All of the covid-19 inquiries are circuses and the populations are mere spectators, all they will do is confirm that the actions taken were appropriate probably with some minor criticisms to give the appearance of authenticity. We never escaped from the brutal treatment of the covid period and what we are experiencing now is a lull, there has been no reversal, no reforms all of the laws are in place for this debacle to be repeated. What "this" is could be anything the government or WHO deem a threat and then the nightmare will begin again.
Agree, it's theatre, let's keep the citizens satisfied we will pretend to be interested in finding out what really went on and if it was not in the best interests of the public & really they will spend more taxpayers dollars and achieve NOTHING of any real value to ordinary Australians, they don't care! They are not going to investigate themselves
Great information Elizabeth, let's invite EVERYONE to DEMAND the National Cabinet Documents & let's see if Catherine is on the right track or was just in on it from the get go. As mentioned in the achieve nothing ever, "Senate Inquiries" this "once in a hundred years" pandemic has apparently affected ALL of US. If that is so & there is nothing to hide, show us the proof that these decisions were vital in the "saving of Australia" whilst destroying it.
The Australian enquiry is a whitewash. Well done for trying to influence these corrupt people. As soon as I saw Bennet's name, I thought this is a waste of time and money.
Informed consent is impossible for a product that has not been subjected to definitive large randomised controlled trials. The mRNA injections were only supported by abbreviated, poorly conducted, essentially sham clinical trials - and even the data from those was not honestly revealed to government - let alone to the public - as shown by the exhaustive analysis of the Pfizer trial documents provided by Naomi Wolf's Daily Clout teams. The government, the doctors and the millions injected all had the wool pulled over their eyes. There was certainly no informed consent under these circumstances - just a whole lot of fraud and lies followed by gaslighting and intimidating truth-tellers.
It is incomprehensible that the epidemiologist chosen to investigate Covid-19 complaints at the National Inquiry was already known to be biased in favor of mandates, lock downs, masking and vaccination of children. One can only conclude that the Inquiry is deliberately designed to produce a pre-determined conclusion that is effectively a script of the pharmacological industry's design. There will be no calling to account for those who daily engendered fear on our tv screens and already the so-called "experts" and politicians have disappeared into retirement (and in several cases obtained lucrative employment in the pharmacological industry). This Inquiry is a politically inspired whitewashing exercise!!
Prof. Tony Blakely is appointed to chair the COVID Inquiry here in New Zealand.
He was chosen by the previous Government and SCREAMS CONFLICT OF INTEREST too.
Here he is 2020. Masterminding COVID, Victoria Australia , and weighing in on New Zealand controls.
If he had an ounce of ethics he would have withdrawn saying he had a conflict of interest.
His involvement with the W.H.O. is as a RGHS Expert Observers
Tony Blakely Professorial Fellow in Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Population Interventions Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne.
Reference Group on Health Statistics (RGHS) RGHS Stakeholders (2022)
Propaganda was the only thing that was spreading, and at an alarming rate and that is the problem with the ''MSM'' that it's writers are massively compromised.
So thanks, it's good to know where writers stand on this issue as I've encountered a few that are happily exposing the nasty effects from these jabs but are not willing to expose the fraud that Sars Cov 2 has never been proven to exist and unwilling to state where they stand [ up goes the paywall where they can hide] - looking at the number of subscriptions I imagine that the earnings have to be pretty good.
The Plandemic revealed that we already have a one world government in place.
Personally, I don't get into the 'virus'/'no virus' argument, because others are engaged in that. For me the matter is simple... Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Coercion, intimidation and mandates - indeed - how did we get here, and why isn't anyone being held accountable for all the wrongs that have occurred.
I find it of crucial importance to reveal that we've been lied to once again and right from the start for that matter- just like there were no WMD's in Iraq it was invaded because there was an agenda to follow [Cheney had carved up Iraq oil fields all the way back in 97.]
Covid had absolutely nothing to do with matters relating to improving our health because there was no novel disease - instead there was an agenda to follow which makes what happened downright criminal.
I though you might have been on a different page since you were interested to learn about my correspondence with Scott.
In the WA newspaper yesterday, a Dr from Denmark WA refused the jab when he saw so many adverse events, mandated out of his job, Spoke out about it, likening the jabs to the "holocaust" and "murder". License suspended for three months for professional misconduct and ordered to undergo an education program on ethical practice as a doctor and COVID infection control practices. This is the accountability we get. Upside down, inside out, forward, backwards clown world.
