Looking forward to reading your chapter Andrew and joining you in Canberra in October to speak, hopefully to a large audience of politicians, public servants and pollies, about our contributions to the AMPS book. Kara, Editor and Production crew working frantically to solve all the problems we and others threw at them deserve medals.
Praying this case goes well and a loophole may get this all unstuck but I fear we've lost our judicial system, either through corruption, scientific stupidity or fear... So whatever has happened they're on board with unthinkable transgressions of basic human rights, bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. So we can't count on them it seems...
This was confirmed by my fair work experience, which was a total farce.
I took a stand for future generations, and lost my job (don't really care to work for tin pot tyrants anyway), but I do what I can to try and make the process of takeover as hard as possible for those in bed with this plan, I even got called an "antivaxxer" by work's lawyer in my mediation just to top it all off (even though prior to this, I did take vaccines, I won't now though, this has really put me off any vaccine).
Despite well referenced material on my behalf - I studied biology at uni - and no material on my workplace's behalf (or for that matter, Fairwork itself)... The mediator was just desperate for me to agree works direction was "fair and reasonable" despite knowing the direction is fundamentally illegal...
I lost, knowing full well that I would... So many others had.
I wasn't there to keep my job of course, I was there to make sure that this process was a time consuming painful letter writing, legal sh!t fight for my workplace, long letters to read full of peer reviewed science, lawyers needed to be engaged to write every response, I included previous legal rulings from fair work, plus the fact an employee was already mRNA injured at our workplace, so further pursuit of a mandate policy is criminal negligence in OH&S terms (especially given the vax doesn't prevent spread) etc etc... Can't even begin to imagine what that cost in lawyers fees... I represented myself, and didn't spend a penny...
A further six people at my workplace either had a relative dead or injured following the jab so didn't want it, or were aware that it wasn't safe... they were allowed to wait for Novavax (knowing that even that has a high myocarditis risk with it), if they'd all been like me and said "no"... Work would have been in a desperate position... But of course they all caved.... Prisoners to a mortgage... Basically their "life" was threatened, as the modern world is a sea of debt... But if they said no, as a collective, work almost certainly would have to cave, as their skills are very hard to come by... I can only imagine their fear as they lined up for a medication they didn't want (or need)...
I've probably gone on long enough, but this country has been lost it seems, I won't count on judges as Fairwork's Commissioner Riordan was taken off for "re-education" after stating pre existing rights Australian citizens had against being mandated experimental tech under our constitution, he's not a legal novice, so his statements were likely spot on... But his statements were buried, so what happened that the rest of the legal fraternity were told to ignore such rights?
Another alarm bell re safety might be found in the fact that Pfizer brought in a "special" batch of covid vaccines for their employees only that were not required to be checked by the TGA?? There was plenty of Pfizer vaccines here already, why did there employees need a special batch??
The WEF deception has fooled many, and corrupted our government and institutions, I can only hope we turn this slippery slope around, maybe a brave judge, but I doubt it, they've all shrunk into cowardice... My main hope is, as a united population... If more wake up out of the brainwashing from our media and govt, and take a look around at what has happened... stand up to our would be masters and say "No". Then this would be over.
From Section [110] onwards there was a solid legal foundation as to why covid vaccines cannot be forced upon the individual by an employer citing existing rights and laws.
Best summed up at the end:
"Can COVID vaccinations be mandated by employers on health and safety grounds? [130] The short answer to this question, in almost every case, is no."
You did well Steve to put this effort in. Providing all the backup information when there was nothing legitimate produced from the other side. It's valuable to document the details of what happened. I have heard similar stories from others about the painful process you had to go through with "Fair" Work Australia. Maybe, maybe sometime in the future there will be a full review of this process.
Thank you Andrew, I've kept a good record of my meeting and correspondence with work... Maybe one day if enough wake up we'll see a turnaround... Fingers crossed
As I could determine it all comes down to the definition of "organism" as to why A/Z got assessed but mRNA's were skipped. Though I believed there was a legal argument that the mRNA products could meet the definition of "organism". Glad to see a lawsuit attacking this.
The other avenue that is relevant, is on what definition or basis did the TGA rely on, to determine that the mRNA products were able to be considered a "vaccine". The TG Regulations mentions the Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) but no where in the regulation does it define what constitutes a "vaccine".
