
The abrogation of the so-called 2-G rule in the retail sector does not only work in favor of the applicant in these proceedings. Rather, it is generally binding throughout Lower Saxony.
I don’t usually just re-post content on my website. But a recent interview with Prof. Mattias Desmet explains so well the reasons why most of the world is going nuts over Covid, I felt it was best to simply re-post the entire interview. Thankfully, Kate Wand had already prepared an English-only version of the interview a day after it was first streamed, and that’s what I’m posting below. An interesting aside: This interview, streamed live on Friday 30 July on YouTube, was removed by YouTube in record time by the next day.
Prof. Desmet says there are 4 conditions that need to exist in a society for a mass psychosis to emerge: lack of social bonds, lack of sense making, free-floating anxiety and free-floating discontent. He goes on to explain why even highly intelligent and educated people are so susceptible to believing in a plainly absurd narrative and no amount of rational argument can convince them otherwise. Encouragingly, it also explains why some people (thought to be about 20% of the population) are immune against such nonsense. The interview left me with at least some hope: all totalitarian systems are inherently self-destructive – let’s hope that sets in sooner rather than later.
On 13 June the Swiss will cast their yes or no vote on three laws against which a significant minority of at least 50,000 people had mounted a referendum.
I have done my bit and voted against all three, the Covid law which gives the federal government powers to do many things which it should be allowed to do, the CO2 law which is based on a wrong assumption anyway, and the anti-terrorist law which would give the police unjustifiably wide and easy to abuse powers.
Interestingly, in the case of the Covid law, the information booklet contains the original text of the law from September 2020, which has since been worsened several times, so three of the most offensives sections are not even in the booklet. The current law is available here.
Australian health professionals who are questioning the wisdom of Australia’s Covid-19 vaccination policy have been effectively silenced. A position statement of 9 March 2021 (a short extract below with my margin notes) reads like a thinly veiled threat to either toe the line or, if you do have objections, shut up about it and do as you’re told anyway, or else you face disciplinary action – in other words you risk losing your license to practice.
I was curious, so on 20 December 2020 I asked the Premier and the Health Minister some questions about the PCR testing regime in the Australian state where I live, New South Wales.
Essentially I was curious to know whether and how Ct values are being taken into consideration when interpreting PCR test results. If you don’t know what Ct values are about, or even what PCR testing actually is, the best explanation I’ve come across is by Dr Sam Bailey, which you can watch here.
I also asked why there is no information about the nature and the limitations of PCR testing in the public arena, and I asked whether the state was aware of certain publications that suggest that PCR testing is highly problematic. My letter is reproduced at the end of this article.
On 6 Jan 2021 I received a reply from Stephen Braye, the Chief Medical Information Officer and Executive Director Statewide Clinical Services.
The reply was a little underwhelming in that it did not address all my questions. I guess the state does not want to admit to knowing of the existence of material that is critical of PCR testing in case there are legal consequences further down the track.
But at least I now know and want to share the following information:
all positive results undergo confirmatory retesting before publication, preferably using different testing systems, and new positive persons are retested by collecting a second PCR sample. Serology blood test and sometimes viral culture is also performed, and sometimes whole genome sequencing may be done;
all tests are done testing for 2 or more gene targets in each test (E, N1, N2, RdRp2, RdRp4, Orf8, Orf1 and S genes)
there are 30 different combinations of machines and systems used in Australia, all to NPAAC standards assessed by NATA;
generally, the number of Ct cycles run by PCR systems is 45, depending on the machine and assay used;
the Ct cut-off threshold is set at 40 cycles, but this is influenced also by manufacturer instructions and required validation processes.
Considering that even the famed Dr Fauci says that a threshold over 35 cycles is too high, and he’s clearly not the only one saying so, we would be justified in asking why NSW Health is using such high CT thresholds.
My letter to Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Health Minister Brad Gazzard:
Re: PCR testing in NSW
I am a concerned citizen with some specific questions regarding PCR testing done in NSW. The data that is publicly available on your website does not answer my questions.
Question 1:
Is the following data in relation to all reported test results collected and collated in the one database along with the personal data of the persons being tested, and is there a requirement that this data is supplied to you by the testing centres and laboratories?
The name of the testing station
The name of the laboratory
The name of all personnel who interacted with the tested persons
The name of the testing kit used
The cycle threshold (Ct) value that was applied
All the gene sequences tested for each sample (E, N, RdRp)
Question 2:
Do you acknowledge that it is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of PCR tests to collect the data referred to in Question 1, in particular to ensure that we are not dealing with a test pandemic of false positives (given the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community must be very low) or contamination issues?
Question 3:
In the event that samples are only tested for one gene, are laboratories required to test for other genes before they report a positive result?
Question 4:
Why are you referring to people who merely tested positive as “cases”? Do you not think this is a misleading characterisation, given a PCR test does nothing more than indicate that matter with certain gene sequences is present in a person’s body, and a PCR test is not in itself a diagnosis of anything and says nothing about the state of health or infectiousness of a person? I refer to the CDC’s definition of a “case” here: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section5.html
Question 5:
In light of this, do you agree it would be better to refer to positive test results in your publicised statistics as “positive test results” or “people tested positive”?
Question 6:
In light of the above, do you not think it is your duty to inform the public and the media about the nature and limitations of PCR tests?
Question 7:
Are you aware of the following article which fundamentally questions the validity of the WHO-supported Corman/Drosten PCR test protocol? https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
Below are some sources I can recommend if you’d like to inform yourself more wholesomely and broadly on the Covid issue, beyond the hype and hysteria of the totally corrupted mainstream media.
Of course, don’t just blindly believe anything you read, hear, and watch there either. Instead, always think critically, remain skeptical, and think for yourself.
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.)