I wouldn't call Neil Ferguson relationship with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as anything less than bribery. Take a shocking look as to the money received in the decade prior to the plandemic.
Elizabeth, the likes of Catherine Bennett et al consider themselves to be a most wonderfully wise and well-informed elite. We are the great unwashed, unfit to lick their boots. Personally, I have had enough of their incompetence, their inability to grasp basic issues, their utter arrogance.
What we have been subjected to is not a medical response to a real 'emergency' but a pandemic of government-sponsored stupidity, abuse, bullying, intimidation, and threats. The only sure thing about the alleged 'pandemic' was the ridiculous gene therapy injectables - falsely called 'vaccines' - failed, poisonous products that you would not give to a dog.
It would be nice to see justice done, but that will definitely not be on the table. It can only get worse. Next time round, the authorities will have had the benefit of a practice run. They will make sure they nail everyone. It will be off to the quarantine camps for us, and probably forced injections as well.
Stephen, why do you say justice "will definitely not be on the table"?
Why do you suggest "It can only get worse." Why don't you proactively pushback against the crimes that have happened instead of giving in?
I'm challenging Catherine Bennett. Who IS this person? She has promoted the vaccine products, even for children. Who is she, and all the others, to be pressing this medical intervention?
A crime has been committed. A massive crime. People have been misled, coerced, intimidated and even MANDATED to submit to the lucrative Covid-19 vaccine products, trashing voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
Another problem I see is that the public servants, in whom is invested a lot of extra poower during an emergency, are just not up to the task. It is obvious there is a lot of cronyism behind senior appointments. Possibly Parkinson's corollary - that public servants are promoted to their level of incompetence - also applies. But I think there is a lot of mutual backscratching going on. The result is that you get Australia's Chief Medical Officer saying the Covid injection "stays in the arm" and the mRNA is gone in a few hours. This was gross ignorance on his part.
My personal experience of public servants occurred when I was briefly on a consumer panel advising the government about a procurement issue. I was used to negotiating big deals with the relevant industry and knew most of the reps quite well. But the public servants did not have a clue, and eventually, in spite of warnings from me, were taken for a ride. From the outside this just looks like a corrupt process in which large amounts of government money are applied ineffectually. But really it is just ignorance and incompetence in the public service.
The way they get around this is by seeking external advice (as in my case). But that is a costly process. Also it is really only necessary because the people employed at public expense are too busy polishing their CVs to acquire the necessary expertise. During Covid, the external advice was, predictably, seriously biased due to conflicting interests, thus corrupting the decision-making process. A friend of mine who worked in the TGA said that the minister tended to take the advice of pharma over that of his own staff (this was not a casual process but was actually a formalised advice pathway). Whether the public service could be revitalised to cure this problem, I do not know. It would be very difficult for a health minister or a CHO to stand up to pharma, even assuming he/she was well advised and confident the advice was correct. But during Covid they did not even get to the point of being well advised, which is a gross failure.
Well I could be accused of pessimism - although pessimists always see themselves as realists (that's me). I fully agree with your agenda of 'pursuing justice'. However you, like Steve Kirsch, are just getting blocked by the high profile people you write to. What these people do understand, however is legal action. That really is the only effective route to pursue justice it seems to me. I'm aware that there are legal teams at work here and in the US, Canada, the UK etc. It seems they are not getting much traction at this stage. An Australian judge has just refused to consider argument that the jabs were gene therapies (even though they obviously are). The FIRST problem in my view is the power structures (government and corporate) that are driving this. We need legislation that prohibits government from entering contracts with pharmaceutical companies that (a) agree to hiding ingredients (b) are not based on adequate data and most importantly (c) contain indemnity clauses. We must be able to sue for damages.
The SECOND problem is the legal basis of 'states of emergency'. The relevant legislation needs to be radically revised. The THIRD problem is the lack of legal control of conflicts of interest in the regulators (TGA - pharma funding - and MPs - pharma lobbyists). The FOURTH problem is the legal basis of censorship - which is about to get worse not better. The FIFTH problem is to restore the independence of the GP and the medical profession as a whole - which means TGA and AHPRA must be prevented by law from dictating to doctors how they treat patients. The SIXTH problem is the failure to protect by law knowledgeable experts who dissent from government pandemic policy and practice. There's a lot to do, but law reform is fundamental in my view.
