Connect with us

COVID-19

Australian Senate launches landmark excess death inquiry following COVID shot rollout

Published

7 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The Australian Senate has initiated an inquiry into the surge of excess deaths since the 2021 COVID vaccination program, marking the first formal parliamentary examination of this issue worldwide.

The Australian Senate has begun an inquiry into excess deaths since the mass vaccination program of 2021 in an effort to isolate the causes of what is described as the worst level of excess mortality since World War II. It is being touted as the first instance in the world of a Parliament formally examining the issue.

The successful motion, brought by United Australia Party (UAP) Senator Ralph Babet, was his fifth attempt to launch a parliamentary inquiry in two years. Previously, the left-wing Labor government and the Greens had blocked the motion, without explaining why. The Senate’s Community Affairs References Committee is now required to investigate the factors contributing to the abnormally high mortality. The report is expected by the end of August.

It will be a difficult task, and the likelihood that there will be any admissions of wrongdoing by government bureaucrats and politicians is vanishingly small, even if the findings compellingly point to the vaccination program as the reason behind the excess deaths.

A range of excuses and misdirection will be used to confound the picture. The most obvious is the point that correlation does not prove causation. It will likely be argued that just because the excess deaths happened at about the same time as the mass inoculations it does not necessarily mean there is a causal connection. This is true, but it only means that the evidence is circumstantial, which is valid and can be conclusive, especially when there is no obvious alternative explanation and similar surges in deaths have been observed in most countries that were heavily vaccinated.

READ: US gov’t scientists received $710 million from Big Pharma during COVID, watchdog finds

There are likely to be arguments about the precision of the data and the establishment of an appropriate base line. There is little doubt about the overall trend. The Australian Actuaries Institute sounded the alarm in early 2023. But a favoured tactic of bureaucrats is to argue over fine detail in order to distract from the big picture.

There will thus need to be work to get precise data, if that is possible. For example, according to Babet on March 26 this year, the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) provisional mortality figures “confirm that to November 2023 there were 15,114, or 10 percent, more deaths than the baseline average.”

Different figures are in an article in globalresearch.ca (referencing figures from Mortality Watch). The excess death figures were below 4 percent in 2021, just under 14 percent in 2022, and just over 7 percent in 2023.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has different figures again: -3.1 percent in 2020 (when politicians were saying a deadly pandemic was ravaging the country), 1.4 percent in 2021, 10.9 percent in 2022, and 9.1 percent in 2023. These inconsistencies will have to be resolved.

Another likely tactic is that it will be argued that the problem is “multi-factorial”: that the deaths were caused by many things. This will have some truth to it – the lockdowns probably led to increased suicide rates, for example – and it is likely that it will be used to confuse the picture. But it will not explain the size of the excess mortality, which is the equivalent of what happens in a war. To explain that a novel reason is required, not causes of death that have existed for a long time.

READ: UK study of children shows heart inflammation develops after COVID vaccination, not infection

The aggregate mortality statistics are not the only relevant data; there are other pieces of evidence that can help fill in the picture. One is that the excess deaths, which have occurred in all age groups, do not seem to have been the result of COVID itself. According to the ABS in 2022, when the excess deaths were at their peak, the median (average) age of death for COVID-19 was 86, significantly higher than average life expectancy in Australia. That suggests relatively few working age and younger people died from the disease. So, what killed them?

Another pointer is a report that there have been 20 percent more sudden cardiac arrests in Victoria than five years ago – and more than 95 percent of the patients are dying. “Of the 7,830 people whose hearts stopped beating due to this condition in 2022/23, just 388 survived, the latest Ambulance Victoria figures reveal,” reports the Herald Sun. The ABC, the national broadcaster, reported that many of the heart attack victims are young, but did not investigate any further.

The state government’s response has been to buy more defibrillators. There has been no mention of the vaccines as a possible cause despite accumulating evidence that the heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis are the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccines.

Especially telling has been the TGA’s response. They simply stopped reporting on myocarditis and pericarditis. Such tactics are typical of Australian bureaucrats’ efforts to protect themselves.

The biggest challenge will be analyzing causation of the deaths in an environment where most of the people providing the data have a vested interest in not having their actions exposed, especially when the evidence might show that they have committed a homicide. Australian doctors and academics are also under threat of losing their careers if they voice their doubts about the vaccines. They, too, are hardly likely to be eager to take responsibility for deadly mistakes.

It is more likely that the exposing of the truth in Australia will have to wait for the insights of experts such as Dr. Francis Boyle, who was responsible for drafting the United States’ 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act. He recently testified in a Florida court case that the “mRNA nanoparticle injections” are “biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.”

If true, it seems very unlikely that Australian health authorities knew. The TGA admitted that it just followed the FDA’s recommendations throughout the crisis. But given that it is supposed to be their job to know it is no excuse.

 

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 19 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 20 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 20 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X