Under provisional registration it would seem all that is needed for the TGA Secretary - Skerrit, to give the nod - but on what basis did he decide?
mRNA jabs don't meet the TGA published (now archived) definition of a vaccine - so what did Skerrit use?
If they argue that the mRNA met the definition of a "small, purified components of viruses " - then you could argue back, that is a component of an "organism", so it should have been assessed as an organism.
It they just accepted the pharma companies word that it is a vaccine because it provides "protection" then any drug like hydroxychloquine could be submitted as a "vaccine" as it offeres a level of "protection". The TGA need to cough up why they allowed these product to be accepted as a "vaccine"
Hope this helps....though you probably are all over this.
Glad to help. When I searched in 2020 that was all the info I could find on TGA website that came close to a definition. Seems Skerrit made an executive decision to accepted the mRNA products as a "vaccine".
Unfortunately they use the word "can" as in "Vaccines can contain...".
Need to FOIA TGA for a 2020 definition of a "vaccine", and why is there no definition in the Regulations or the TGA Act....legals is not my thing!
The live version (July 21, 2023) is still same as archive! They never updated it to accommodate mRNA!
Thanks Andrew, so hard to keep abreast of latest developments..you have helped there. Ill keep trying to get the most helpful info out there in order for the community to get the real info they need. It certainly is the pot calling the kettle black in terms of the new ACMA Bill! Keep it up mate.
Andrew, respectfully, Pfizer and Moderna are not the correct defendents. It is the Government (federal and states) and the Department of Defence. 'Pharma' is just holding the bag. 'Pharma' can just be dissolved and re-created as a new entity. In any case, who allowed 'pharma' to operate thusly in our country without proper license? It was government. Please see the Novavax contract below.
All this was done under an EUA from the government and that will be their argument. 'We had to do it because of a deadly emergency and pharma provided us with life saving safe and effective treatment, and even if it was NOT safe and effective, pharma will say we were only doing what the government allowed/told us to do.' They will never accept your premise, legally or scientifically, and it is a circular argument that they will always win.
I published the Novavax contract - the only Australian covid vaccine contract in circulation. Look at the liability protection the government provided them. 'Pharma' is a wayward child, allowed to do whatever it wants. The perpetrators are in government, and it begins and ends with the State of Emergency and the EUA. That is the nut that must be cracked.
Good work documenting all those points in the Excess Deaths 2023 article. I didn't know they were reducing the reporting frequency.
re the Court case, they have done a lot of work to determine the best approach with the courts after a lot of setbacks. The case is being supported by Children's Health Defence.
CHD never goes after governments - the heart of the beast being the US DOD - and in our case under the auspicies of the Five Eyes - because Bobby et al. want to be the government. They want to slide in and be the new guard. Pharma is a phantom target. Even if you have a 'win' against pharma, they will still be allowed to act with impunity because the issue is governments allowing them to do so under a state of emergency as determined at any time by the WHO (or otherwise).
Congratulations and thank you Andrew for all that you are doing. I have read your court submission in the Drs v Mandates case and your statistical evidence is incredible. I also look forward to reading your further analysis as it is released.
I have referenced your work in a submission to the QIRC and I would like to be able to speak with you in this regard.
I am hoping to have a very small and basic body of statistical analysis done to show lack of proportionality in relation to termination under the vaccine mandate issue- is that something you could assist with please?
Looking forward to reading your chapter Andrew and joining you in Canberra in October to speak, hopefully to a large audience of politicians, public servants and pollies, about our contributions to the AMPS book. Kara, Editor and Production crew working frantically to solve all the problems we and others threw at them deserve medals.
Same here Geoff. Thanks for your persistence and efforts. As time progresses the picture becomes clearer.
Praying this case goes well and a loophole may get this all unstuck but I fear we've lost our judicial system, either through corruption, scientific stupidity or fear... So whatever has happened they're on board with unthinkable transgressions of basic human rights, bodily autonomy and freedom of speech. So we can't count on them it seems...
This was confirmed by my fair work experience, which was a total farce.