Stephen, I'm not "just getting blocked by the high profile people" I write to.
I've had some useful responses confirming the obligation for informed consent, and also confirming the Morrison Government lied to practitioners about them having specific medical indemnity for administering the Covid-19 jabs...they don't.
Maybe not have 1 person overseeing the inquiry, possibly an overseeing committee with all sides agreeing to its participants. Would be more balanced and maybe controversial issues go public.
Though I agree with everything you say, after reading your article can I respectfully suggest that your ‘scattergun’ approach, firing off at all and sundry about all matters Pandemic, is unlikely to gain much traction with those responsible for the debacle and will at best be viewed as a minor irritant.
Can I therefore encourage you to re-focus your prodigious energy and anger on a single topic in depth, and pick a fight you might have some chance of winning.
Once you get one victory under your belt you will likely be taken more seriously and can move on to the other issues on your list.
Constructive criticism is useful…can you please be specific with your criticism?
Perhaps you can give me an example of something you’ve achieved?
My particular area of interest is valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination, which in my opinion has not been obtained for ANY Covid-19 vaccine dose administered in Australia, or anywhere in the world for that matter. Everyone has been misled, coerced, intimidated and even MANDATED to submit to this medical intervention…repeatedly. And NO-ONE has been properly informed about the risk of disease and the Covid-19 vaccine products.
After considerable correspondence, I have confirmation from AHPRA, the regulator of practitioners, that confirms: “Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved.”
My failing is that I have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, absorbing other people’s dedicated efforts and firing off an opinion when it suits me. Unfortunately that is the nature of social media.
Having said that, my response to your article was a serious one. I am not familiar with your previous work but the article read as if you were tilting at too many windmills. If it was meant to be a summary of your current position and homework so far than I obviously should have taken it in that vein.
However thus far into the ‘pandemic’ it is clear the authorities are digging in and refusing to take responsibility for their policy decisions and actions. For example the UK Covid Inquiry you mention is a whitewash with the scapegoats already chosen (Johnson / Hancock), and with the protracted timeline the pain of the ‘pandemic’, and the relevance of the Inquiries conclusions will have been forgotten by the time it reports.
So get some leverage on the authorities at this stage, and this was the thrust of my original point, investigators need to dig a lot deeper than you post suggested to get a response. Otherwise all that happens is that you get scolded for sending copies of emails rather than being taken seriously.
So, for example, in the context of the UK Covid Inquiry perhaps the main focus of your questioning should be why the Inquiry suddenly decided to defer consideration of the vaccine module until after the next general election?
As you admit Henry, you "have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, absorbing other people's dedicated efforts and firing off an opinion" when it suits you.
You admit "I am not familiar with your previous work", you haven't taken the time to absorb my 15 years of effort on this matter, this isn't just about Covid-19.
This is an extremely difficult project, challenging the status quo on vaccination policy, which has been mired in conflicts of interest for years, along with suppression of dissent on this subject.
You haven't absorbed my arguments about the obligation for voluntary informed consent for vaccination, and I suspect you have no idea of the liability issues raised by the then Australian Morrison Government lying to the practitioners about them having specific protection for administering the Covid-19 vaccine products in July/August 2021.
You say to me "you get scolded for sending copies of emails rather than being taken seriously", which indicates you have not bothered to read and digest important responses I've received from the Australian Government and AHPRA confirming that practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for vaccination, links provided in my previous comment.
I'm not sure of your agenda Henry, but your patronising and ill-informed comments aren't helping...
If you're such an expert, why don't you get off sitting on the sidelines and do something yourself? Why don't you ask "why the Inquiry suddenly decided to defer consideration of the vaccine module until after the next general election?"
Send me a link to your work, I'll be happy to offer constructive criticism...
I actually agree with you. Re-reading my original post in the light of your subsequent comments it can be viewed as “…patronising and ill-informed…”. (a personal failing I’m afraid). My apologies. There was no criticism or denigration of your work intended, rather a fresh observation on a very full and divergent post.
As to an ‘agenda”, I don’t have one other than to get to some semblance of the Truth of what happened over the last 4 years. As I said in my opening sentence I don’t disagree with anything you said in your post, but my experience is that the “Truth” usually lies somewhere in the middle between extremes.
