From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The Port Hedland council cited a report by molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher that ‘evidences excessive synthetic DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vaccine vials used for both adults and children.’

Councillors in Port Hedland, in Western Australia’s north-west, have called for the “immediate suspension” of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, challenging federal and state government policy.

The council cited a report by molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher that “evidences excessive synthetic DNA contamination in Pfizer and Moderna vaccine vials used for both adults and children.” A council statement said testing revealed DNA contamination levels between “7 to 145 times higher than Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) limit”.

In addition, the council claimed that Pfizer vials contain elements not initially disclosed to regulators. “The report raises serious concerns about potential long-term health impacts such as genomic integration, exponential cancer risks, and adverse outcomes due to synthetic DNA contamination.”

The research is just one of many investigations pointing to serious issues with the mRNA vaccines. For example, an analysis by David E Allen, honorary professor at the University of Sydney’s School of Mathematics and Statistics, found that all-cause mortality is up in Australia where vaccination rates are high, and that at least two thirds in the variation per region is explained by mass COVID-19 vaccination.

Troubling results are being replicated around the world. To cite one instance of many, researchers in Japan are warning that Covid mRNA shots are now “affecting every possible aspect of human pathology.” They have linked the Covid mRNA injections to increases in 201 types of diseases.

Rather than responding to the council’s concerns and investigating its claims dispassionately the Western Australian premier, Roger Cook, chose the bullying option. He told the Port Hedland council to “stick to its knitting,” whatever that means. He argued the council “should stay focused on the services and people of that community” adding that “it’s another example of that council lacking the focus on the issues which matter to their constituents … making sure they look after the people, not get distracted by these silly ideological debates.”

It was a ridiculous response, reported uncritically by the government funded media outlet the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). Why is expressing concern about a health danger “ideological”? If anyone is being ideological, it is Cook. And surely such a potential danger would be “of concern” to the local community?

The ABC article was an example of the aggressive suppression of non-compliant views by Australia’s political and media elite. Neutral, disinterested reporting now seems all but abandoned in the mainstream media, replaced by commentary from journalists with no expertise.

Thus, the ABC story claimed, without explanation or evidence, that the report being referenced by the council was “unverified”. Not verified by whom? And are ABC journalists in a position to make sound judgements on complex medical claims? Then, to drive the point home that deviating from the government line was not to be tolerated, an extraordinarily patronizing breakout story was entitled “How to spot when you are thinking like a conspiracy theorist.”

Cook’s attack on vaccine dissenters has become a routine feature of public discourse. State and federal governments are stridently trying to divert attention away from what they did.

But the Port Hedland Council move is significant because it comes from the local level. When the upper levels of government are compromised, and the executive branch of government is out of control, the best hope of reviving some sort of democracy and focus on the interests of ordinary people may be at the municipal level. It is why anti-lockdown and pro-freedom activist Monica Smit is directing her interest towards council elections.

There is little doubt that there is a growing awareness in the Australian public that something is very wrong not only with the vaccines, but also the government’s response to dissent. Even powerful proponents of the vaccines are starting to feel unease, especially about the federal government’s proposed misinformation bill, a blatant attempt to impose censorship. Dr. Nick Coatsworth, a television doctor, senior health official and one of the most public figures in Australia’s Covid response, has warned against the ‘weaponization’ of misinformation to silence debate.

Australia’s local councils are the nation’s oldest layer of government. They are not mentioned in the Australian constitution because they were formed before it was written. As Australia’s political and government institutions deteriorate, the Port Hedland council is perhaps showing a way that some semblance of democracy might be restored.

From LifeSiteNews

By Michael Nevradakis Ph. D., The Defender

A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines. Other defendants include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.

A Netherlands court last week ruled that Bill Gates can stand trial in the Netherlands, in a case involving seven people injured by COVID-19 vaccines.

According to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, the seven “corona skeptics” sued Gates last year, along with former Dutch prime minister and newly appointed NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and “several members” of the Dutch government’s COVID-19 “Outbreak Management Team.”

Other defendants include Albert Bourla, Ph.D., CEO of Pfizer, and the Dutch state.

“Because Bill Gates’ foundation was involved in combating the corona pandemic, he has also been summoned,” De Telegraaf reported.

