COVID-19: A GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Ivermectin is one drug that has been approved in Australia for the last 65 years, but doctors cannot now prescribe it for other than scabies and certain parasitic conditions. The TGA websites cites a number of concerns that are weak arguments.

One such concern is that supplies may run short for people that need it for scabies and parasites. I find this bordering on the absurd. We are supposed to be in the midst of a viral pandemic that has disrupted the world to a greater degree than any virus in history, but we’re going to save a possible lifesaving drug for scabies and parasites.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying scabies and parasites aren’t a serious problem. But compared to covid-19…? And is the TGA saying that production of Ivermectin could not be increased to meet increased demand?

Hydroxychloroquine is used for treatment of malaria and certain autoimmune diseases, and is another drug that could be used – but doctors are not permitted to prescribe – to treat covid-19.

Again, the TGA is citing concerns that this will create a potential shortage of this product in Australia. If you don’t like the term “absurd”, try “ludicrous.”

Covid-19 vaccines arrived in 2021. Vaccines that were to be our saviour and vaccines that, despite being exclusively unproven new-technology and rushed to market without normal trials, were presented as being safe and effective.

Covid-19 Vaccines Are Safe – Really?

Moderna

Until now, Moderna – which had never had a single vaccine approved for use in humans since the company was formed and has a track record of legal issues – managed to get this one to market. One has to question whether the only reason for this is because it did not have to undergo normal trial and approval procedures.

Moderna had its first “to-market” vaccine suspended and recalled in Japan due to contamination. The British Medical Journal reports that Sweden, Norway and Finland suspended use of Moderna in October for precautionary reasons due to possible adverse side effects. (Ref 1)

Although the Australian Government is aware of the risk of severe side effects with Moderna, particularly in younger men, they are not recommending any particular age group use another vaccine in its place.

AstraZeneca

The Australian government decided to restrict AstraZeneca to older age groups, as younger people were presenting with thrombosis with thrombocytopaenia syndrome (TTS). TTS can and has led to severe disability and death in people who contract it.

TTS was not listed as an adverse reaction on the safety data sheet when AstraZeneca was provisionally approved.

Pfizer

Myocarditis and Pericarditis were not listed as adverse reactions for the Pfizer vaccine until the day that it was approved for use in children aged 12-15.

On the TGA website, when looking at Consumer Medicine Information documents for all 3 vaccines, they state on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods:

“The decision (to provisionally register) has been made on the basis of short-term efficacy and safety data.” (Ref 2) Search for ID’s 346290, 349072 and 370599)

Clinical Trials Incomplete

Risks could only be assessed on data available at the time that the vaccines went to market. At this time, clinical trials for all of these vaccines were only partway though. It’s not particularly surprising that subsequent risks have been identified.

It is particularly surprising that the Australian government would claim these vaccines unequivocally to be safe when there was insufficient data to back up that claim. It is also surprising that they continue to claim them to be safe when a number of subsequent severe adverse reactions have since been identified and clinical trials are still continuing.

They simply don’t know what long-term adverse events will surface, or when. They cannot, under normal criteria that apply to vaccines, declare them to be safe with any degree of certainty.

Covid-19 Vaccines Are Effective – Really?

95% effective, we were told.

There was no definition of what “effective” meant. I wonder how many people assumed (reasonably, in my opinion) that “effective” meant effective against being infected, becoming symptomatic, transmitting the disease and dying from it.

Moving The Goalposts

In a mind-boggling demonstration of moving the goalposts, it is now clear that “full vaccination” will not stop an individual becoming infected, symptomatic, or transmitting the disease.

The vaccines are now touted to do no more than reduce the severity of symptoms and, hopefully, the risk of dying from the disease.

Don’t get me wrong, a reduced chance of dying is nothing to be sneezed at (no pun intended), but it’s not my idea of effective protection.

When Is Fully Vaccinated, Not Fully Vaccinated? Introducing Boosters

At the moment, “fully vaccinated” means having 2 doses of any of the 3 experimental vaccines. How long before those goalposts are moved, too?

Which brings us to the subject of boosters.