As I don’t have an ‘agenda’ I don’t feel moved to doing my own research as you suggest, adding yet another layer of opinion to what is an already crowded marketplace. There is already enough out there to reach certain tentative conclusions regarding accountability and responsibility.
This is a very controversial and difficult topic, with many people seeking accountability for years.
My focus is voluntary informed consent, this is what I'm pursuing, and seeking accountability for the trashing of voluntary informed consent, i.e. Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
All of the covid-19 inquiries are circuses and the populations are mere spectators, all they will do is confirm that the actions taken were appropriate probably with some minor criticisms to give the appearance of authenticity. We never escaped from the brutal treatment of the covid period and what we are experiencing now is a lull, there has been no reversal, no reforms all of the laws are in place for this debacle to be repeated. What "this" is could be anything the government or WHO deem a threat and then the nightmare will begin again.
"... all they will do is confirm that the actions taken were appropriate probably with some minor criticisms to give the appearance of authenticity."
Yep. As they say, an optimist is just a poorly informed pessimist!
As for reliving the nightmare, this is a new post that Elizabeth Hart assisted with:
https://democracymanifest.substack.com/p/the-undeclared-war-securitization
Agree, it's theatre, let's keep the citizens satisfied we will pretend to be interested in finding out what really went on and if it was not in the best interests of the public & really they will spend more taxpayers dollars and achieve NOTHING of any real value to ordinary Australians, they don't care! They are not going to investigate themselves
Great information Elizabeth, let's invite EVERYONE to DEMAND the National Cabinet Documents & let's see if Catherine is on the right track or was just in on it from the get go. As mentioned in the achieve nothing ever, "Senate Inquiries" this "once in a hundred years" pandemic has apparently affected ALL of US. If that is so & there is nothing to hide, show us the proof that these decisions were vital in the "saving of Australia" whilst destroying it.
Surely, if Catherine has been promoting the vx, she cannot be on the inquiry panel. She must recuse herself, based on conflict of interests.
"STOP writing to me. REMOVE me from this email cc list. I will NOT ask again Hopefully that is clear enough for you." - Catherine Bennett
Who ARE these people?!
The Australian enquiry is a whitewash. Well done for trying to influence these corrupt people. As soon as I saw Bennet's name, I thought this is a waste of time and money.
Informed consent is impossible for a product that has not been subjected to definitive large randomised controlled trials. The mRNA injections were only supported by abbreviated, poorly conducted, essentially sham clinical trials - and even the data from those was not honestly revealed to government - let alone to the public - as shown by the exhaustive analysis of the Pfizer trial documents provided by Naomi Wolf's Daily Clout teams. The government, the doctors and the millions injected all had the wool pulled over their eyes. There was certainly no informed consent under these circumstances - just a whole lot of fraud and lies followed by gaslighting and intimidating truth-tellers.
It is incomprehensible that the epidemiologist chosen to investigate Covid-19 complaints at the National Inquiry was already known to be biased in favor of mandates, lock downs, masking and vaccination of children. One can only conclude that the Inquiry is deliberately designed to produce a pre-determined conclusion that is effectively a script of the pharmacological industry's design. There will be no calling to account for those who daily engendered fear on our tv screens and already the so-called "experts" and politicians have disappeared into retirement (and in several cases obtained lucrative employment in the pharmacological industry). This Inquiry is a politically inspired whitewashing exercise!!
All part of the planssssssssssss.
Prof. Tony Blakely is appointed to chair the COVID Inquiry here in New Zealand.
He was chosen by the previous Government and SCREAMS CONFLICT OF INTEREST too.
Here he is 2020. Masterminding COVID, Victoria Australia , and weighing in on New Zealand controls.
If he had an ounce of ethics he would have withdrawn saying he had a conflict of interest.
His involvement with the W.H.O. is as a RGHS Expert Observers
Tony Blakely Professorial Fellow in Epidemiology, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health Population Interventions Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne.
Reference Group on Health Statistics (RGHS) RGHS Stakeholders (2022)
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/world-health-data-platform/who_reference_group_on_health_statistics_stakeholder_info.pdf?sfvrsn=ebc90c9b_1&download=true
You couldn't make it up could you Sarah...
Tony Blakely...Catherine Bennett...and the rest of this shower knocking around in universities...
