Ethics left the vaccination building a very long time ago if it ever was there in the first place. Nothing is allowed to get between profit and the potential for people control, the power holders have taken full advantage of the fear of infection which has been ramped up over the years reaching a hysterical peak in 2020 with public health fully on board. There is no ethics or morals involved but what we have is abuse of power, theatre, lies and intimidation. All institutions have been bought especially the medical establishment so there is no help coming from them, the threatening, intimidating behaviour that existed in 2020 has not gone away but is waiting to rear its ugly head again.
Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson are world-renowned experts in evidence-based medicine. They are unquestionably the world's most experienced and most qualified experts on influenza epidemiology and vaccination. Their verdict reads:
"The answer to the question how can decision-makers justify promoting the mammoth undertaking of annual influenza vaccination is: by distorting and cherry picking the evidence".
Why is it that the 'authorities' and 'experts' in Australia flatly refuse to be guided by medical scientists of the calibre of Heneghan and Jefferson? Answer: a combination of ignorance and (more often than not) conflicts of interest.
Australian tall poppies in the medical field tend to want the public to believe that our expertise is equal to the best in the world. This is nonsense. Australia has a tiny population. In terms of medical science we are a provincial backwater. There is no excuse for these tall poppies working as a barrier to prevent world-leading expert advice, like that of Heneghan and Jefferson, being used to guide Australian public health policy.
Australian public health policymakers could not care less about scientific validity of the vaccine or the health of the Australian population. It’s all about the $$, other considerations are irrelevant.
Elizabeth is absolutely correct, it’s a cushy, taxpayer funded little moneymaker for a very large group of VERY COMPROMISED people. And informed consent - what’s that?
Yes, it is complicated Elizabeth. I think possibly as regards Tom Jefferson's article of 2004 you are making the mistake of equating "no evidence of harm" with "not harmful". Also, you cannot demand that an article be retracted unless you can identify a serious error in the article, which you have not done. It's not a criticism to say the evidence reviewed in the article was poor quality. It would be a valid criticism to demonstrate that there was good quality evidence at the time which was not taken into account in the article. Also, you cannot demand that an author do anything in this situation - certainly not that he should contact and reprimand people you think are using the article to justify something you think is wrong!
As far as Covid countermeasures are concerned, there was an abundance of evidence and a large number of experts the Australian authorities failed to consult. I mentioned Jefferson and Heneghan - who had a lot of good advice to offer about Covid - because their recent piece about annual influenza vaccination is topical. During the alleged pandemic, I recall John Ioannidis, the most cited medical scientist in history, pleading with governments not to implement lockdowns. I remember Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt castigating governments for relying on ridiculous 'models' when an elementary knowledge of the data and of the principles of infectious disease propagation showed that the modelling must be wrong. The list goes on. There were ethical failures, but the real disaster was the repeated intellectual incompetence which led to ill-founded and destructive public health measures.
No. But I have read your long and mostly irrelevant demand for its retraction. At this level the issue is not who 'has a problem' with whom. It is about facts and evidence that are relevant to the issue addressed in the article at the time it was written. Scientific articles are not retracted just because the body of evidence changes after they were published. They remain part of the scientific record.
As a matter of interest, Heneghan and Jefferson are constantly being attacked by people who disagree with their conclusions but do not effectively address the reasoning and evidence behind those conclusions. For that reason their Cochrane review on masking, published during the 'pandemic', was attacked, ridiculed and sidelined remoreselessly by the advocates of masking - and the head of Cochrane at the time actually changed the conclusion (without the consent of the authors) after it was approved for publication .
The head of Cochrane was wrong about masking, wrong about the content of the article, and wrong about the ethics of attempting to control scientists by bullying them into saying what suits a narrative, instead of letting them speak, and then addressing the issues rationally. Heneghan and Jefferson are a prime example of scientists who seem a bit simple but are actually very sophisticated, highly competent intellects, with decades of experience at the highest level of evaluation of medical evidence. Beware! Be sure you can 'do the math' - as they say in America - before taking them on.
Correct. I have not read the original paper and I cannot answer those questions.
My original comment was just to suggest that the Australian public health response during the late alleged pandemic was not informed by the best available scientific advice. Robert Clancy - an Australian, mind you - could have told them why the stupid so-called 'mRNA vaccines' could not 'work' i.e. because they do not interact with the mucosal immune system which is what protects the body from respiratory infections. But they were not interested because to them a 'pandemic' is essentially a political problem. Of course any idiot - and the parliaments and public services are full of idiots - not exclusively so - but the idiots determine outcomes - any idiot can play the game of 'choose your expert'. And they do. That is one reason why the relevant health departments or officials should be required by law to reveal the source and content of the advice on which their policies allegedly rely. Is there a scientific expert, for example, who thinks that random rubber bulleting protestors in a park will materially limit the spread of an elusive respiratory virus whose presence can only be determined by a test which can - as its inventor once said - "find anything in anything"? Is locking up frail elderly people in solitary confinement really a method of infection control that is supported by recognised scientific experts? John Ioannidis went blue in the face trying to communicate with governments using language even nitwits could understand e.g. "Lockdowns destroy everything". But they were not interested.