According to Dutch independent news outlet Zebra Inspiratie, the plaintiffs allege that Gates, through his representatives, deliberately misled them about the safety of the COVID-19 shots, despite knowing “that these injections were not safe and effective.”

Dutch independent journalist Erica Krikke told The Defender that the seven plaintiffs – whose names are redacted in the lawsuit’s publicly available documents – “are ordinary Dutch people, and they have been jabbed and after the jabs they got sick.”

Krikke said that of the seven original plaintiffs, one has since died, leaving the other six plaintiffs to continue the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Leeuwarden. According to De Telegraaf, “Gates had objected because, according to him, the judges did not have jurisdiction.” Accordingly, the court first “had to rule in the so-called incident procedure,” De Andere Krant reported.

Zebra Inspiratie reported that the hearing in this “incident procedure” took place on Sept. 18 and that Gates’ representatives disputed jurisdiction, but not the claim.

According to De Andere Krant, Gates was represented by the Pels Rijcken law firm, based in The Hague, described as “the largest and the premier litigation law firm in the Netherlands.” Gates did not appear at the Sept. 18 hearing, but attorneys for Gates argued that the court “had no jurisdiction over him because he lives in the United States.”

However, in its Oct. 16 ruling, the Leeuwarden court ruled it does have jurisdiction over Gates. De Andere Krant reported that the court found “sufficient evidence” that the claims against Gates and the other defendants are “connected” and based on the same “complex of facts.”

Other defendants who reside outside of the Netherlands, including Bourla, did not challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

The court ruled Gates must pay attorneys’ fees and additional legal costs totaling 1,406 euros (approximately $1,520). A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 27.

‘Even if … your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court’

In remarks shared with De Andere Krant, Arno van Kessel, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, welcomed the ruling. “In its verdict, the court has clearly recorded the basis of our conclusions of claim,” van Kessel said.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst told The Defender it is “quite interesting” that the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in Leeuwarden instead of The Hague, where normally, all cases against the government related to COVID-19 are filed.

“In general, COVID-19 court cases have been very unsuccessful in the Netherlands,” Terhorst said. “There is a slim chance it will be successful.”

She added:

I think most judges support the COVID-19 vaccination agenda and will find it hard to believe the vaccinations have caused injuries. So, we have a long way to go, regardless of the case.

Krikke shared a more optimistic outlook, saying that the court sent a message that “even if you are rich and your name is Bill Gates, you still have to go to court.”

New Zealand-based independent journalist Penny Marie, who has closely followed the proceedings in this case, told The Defender she hopes the Oct. 16 ruling “will hopefully set a precedent and help plaintiffs in similar cases around the world regarding jurisdiction,” in cases “where the defendant does not reside in the country of the plaintiff.”

“For parties who make claims against those involved in the implementation of the Great Reset and other international actions, such as the COVID-19 emergency response initiated by the WEF [World Economic Forum] and imposed on all U.N. member nations, I hope that this ruling provides an opportunity for others to follow suit,” Marie added.

Father of vaccine-injured plaintiff made ‘emotional plea’ to the court

At the Sept. 18 hearing, plaintiffs also delivered statements. According to Zebra Inspiratie, “One of the victims, who is very ill, was also given the opportunity to make a plea. She was no longer able to speak and was represented by her father. It was an emotional plea.”

Krikke said the plaintiff’s father told the court that his daughter, who was previously healthy, fell ill after getting the COVID-19 vaccine and could no longer speak, telling the judge that he “would really like to speak to Bill Gates directly” to ask him what happened to his daughter.

“After that, the judge was really quiet,” Krikke said.

The Oct. 18 ruling also addressed the plaintiffs’ claims about Gates’ role in the WEF’s “Great Reset” project.

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also affiliated with the World Economic Forum … an international organization whose statutory objective is to unite ‘leaders from business, governments, academia and society at large into a global community committed to improving the state of the world,’” the ruling states, adding:

This is a project aimed at the total reorganization of societies in all countries that are members of the United Nations … as described by [WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab] in his book Covid-19: The Great Reset. …

Characteristic of this political ideology is that this forced and planned change is presented as justified by pretending that the world is suffering from major crises that can only be solved by centralized, hard global intervention. One of these pretended major crises concerns the Covid-19 pandemic.

The ruling also states, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is affiliated with ‘Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance‘ … an international partnership in the field of vaccinations between various public and private entities.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.