Who ARE these people?! They are influencing taxpayer-funded policy, intruding in our lives.
Way past time they were brought to account.
The fake PM appointed her, enough said 😃🇦🇺👍
...''questioning mass population vaccination against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people....
This alleged disease [Sars-Cov-2 has never even been proven to exist, everything that followed was part of the deception, there never was a pandemic.
It is almost as if there was no virus spreading....
Did Prof Michael Levitt discover there was no pandemic?
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/it-is-almost-as-if-there-was-no-virus
Propaganda was the only thing that was spreading, and at an alarming rate and that is the problem with the ''MSM'' that it's writers are massively compromised.
So thanks, it's good to know where writers stand on this issue as I've encountered a few that are happily exposing the nasty effects from these jabs but are not willing to expose the fraud that Sars Cov 2 has never been proven to exist and unwilling to state where they stand [ up goes the paywall where they can hide] - looking at the number of subscriptions I imagine that the earnings have to be pretty good.
The Plandemic revealed that we already have a one world government in place.
Personally, I don't get into the 'virus'/'no virus' argument, because others are engaged in that. For me the matter is simple... Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Coercion, intimidation and mandates - indeed - how did we get here, and why isn't anyone being held accountable for all the wrongs that have occurred.
I find it of crucial importance to reveal that we've been lied to once again and right from the start for that matter- just like there were no WMD's in Iraq it was invaded because there was an agenda to follow [Cheney had carved up Iraq oil fields all the way back in 97.]
Covid had absolutely nothing to do with matters relating to improving our health because there was no novel disease - instead there was an agenda to follow which makes what happened downright criminal.
I though you might have been on a different page since you were interested to learn about my correspondence with Scott.
My bad.
Just like war is a racket covid was another.
In the WA newspaper yesterday, a Dr from Denmark WA refused the jab when he saw so many adverse events, mandated out of his job, Spoke out about it, likening the jabs to the "holocaust" and "murder". License suspended for three months for professional misconduct and ordered to undergo an education program on ethical practice as a doctor and COVID infection control practices. This is the accountability we get. Upside down, inside out, forward, backwards clown world.
Have you got a link to the article?
I wouldn't call Neil Ferguson relationship with Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as anything less than bribery. Take a shocking look as to the money received in the decade prior to the plandemic.
There's a lot to be investigated, a cesspool of conflicts of interest.
And to think of the impact these people have had on our lives! The devastation they have caused with the phoney manufactured Covid debacle...
Elizabeth, the likes of Catherine Bennett et al consider themselves to be a most wonderfully wise and well-informed elite. We are the great unwashed, unfit to lick their boots. Personally, I have had enough of their incompetence, their inability to grasp basic issues, their utter arrogance.
What we have been subjected to is not a medical response to a real 'emergency' but a pandemic of government-sponsored stupidity, abuse, bullying, intimidation, and threats. The only sure thing about the alleged 'pandemic' was the ridiculous gene therapy injectables - falsely called 'vaccines' - failed, poisonous products that you would not give to a dog.
It would be nice to see justice done, but that will definitely not be on the table. It can only get worse. Next time round, the authorities will have had the benefit of a practice run. They will make sure they nail everyone. It will be off to the quarantine camps for us, and probably forced injections as well.
Stephen, why do you say justice "will definitely not be on the table"?
Why do you suggest "It can only get worse." Why don't you proactively pushback against the crimes that have happened instead of giving in?
I'm challenging Catherine Bennett. Who IS this person? She has promoted the vaccine products, even for children. Who is she, and all the others, to be pressing this medical intervention?
A crime has been committed. A massive crime. People have been misled, coerced, intimidated and even MANDATED to submit to the lucrative Covid-19 vaccine products, trashing voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
I'm pursuing justice.
Another problem I see is that the public servants, in whom is invested a lot of extra poower during an emergency, are just not up to the task. It is obvious there is a lot of cronyism behind senior appointments. Possibly Parkinson's corollary - that public servants are promoted to their level of incompetence - also applies. But I think there is a lot of mutual backscratching going on. The result is that you get Australia's Chief Medical Officer saying the Covid injection "stays in the arm" and the mRNA is gone in a few hours. This was gross ignorance on his part.
