New Legal Proceedings in Australia with Pfizer and Moderna as the Defendants

It’s been about 6 weeks since my last post. The reason for my radio silence is that I have been involved in a project with the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS). A report is being produced to be presented to our politicians at the next sitting of parliament. I have written one of the chapters. It has involved a detailed analysis of mortality in Australia. In my next few articles, I’ll be providing some background leading up to the conclusions from my report. You are going to find it interesting.

There are so many things to talk about, but in this article, I want to provide information on legal proceedings that have just been submitted.

The Case

The new legal proceedings were launched on 6 July 2023, naming Pfizer and Moderna as the Defendants.

The case has been prepared by human rights lawyers Julian Gillespie LLB, B Juris, who designed and is leading this action along with instructing solicitor Katie Ashby-Koppens.

From the lawyers:

In a nutshell: the Lipid Nanoparticle modified RNA technology used by Pfizer and Moderna satisfy Australian legal definitions for being properly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. Almost identical legal definitions are found in many other countries, including the EU. Synthetic and natural RNA has over four decades of science acknowledging how easily it can integrate with genomic DNA.

The dangers of such technology are well known.

Both Pfizer and Moderna have long been aware of these legal definitions but chose to ignore them when seeking to introduce their C-19 Products to the Australian market.

AstraZeneca on the other hand did not seek to avoid its legal obligations and properly sought a GMO License (DIR 180) from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) prior to seeking provisional approval from the Australian TGA.

The TGA should have first consulted with the OGTR.

For full details see the website of Human Rights Lawyers, Maat’s Method, led by Peter Fam. I love the origin of the firm’s name:

‘Maat’ is the Kemetic (Ancient Egyptian) deity of Truth, Justice and Balance. 'Maat's Method' is our company and platform. We are proud to stand in the light and tradition of our ancestors for the benefit of the modern world.

There is a letter from Julian Gillespie and also several attachments regarding the case for those interested. They have done so much background research on the underlying technology.

I found it most interesting that Astra Zeneca did seek the appropriate licenses while Pfizer and Moderna did not.

I have got to know both Julian and Peter through assisting them with technical support on a previous case and can attest to how tirelessly they have been working on social justice issues.

As I was completing my own report with AMPS I had asked Julian to review it. This was right at the same time this case was being lodged and he still made time over a weekend to go through my report line by line and provide valuable comments.

What else has been happening?

Unfortunately, NSW and Victorian Firefighters and some other workers are still mandated out of work. No words to describe the absurdity/maliciousness. This is at a time when companies are instructed to destroy records of vaccination of employees. Businesses in the State of Victoria are now required to destroy COVID vaccination records collected to meet privacy regulations. See here and here.

The Chief Health Officer of Victoria has resigned after being missing in action for 10 months. After presiding over what was possibly the longest lockdown anywhere in the world he has been awarded “Victorian of the Year”, for the State which may have had the worst health outcomes in Australia during COVID.

Mainstream media reported on a poor lady in Queensland who has had COVID 10 times and is waiting to get a 5th dose. See Ivo’s substack post. The news article got much international attention. A post by eugyppius has over 400 comments!

In news doing the rounds today a professor believes he has found the solution to COVID as he has not had COVID in the 3 years. It is a heparin nasal spray. Heparin is a blood thinner. Apparently nasal administration does not thin the blood. One of the reasons that the Professor believes heparin should be tried is that he:

reassured the use of heparin is safe given it’s the second most widely used drug in the world that’s been used as an intravenous anticoagulant for eight decades.

Hmmm makes one think of another, safe, widely used medicine, we weren’t allowed to use during COVID.

They are trying to get enough people for a trial. Those allergic to heparin, have been diagnosed with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) or have had a recurrent blood nose that required hospitalisation in the last three months are not eligible for the study.

I wonder if it’s necessary to spray into one’s eyes as well?

---

Stay tuned for my report on trends in mortality in Australia.