Newly-minted antipodean CHOs would not need the advice of the world's most published medical scientist. After all, the Victorian CHO had once had an article published in the MJA. But he had connections in Canberra, which is what really counts. There's no point, from my perspective, in arguing about whether Tom Jefferson has got something wrong. I think it's unlikely, but it is possible. What matters is that he is an honest, unbought, intellectually competent expert on medical evidence and co-author of the important Cochrane mask study. He is the sort of expert to whom governments should at least listen.
Stephen, you're kind to describe the 𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 that afflicts the "authorities" as "conflicts of interest." These men (and women) are the most 𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍, and thus, vile, of all. Hiding their venality under a cloak of "ignorance" and sanctimony.
Utterly repulsive -- and at this point after all these "authorities" across the world have imposed on people -- utterly irredeemable.
To quote from this post: "...If GPs question flu vaccination, or any vaccination, do they risk being reported to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)?..."
and further: "..It seems to me flu vaccine products are fraudulent, pushed upon the community over and over again, by conflicted people who actually have no idea what they are talking about...."
There is ample evidence to confirm that Covid-19 vaccines do not comply with the claims of "safe and effective". Furthermore, US Government enquires have clearly demonstrated that executives of the pharmaceutical industry knew of, but suppressed, critical information relating to pre-marketing clinical trial results so that those promoting the mass vaccinations to "flatten the curve"were acting knowing that the Covid-19 narrative was based on fraudulent claims.
It troubles me that conscientious medical practitioners have been interrogated and deregistered by the AHPRA employing decisions that are based on a fraudulent narrative.
Therefor what recourse do said medical practitioners have to correct these fraudulent decisions made by the AHPRA and thus achieve lawful reinstatement and/or compensation?
in other words : a decision based on fraudulent evidence is in itself fraudulent.
That's a choice quote from the Fauci et al article. Glad you mentioned that to them. Maybe it'll help wake a few of them up. But then again, when challenged, most will double down. Your continuing efforts deserve an Order of Australia medal.
The community is being grossly exploited by the taxpayer-funded 'womb to tomb' vaccination schedule, which is mired in conflicts of interest. This is a scandal of massive proportions which is waiting to explode, and the medical profession is in this up to its neck, particularly in regard to the violation of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
Absolutely. If you could invent a persuasive argument to push "preventive" drugs on the healthy and cover yourself in honor whilst profiting mightily, wouldn't you do it? Get the doctors on board with nice fat bonuses and letters behind their names.
I mean, only one person in a thousand is ever sick, and not for long, but if we can push drugs on every healthy person for ever? Well, the sky is the limit.
It reminds me of the crusades when it was the pious and the saintly who lopped off more heads than anybody, exploited more pilgrims than anybody, grabbed more land than anybody; whilst profiting all the way to the medieval bank.
If it does transpire that there are increasing numbers of FLU victims this season, then that further reflects upon the damage that was and is being done to those that had the Covi.d JAB (% its "boosters".
"Conclusions. This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season"
Ethics left the vaccination building a very long time ago if it ever was there in the first place. Nothing is allowed to get between profit and the potential for people control, the power holders have taken full advantage of the fear of infection which has been ramped up over the years reaching a hysterical peak in 2020 with public health fully on board. There is no ethics or morals involved but what we have is abuse of power, theatre, lies and intimidation. All institutions have been bought especially the medical establishment so there is no help coming from them, the threatening, intimidating behaviour that existed in 2020 has not gone away but is waiting to rear its ugly head again.
and it all depends on people who comprehend very little about health
As long as that fact remains the outcomes are predictable.
Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson are world-renowned experts in evidence-based medicine. They are unquestionably the world's most experienced and most qualified experts on influenza epidemiology and vaccination. Their verdict reads:
"The answer to the question how can decision-makers justify promoting the mammoth undertaking of annual influenza vaccination is: by distorting and cherry picking the evidence".
See: https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/and-on-and-on
Why is it that the 'authorities' and 'experts' in Australia flatly refuse to be guided by medical scientists of the calibre of Heneghan and Jefferson? Answer: a combination of ignorance and (more often than not) conflicts of interest.
Australian tall poppies in the medical field tend to want the public to believe that our expertise is equal to the best in the world. This is nonsense. Australia has a tiny population. In terms of medical science we are a provincial backwater. There is no excuse for these tall poppies working as a barrier to prevent world-leading expert advice, like that of Heneghan and Jefferson, being used to guide Australian public health policy.