I took a stand for future generations, and lost my job (don't really care to work for tin pot tyrants anyway), but I do what I can to try and make the process of takeover as hard as possible for those in bed with this plan, I even got called an "antivaxxer" by work's lawyer in my mediation just to top it all off (even though prior to this, I did take vaccines, I won't now though, this has really put me off any vaccine).
Despite well referenced material on my behalf - I studied biology at uni - and no material on my workplace's behalf (or for that matter, Fairwork itself)... The mediator was just desperate for me to agree works direction was "fair and reasonable" despite knowing the direction is fundamentally illegal...
I lost, knowing full well that I would... So many others had.
I wasn't there to keep my job of course, I was there to make sure that this process was a time consuming painful letter writing, legal sh!t fight for my workplace, long letters to read full of peer reviewed science, lawyers needed to be engaged to write every response, I included previous legal rulings from fair work, plus the fact an employee was already mRNA injured at our workplace, so further pursuit of a mandate policy is criminal negligence in OH&S terms (especially given the vax doesn't prevent spread) etc etc... Can't even begin to imagine what that cost in lawyers fees... I represented myself, and didn't spend a penny...
A further six people at my workplace either had a relative dead or injured following the jab so didn't want it, or were aware that it wasn't safe... they were allowed to wait for Novavax (knowing that even that has a high myocarditis risk with it), if they'd all been like me and said "no"... Work would have been in a desperate position... But of course they all caved.... Prisoners to a mortgage... Basically their "life" was threatened, as the modern world is a sea of debt... But if they said no, as a collective, work almost certainly would have to cave, as their skills are very hard to come by... I can only imagine their fear as they lined up for a medication they didn't want (or need)...
I've probably gone on long enough, but this country has been lost it seems, I won't count on judges as Fairwork's Commissioner Riordan was taken off for "re-education" after stating pre existing rights Australian citizens had against being mandated experimental tech under our constitution, he's not a legal novice, so his statements were likely spot on... But his statements were buried, so what happened that the rest of the legal fraternity were told to ignore such rights?
Another alarm bell re safety might be found in the fact that Pfizer brought in a "special" batch of covid vaccines for their employees only that were not required to be checked by the TGA?? There was plenty of Pfizer vaccines here already, why did there employees need a special batch??
The WEF deception has fooled many, and corrupted our government and institutions, I can only hope we turn this slippery slope around, maybe a brave judge, but I doubt it, they've all shrunk into cowardice... My main hope is, as a united population... If more wake up out of the brainwashing from our media and govt, and take a look around at what has happened... stand up to our would be masters and say "No". Then this would be over.
Source re Pfizer special batch TGA
https://twitter.com/tweetiebirdcjs/status/1485140955783393280?t=-Crf-Qh1yYbo0DDf4mwMBQ&s=19
Verified by looking up:
Lot number: FD0927*
https://www.tga.gov.au/batch-release-assessment-covid-19-vaccines
The batch number says to "see remarks"... The remarks are:
"Not tested. OCABR Reviewed. Limited batch quantity allocated for use in Pfizer Australia employee vaccination program"
Fairwork Commisioner Riordan reference:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2021fwcfb6015.htm
From Section [110] onwards there was a solid legal foundation as to why covid vaccines cannot be forced upon the individual by an employer citing existing rights and laws.
Best summed up at the end:
"Can COVID vaccinations be mandated by employers on health and safety grounds? [130] The short answer to this question, in almost every case, is no."
You did well Steve to put this effort in. Providing all the backup information when there was nothing legitimate produced from the other side. It's valuable to document the details of what happened. I have heard similar stories from others about the painful process you had to go through with "Fair" Work Australia. Maybe, maybe sometime in the future there will be a full review of this process.
Thank you Andrew, I've kept a good record of my meeting and correspondence with work... Maybe one day if enough wake up we'll see a turnaround... Fingers crossed
Well done shall be praying that case wins..
Unbelievable how slow and narrow the road to justice became.
Thanks for the shoutout. Look forward to reading your future posts.
Interesting re the "GMO" lawsuit.
I wrote about the Gene Technology Regulator a month ago.
https://totalityofevidence.substack.com/p/australias-gene-technology-regulator
As I could determine it all comes down to the definition of "organism" as to why A/Z got assessed but mRNA's were skipped. Though I believed there was a legal argument that the mRNA products could meet the definition of "organism". Glad to see a lawsuit attacking this.