My personal experience of public servants occurred when I was briefly on a consumer panel advising the government about a procurement issue. I was used to negotiating big deals with the relevant industry and knew most of the reps quite well. But the public servants did not have a clue, and eventually, in spite of warnings from me, were taken for a ride. From the outside this just looks like a corrupt process in which large amounts of government money are applied ineffectually. But really it is just ignorance and incompetence in the public service.
The way they get around this is by seeking external advice (as in my case). But that is a costly process. Also it is really only necessary because the people employed at public expense are too busy polishing their CVs to acquire the necessary expertise. During Covid, the external advice was, predictably, seriously biased due to conflicting interests, thus corrupting the decision-making process. A friend of mine who worked in the TGA said that the minister tended to take the advice of pharma over that of his own staff (this was not a casual process but was actually a formalised advice pathway). Whether the public service could be revitalised to cure this problem, I do not know. It would be very difficult for a health minister or a CHO to stand up to pharma, even assuming he/she was well advised and confident the advice was correct. But during Covid they did not even get to the point of being well advised, which is a gross failure.
Interesting to hear about your experience Stephen.
The 'public service' appears to be anything but!
Speaking of which, particularly the influence of lobbyists on governments, consider this recent short clip on the Boeing scandal: https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=QkYDChXJLXYZ5vNI&v=a32RLgqNfGs&feature=youtu.be
Around 9:25 there's a list of organisations lobbying the US government, I've looked up the list, see here: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
See how many are from the 'medical industry', including Pfizer...
Well I could be accused of pessimism - although pessimists always see themselves as realists (that's me). I fully agree with your agenda of 'pursuing justice'. However you, like Steve Kirsch, are just getting blocked by the high profile people you write to. What these people do understand, however is legal action. That really is the only effective route to pursue justice it seems to me. I'm aware that there are legal teams at work here and in the US, Canada, the UK etc. It seems they are not getting much traction at this stage. An Australian judge has just refused to consider argument that the jabs were gene therapies (even though they obviously are). The FIRST problem in my view is the power structures (government and corporate) that are driving this. We need legislation that prohibits government from entering contracts with pharmaceutical companies that (a) agree to hiding ingredients (b) are not based on adequate data and most importantly (c) contain indemnity clauses. We must be able to sue for damages.
The SECOND problem is the legal basis of 'states of emergency'. The relevant legislation needs to be radically revised. The THIRD problem is the lack of legal control of conflicts of interest in the regulators (TGA - pharma funding - and MPs - pharma lobbyists). The FOURTH problem is the legal basis of censorship - which is about to get worse not better. The FIFTH problem is to restore the independence of the GP and the medical profession as a whole - which means TGA and AHPRA must be prevented by law from dictating to doctors how they treat patients. The SIXTH problem is the failure to protect by law knowledgeable experts who dissent from government pandemic policy and practice. There's a lot to do, but law reform is fundamental in my view.
Stephen, I'm not "just getting blocked by the high profile people" I write to.
I've had some useful responses confirming the obligation for informed consent, and also confirming the Morrison Government lied to practitioners about them having specific medical indemnity for administering the Covid-19 jabs...they don't.
And I agree...there's a lot to do...
Reminds me of the 9/11 commission. Damage control.
"We've investigated and nobody did anything wrong besides a few people wearing towels on their heads and screaming Hawaiian snack-bar."
Would you expect any less?
Maybe not have 1 person overseeing the inquiry, possibly an overseeing committee with all sides agreeing to its participants. Would be more balanced and maybe controversial issues go public.
There are three people on the panel - Angela Jackson, Robyn Kruk and Catherine Bennett. They all need to be examined.
https://www.pmc.gov.au/domestic-policy/commonwealth-government-covid-19-response-inquiry
Though I agree with everything you say, after reading your article can I respectfully suggest that your ‘scattergun’ approach, firing off at all and sundry about all matters Pandemic, is unlikely to gain much traction with those responsible for the debacle and will at best be viewed as a minor irritant.
Can I therefore encourage you to re-focus your prodigious energy and anger on a single topic in depth, and pick a fight you might have some chance of winning.
Once you get one victory under your belt you will likely be taken more seriously and can move on to the other issues on your list.
Constructive criticism is useful…can you please be specific with your criticism?
Perhaps you can give me an example of something you’ve achieved?