Australian public health policymakers could not care less about scientific validity of the vaccine or the health of the Australian population. It’s all about the $$, other considerations are irrelevant.
Elizabeth is absolutely correct, it’s a cushy, taxpayer funded little moneymaker for a very large group of VERY COMPROMISED people. And informed consent - what’s that?
Things are so complicated Stephen...
Have I mentioned my problems with Tom Jefferson to you previously?
See: Call for retraction of Jefferson et al's scientifically unsound review on aluminium
and vaccine safety, 20 March 2018: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/call-for-retraction-of-jefferson-et-als-scientifically-unsound-review-on-aluminium-and-vaccine-safety.pdf
Yes, it is complicated Elizabeth. I think possibly as regards Tom Jefferson's article of 2004 you are making the mistake of equating "no evidence of harm" with "not harmful". Also, you cannot demand that an article be retracted unless you can identify a serious error in the article, which you have not done. It's not a criticism to say the evidence reviewed in the article was poor quality. It would be a valid criticism to demonstrate that there was good quality evidence at the time which was not taken into account in the article. Also, you cannot demand that an author do anything in this situation - certainly not that he should contact and reprimand people you think are using the article to justify something you think is wrong!
As far as Covid countermeasures are concerned, there was an abundance of evidence and a large number of experts the Australian authorities failed to consult. I mentioned Jefferson and Heneghan - who had a lot of good advice to offer about Covid - because their recent piece about annual influenza vaccination is topical. During the alleged pandemic, I recall John Ioannidis, the most cited medical scientist in history, pleading with governments not to implement lockdowns. I remember Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt castigating governments for relying on ridiculous 'models' when an elementary knowledge of the data and of the principles of infectious disease propagation showed that the modelling must be wrong. The list goes on. There were ethical failures, but the real disaster was the repeated intellectual incompetence which led to ill-founded and destructive public health measures.
Have you read Jefferson et al’s 2004 article Stephen?
No. But I have read your long and mostly irrelevant demand for its retraction. At this level the issue is not who 'has a problem' with whom. It is about facts and evidence that are relevant to the issue addressed in the article at the time it was written. Scientific articles are not retracted just because the body of evidence changes after they were published. They remain part of the scientific record.
As a matter of interest, Heneghan and Jefferson are constantly being attacked by people who disagree with their conclusions but do not effectively address the reasoning and evidence behind those conclusions. For that reason their Cochrane review on masking, published during the 'pandemic', was attacked, ridiculed and sidelined remoreselessly by the advocates of masking - and the head of Cochrane at the time actually changed the conclusion (without the consent of the authors) after it was approved for publication .
The head of Cochrane was wrong about masking, wrong about the content of the article, and wrong about the ethics of attempting to control scientists by bullying them into saying what suits a narrative, instead of letting them speak, and then addressing the issues rationally. Heneghan and Jefferson are a prime example of scientists who seem a bit simple but are actually very sophisticated, highly competent intellects, with decades of experience at the highest level of evaluation of medical evidence. Beware! Be sure you can 'do the math' - as they say in America - before taking them on.
The letter I provided for you re Tom Jefferson and his aluminium and vaccine safety review is dated March 2018, but I started correspondence with him on this matter five years previously, see my email dated: 24 March 2013: Your review - Adverse events after immunisation with aluminium-containing DTP vaccines: systematic review of the evidence: https://over-vaccination.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/adverse-events-after-immunisation-with-aluminium-containing-dtp-vaccines_-systematic-review-of-the-evidence.pdf
Okay, so you haven’t read the actual paper…
Are you aware of how many aluminium-adjuvanted vaccine products are on the schedule now?
Including multi-component shots and revaccinations? Can you name them all?
Correct. I have not read the original paper and I cannot answer those questions.
My original comment was just to suggest that the Australian public health response during the late alleged pandemic was not informed by the best available scientific advice. Robert Clancy - an Australian, mind you - could have told them why the stupid so-called 'mRNA vaccines' could not 'work' i.e. because they do not interact with the mucosal immune system which is what protects the body from respiratory infections. But they were not interested because to them a 'pandemic' is essentially a political problem. Of course any idiot - and the parliaments and public services are full of idiots - not exclusively so - but the idiots determine outcomes - any idiot can play the game of 'choose your expert'. And they do. That is one reason why the relevant health departments or officials should be required by law to reveal the source and content of the advice on which their policies allegedly rely. Is there a scientific expert, for example, who thinks that random rubber bulleting protestors in a park will materially limit the spread of an elusive respiratory virus whose presence can only be determined by a test which can - as its inventor once said - "find anything in anything"? Is locking up frail elderly people in solitary confinement really a method of infection control that is supported by recognised scientific experts? John Ioannidis went blue in the face trying to communicate with governments using language even nitwits could understand e.g. "Lockdowns destroy everything". But they were not interested.