When the vaccine was initially rolled out, nobody was talking about the need for boosters, yet only 4 months on from full vaccination, boosters were recommended for the over 60’s in the UK due to a drop in efficacy.

Since early November, 2021, Australia has had an official booster program. The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) has recommended Pfizer as the preferred vaccine to be used for boosters, regardless of which vaccine was originally administered.

Anyone over 18 years of age is eligible for a booster shot.

Boosters – Making The Double Jab “Even Stronger And Longer Lasting”

The Australian Government’s Department of Health says:

“Two doses of COVID-19 vaccine provide very good protection, especially against severe disease.

“A booster dose will make sure the protection from the first dose is even stronger and longer lasting, and should help prevent spread of the virus.” (Ref 3)

If two doses provide very good protection, why should a booster be necessary? Well, it’s not necessary, inasmuch as it’s not mandatory, but it is recommended.

And why would a booster be longer lasting? Just including the term “longer lasting” in the statement is an indication that the efficacy of the original doses wanes with time.

How Long Are The Vaccines Effective For?

Originally, no-one knew how long the vaccine protection lasted. They’ve got a much better idea now.

A preprint with the Lancet on a Swedish study provides an interesting insight. (Ref 4)

The study, comprising more than 840,000 pairs, looked at Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Moderna. I’ll cut to the chase.

• Vaccine effectiveness of the Moderna vaccine waned progressively and was estimated at 59% from day 181 onwards. Round it up to 60% at 6 months. Easier to remember.
• Vaccine effectiveness of the Pfizer vaccine also waned progressively from 92% at days 15-30, through 47% at days 121-180, and from day 211 onwards, no effectiveness could be detected.

Only half as effective after 4 months. No effectiveness could be detected after 7 months.

Yet Pfizer is the Govt. Health Department recommended vaccine for boosters.

• Vaccine effectiveness of the AstraZeneca was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards. It gets worse. From day 121 onwards, AstraZeneca showed a negative value of effectiveness. Minus 19%. Wait! What does that mean? It means that after 4 months, “the unvaccinated individuals were more protected than the AstraZeneca vaccinated individuals.”

To put it another way, a mere 4 months after having the AstraZeneca vaccine, one is more susceptible to Covid-19 than not having any vaccination.

The bottom line of the study is that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rates according to type of vaccine and subgroup.

What Does The Government Have Planned For You?

The Prime Minister’s website (Ref 5) boasts of securing an extra 85 million doses of Pfizer. Plus the others:

“More than 280 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have now been secured to support the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out.”

That’s more than 11 doses for every man, woman and child in the country (including infants).

Based on this, it is hard to conclude other than the government is planning on multiple boosters. Hands up who knew that.

How long, do you think, before the goalposts get moved again and boosters will become mandatory for people to be considered fully vaccinated?

Restrictions Lifted As Vaccination Rate Reaches 80%

In South Australia, the government made vague promises about easing restrictions once an 80% vaccination rate was reached. Eventually, a “Covid-19 roadmap” was released. And guess what? It didn’t happen.

In October of 2020, I went interstate on holiday. Upon return, I was screened by the Police at Adelaide Airport and allowed back in with no PCR test and no quarantine or self-isolation. I was not vaccinated.

On the 23rd of November, 2021, border restrictions were changed and now only double-dose vaccinated individuals are allowed into the State, resident or not. 14 days of quarantine is required for those not fully vaccinated. There were 2 restrictions that were eased.

1. The quarantine period for vaccinated international travellers was halved from 14 days to 7 days, and
2. The cap on home gatherings was increased from 20 to 30.

On 26th November, 2021, ABC News reported Steven Marshall saying, ”the relaxation (on border crossings) would ‘definitely’ result in new cases.”

Since only double-vaccinated individuals will be entering SA without quarantine, why should this result in new cases? It can only be because the vaccinated are carriers of the disease and it’s the vaccinated who will be transmitting it. Yet the State’s Chief Public Health Officer speaks of “the danger the unvaccinated pose to the vaccinated.”

If you look at the border restrictions around the country, there is very little freedom for any individual who is not vaccinated, regardless of vaccination rate.

Far worse than this, though, is the situation with health care.