My particular area of interest is valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination, which in my opinion has not been obtained for ANY Covid-19 vaccine dose administered in Australia, or anywhere in the world for that matter. Everyone has been misled, coerced, intimidated and even MANDATED to submit to this medical intervention…repeatedly. And NO-ONE has been properly informed about the risk of disease and the Covid-19 vaccine products.
After considerable correspondence, I have confirmation from AHPRA, the regulator of practitioners, that confirms: “Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including vaccination. Informed consent is a person’s voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved.”
See: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/response-from-ahpra-re-informed-consent.pdf
I also have a letter from the Australian Government that confirms: “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations.” See: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
This letter also confirms that practitioners do not have specific indemnity for administering the Covid jabs, although the Morrison Government assured them they had protection in July 2021, so there could be interesting times ahead. See: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/response-re_-are-health-practitioners-covered-for-indemnity-insurance-re-the-covid-jabs2.pdf
As I note in a recent substack post: “Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination.” See: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Much of my correspondence is recorded on my website, Vaccination is political, see for example: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/vax-australia/
Can you share some of your work for information?
Thank you for your fulsome response.
My failing is that I have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, absorbing other people’s dedicated efforts and firing off an opinion when it suits me. Unfortunately that is the nature of social media.
Having said that, my response to your article was a serious one. I am not familiar with your previous work but the article read as if you were tilting at too many windmills. If it was meant to be a summary of your current position and homework so far than I obviously should have taken it in that vein.
However thus far into the ‘pandemic’ it is clear the authorities are digging in and refusing to take responsibility for their policy decisions and actions. For example the UK Covid Inquiry you mention is a whitewash with the scapegoats already chosen (Johnson / Hancock), and with the protracted timeline the pain of the ‘pandemic’, and the relevance of the Inquiries conclusions will have been forgotten by the time it reports.
So get some leverage on the authorities at this stage, and this was the thrust of my original point, investigators need to dig a lot deeper than you post suggested to get a response. Otherwise all that happens is that you get scolded for sending copies of emails rather than being taken seriously.
So, for example, in the context of the UK Covid Inquiry perhaps the main focus of your questioning should be why the Inquiry suddenly decided to defer consideration of the vaccine module until after the next general election?
That’s all I’ve got. Hope it helps.
As you admit Henry, you "have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines, absorbing other people's dedicated efforts and firing off an opinion" when it suits you.
You admit "I am not familiar with your previous work", you haven't taken the time to absorb my 15 years of effort on this matter, this isn't just about Covid-19.
This is an extremely difficult project, challenging the status quo on vaccination policy, which has been mired in conflicts of interest for years, along with suppression of dissent on this subject.
You haven't absorbed my arguments about the obligation for voluntary informed consent for vaccination, and I suspect you have no idea of the liability issues raised by the then Australian Morrison Government lying to the practitioners about them having specific protection for administering the Covid-19 vaccine products in July/August 2021.
You say to me "you get scolded for sending copies of emails rather than being taken seriously", which indicates you have not bothered to read and digest important responses I've received from the Australian Government and AHPRA confirming that practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for vaccination, links provided in my previous comment.
I'm not sure of your agenda Henry, but your patronising and ill-informed comments aren't helping...
If you're such an expert, why don't you get off sitting on the sidelines and do something yourself? Why don't you ask "why the Inquiry suddenly decided to defer consideration of the vaccine module until after the next general election?"
Send me a link to your work, I'll be happy to offer constructive criticism...
I actually agree with you. Re-reading my original post in the light of your subsequent comments it can be viewed as “…patronising and ill-informed…”. (a personal failing I’m afraid). My apologies. There was no criticism or denigration of your work intended, rather a fresh observation on a very full and divergent post.
As to an ‘agenda”, I don’t have one other than to get to some semblance of the Truth of what happened over the last 4 years. As I said in my opening sentence I don’t disagree with anything you said in your post, but my experience is that the “Truth” usually lies somewhere in the middle between extremes.
As I don’t have an ‘agenda’ I don’t feel moved to doing my own research as you suggest, adding yet another layer of opinion to what is an already crowded marketplace. There is already enough out there to reach certain tentative conclusions regarding accountability and responsibility.
Thanks for your response Henry.
This is a very controversial and difficult topic, with many people seeking accountability for years.
My focus is voluntary informed consent, this is what I'm pursuing, and seeking accountability for the trashing of voluntary informed consent, i.e. Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
Sorry no. Just The west Australian newspaper 12/3/24 page 14