Newly-minted antipodean CHOs would not need the advice of the world's most published medical scientist. After all, the Victorian CHO had once had an article published in the MJA. But he had connections in Canberra, which is what really counts. There's no point, from my perspective, in arguing about whether Tom Jefferson has got something wrong. I think it's unlikely, but it is possible. What matters is that he is an honest, unbought, intellectually competent expert on medical evidence and co-author of the important Cochrane mask study. He is the sort of expert to whom governments should at least listen.
Stephen, you're kind to describe the 𝒗𝒊𝒄𝒆 that afflicts the "authorities" as "conflicts of interest." These men (and women) are the most 𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒍, and thus, vile, of all. Hiding their venality under a cloak of "ignorance" and sanctimony.
Utterly repulsive -- and at this point after all these "authorities" across the world have imposed on people -- utterly irredeemable.
Yes, the 'authorities'...they have much to answer for.
Excellent questions that demand clear answers.
To quote from this post: "...If GPs question flu vaccination, or any vaccination, do they risk being reported to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)?..."
and further: "..It seems to me flu vaccine products are fraudulent, pushed upon the community over and over again, by conflicted people who actually have no idea what they are talking about...."
There is ample evidence to confirm that Covid-19 vaccines do not comply with the claims of "safe and effective". Furthermore, US Government enquires have clearly demonstrated that executives of the pharmaceutical industry knew of, but suppressed, critical information relating to pre-marketing clinical trial results so that those promoting the mass vaccinations to "flatten the curve"were acting knowing that the Covid-19 narrative was based on fraudulent claims.
It troubles me that conscientious medical practitioners have been interrogated and deregistered by the AHPRA employing decisions that are based on a fraudulent narrative.
Therefor what recourse do said medical practitioners have to correct these fraudulent decisions made by the AHPRA and thus achieve lawful reinstatement and/or compensation?
in other words : a decision based on fraudulent evidence is in itself fraudulent.
There's also this article which talks about a recent study which shows negative effectiveness for the flu shots.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/cleveland-clinic-study-finds-inactivated
That's a choice quote from the Fauci et al article. Glad you mentioned that to them. Maybe it'll help wake a few of them up. But then again, when challenged, most will double down. Your continuing efforts deserve an Order of Australia medal.
That quote from Fauci and co is gold...
We just have to keep sharing it...
If the shots worked, why are we so sick?
No its not ethical - its even a crime..
Big P and the Medical Cartel work together regardless the consequences.
Intention is interesting but irrelevant.
20 mil dead from the mRNA quaxcine, a far larger # disabled.
Anyone still thinking that health comes from a needle at this point is...
Is this ethical? That would be a big nope.
> Not without proper safety studies or informed consent.
> Not with propaganda and incentives.
These jabs don't seem to be for the good of the public, but to benefit the public purse!
This is an election isuue.
Is DIGITAL I.D COMPULSORY for PET OWNERS as well as GUN OWNERS? Lady Liberty says
Western Australian firearm owners are being told we MUST sign up for digital I.D as part of the new registry [by stealth]. With Thomas from ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELj4he3nTlA
NO. It is not ethical.
I'm sure you've already seen this, but what do you think about this?
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/vaccinosis-the-mark-of-the-beast
You wrote:
The community is being grossly exploited by the taxpayer-funded 'womb to tomb' vaccination schedule, which is mired in conflicts of interest. This is a scandal of massive proportions which is waiting to explode, and the medical profession is in this up to its neck, particularly in regard to the violation of valid voluntary informed consent for vaccination.
Absolutely. If you could invent a persuasive argument to push "preventive" drugs on the healthy and cover yourself in honor whilst profiting mightily, wouldn't you do it? Get the doctors on board with nice fat bonuses and letters behind their names.
I mean, only one person in a thousand is ever sick, and not for long, but if we can push drugs on every healthy person for ever? Well, the sky is the limit.
It reminds me of the crusades when it was the pious and the saintly who lopped off more heads than anybody, exploited more pilgrims than anybody, grabbed more land than anybody; whilst profiting all the way to the medieval bank.
If it does transpire that there are increasing numbers of FLU victims this season, then that further reflects upon the damage that was and is being done to those that had the Covi.d JAB (% its "boosters".
And especially when it doesn’t help https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.01.30.25321421v3
https://patrick.net/post/1343569/2022-02-04-did-you-know-that-the-flu-vaccine?start=1#comment-2164963
"Conclusions. This study found that influenza vaccination of working-aged adults was associated with a higher risk of influenza during the 2024-2025 respiratory viral season"