The other avenue that is relevant, is on what definition or basis did the TGA rely on, to determine that the mRNA products were able to be considered a "vaccine". The TG Regulations mentions the Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) but no where in the regulation does it define what constitutes a "vaccine".
Under provisional registration it would seem all that is needed for the TGA Secretary - Skerrit, to give the nod - but on what basis did he decide?
mRNA jabs don't meet the TGA published (now archived) definition of a vaccine - so what did Skerrit use?
https://web.archive.org/web/20191202202415/https://www.tga.gov.au/vaccines-overview
If they argue that the mRNA met the definition of a "small, purified components of viruses " - then you could argue back, that is a component of an "organism", so it should have been assessed as an organism.
It they just accepted the pharma companies word that it is a vaccine because it provides "protection" then any drug like hydroxychloquine could be submitted as a "vaccine" as it offeres a level of "protection". The TGA need to cough up why they allowed these product to be accepted as a "vaccine"
Hope this helps....though you probably are all over this.
Thanks for providing that TGA web archive link. Interesting how the definitions magically changed.
Glad to help. When I searched in 2020 that was all the info I could find on TGA website that came close to a definition. Seems Skerrit made an executive decision to accepted the mRNA products as a "vaccine".
Unfortunately they use the word "can" as in "Vaccines can contain...".
Need to FOIA TGA for a 2020 definition of a "vaccine", and why is there no definition in the Regulations or the TGA Act....legals is not my thing!
The live version (July 21, 2023) is still same as archive! They never updated it to accommodate mRNA!
https://www.tga.gov.au/vaccines-overview
Regarding definitions - I've been keeping track!
https://totalityofevidence.com/definition-manipulation/
But look here they've add in mRNA!!!
https://www.tga.gov.au/products/medicines/vaccines
Thanks Andrew, so hard to keep abreast of latest developments..you have helped there. Ill keep trying to get the most helpful info out there in order for the community to get the real info they need. It certainly is the pot calling the kettle black in terms of the new ACMA Bill! Keep it up mate.
Andrew, respectfully, Pfizer and Moderna are not the correct defendents. It is the Government (federal and states) and the Department of Defence. 'Pharma' is just holding the bag. 'Pharma' can just be dissolved and re-created as a new entity. In any case, who allowed 'pharma' to operate thusly in our country without proper license? It was government. Please see the Novavax contract below.
All this was done under an EUA from the government and that will be their argument. 'We had to do it because of a deadly emergency and pharma provided us with life saving safe and effective treatment, and even if it was NOT safe and effective, pharma will say we were only doing what the government allowed/told us to do.' They will never accept your premise, legally or scientifically, and it is a circular argument that they will always win.
I published the Novavax contract - the only Australian covid vaccine contract in circulation. Look at the liability protection the government provided them. 'Pharma' is a wayward child, allowed to do whatever it wants. The perpetrators are in government, and it begins and ends with the State of Emergency and the EUA. That is the nut that must be cracked.
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australias-novavax-contract
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australias-vaccine-contracts-updated
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/the-australian-government-may-legally
https://vicparkpetition.substack.com/p/australian-excess-deaths-2023
Good work documenting all those points in the Excess Deaths 2023 article. I didn't know they were reducing the reporting frequency.
re the Court case, they have done a lot of work to determine the best approach with the courts after a lot of setbacks. The case is being supported by Children's Health Defence.
CHD never goes after governments - the heart of the beast being the US DOD - and in our case under the auspicies of the Five Eyes - because Bobby et al. want to be the government. They want to slide in and be the new guard. Pharma is a phantom target. Even if you have a 'win' against pharma, they will still be allowed to act with impunity because the issue is governments allowing them to do so under a state of emergency as determined at any time by the WHO (or otherwise).
All of this is political. All of it.
Congratulations and thank you Andrew for all that you are doing. I have read your court submission in the Drs v Mandates case and your statistical evidence is incredible. I also look forward to reading your further analysis as it is released.
I have referenced your work in a submission to the QIRC and I would like to be able to speak with you in this regard.
I am hoping to have a very small and basic body of statistical analysis done to show lack of proportionality in relation to termination under the vaccine mandate issue- is that something you could assist with please?
Thank you in advance :)