Safety & Quality in Healthcare – The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights

There is an Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, from which came the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. (Ref 6)

The second edition of this charter states, among other things:

I have a right to

• Access – Healthcare services and treatment that meets my needs
• Safety – Be cared for in an environment that is safe and makes me feel safe

On 23rd November, 2021, I had an appointment at the Russell Clinic in Belair for the excision of a suspected skin cancer and removal of some stitches from a previous excision for the same reason. On 22nd November, I received a text advising that, in line with SA Govt Health Guidelines, unvaccinated individuals would not have access to their rooms. I was encouraged to have a tele-conference. I’m not sure how they could remove stitches or cut out a skin cancer over the phone.

This change is not restricted to the Russell Clinic.

My partner, who is undergoing breast cancer treatment, needs to have blood tests done ahead of her latest round of treatment. The Belair Family Health Centre advised that as an unvaccinated person, she would not be allowed to attend.

This is a broad-sweeping change that came about because of what I was told are “guidelines.” Not rules or directives, just guidelines. However they are classified, they are issued by SA Health and are clearly in contravention of the Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights. Many clinics are meekly accepting this.

How broadly is this being applied across the country?

Survival Doesn’t Count – The Elephant In The Room

The push for vaccination to prevent covid-19 is completely ignoring the benefit of naturally acquired immunity.

Up to 7th December, 2021, there were 220,558 cases of covid-19, with 2065 deaths and 543 still hospitalised. If we assume that all the currently hospitalised people are going to die, that still leaves more than 215,000 people who have contracted the disease and survived, and who therefore have naturally acquired immunity.

Why is no allowance for this naturally acquired immunity being made when it comes to restrictions and freedoms? People who have contracted the virus and survived deserve recognition.

The Australian Government is very coy when it comes to this subject. In answer to the question, “Is natural immunisation better (than vaccine immunity)”, the Department of Health website has this to say:

“If a disease infects you, then you may become immune to it in the future. We call this ‘natural’ immunity.

“Some people believe that natural immunity is better than the immunity from vaccines. But the risks associated with natural immunity are much higher than risks associated with immunity provided by vaccines. Some highly contagious diseases can lead to severe complications. They can make you very ill or even kill you.

“The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks. Vaccination protects you and your family from diseases, including ones that are deadly. It also protects other people in your community, including people who are vulnerable, too young, or too sick to be immunised.” (Ref 7)

This completely dodges the question, focussing on the dangers of catching the disease.

The question about naturally acquired immunity is not about whether getting vaccinated is safer than catching the disease. It is about why the immunity acquired by people who have already caught the disease and recovered is not being considered in allowing them the same freedoms as those who have been vaccinated.

Who Is Really At Risk?

A lot of people I talk to say that we need to follow the science on this. There is merit to that, but in a situation where the science is unknown or unclear, what else can be relied upon? And what do you do if the science is disputed?

Science is data driven, so we can look at the data. To avoid controversy, let’s look at the government’s data.

3 months into the pandemic, government records showed a very clear pattern of cases and deaths around the country.

By far the most cases were in the 20-29 age group, followed by the 30-39 age group, but it was the 70+ age group that had the highest number of deaths.

This pattern hasn’t changed. The elderly and infirm are at risk from the SARS CoV-2 virus. The young show remarkable resistance.

There is very clear and obvious evidence that the risk of death from this disease increases with age and that the risk of death for the under 50’s is extremely low. Nonetheless, everyone is being restricted.

As at 30th August, 2021, of the total of 999 deaths Australia-wide from covid-19, 913 have been aged 70 years or older and 693 were in residential aged care when infected.

The 4 deaths in South Australia to 30th November, 2021 are for people 62, 74, 75 and 76 years of age.

More to the point, as of the same date, Australia-wide there has been only 1 death in the under 10 year olds, and only 2 deaths in the 10-19 year olds. From more than 61,000 cases. (Ref 8)

Yet the government still wants to inject healthy young children who are at no risk to the disease. For these people, the risks associated with vaccines are higher than risks associated with immunity provided by natural immunity.

Everybody’s working and social lives continue to be thoroughly disrupted, with coercion and mandates in place for experimental vaccines with limited efficacy and questionable safety.

Tell me again how the government knows what it is doing.