Former Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger says the callous brutality of some state governments in relation to how they’ve dealt with compassionate applications is something that’s going to come back to haunt them all.
“As people look back no one will defend the Andrews or Palaszczuk governments on the basis of these extreme things they’ve done at the time,” Mr Kroger told Sky News Australia.
“The most galling thing we’ve seen are all of these compassionate leave exemptions which have been refused by these state governments in the last 18 months.”
Mr Kroger said Victorians are very angry with Premier Daniel Andrews.
“There is a severe change in the mood here,” he said.SHOW LESS
The public is being threatened by the government…It doesn’t leave much room in their direction of travel…Look to Austrailia
Manufacturers have been granted exemption from liability for any resulting harm. Ruud Dobber, a member of AstraZeneca’s senior executive team, said: “This is a unique situation where we as a company simply cannot take the risk if in … four years the vaccine is showing side effects.” (The government has taken on the liability and has an insurance scheme in place.)
It’s amazing how often Sweden still crops up in conversations. It didn’t impose tough lockdown, kept primary schools and core economic activities functioning, issued clear guidelines and relied on voluntary social distancing and personal hygiene practices to manage the crisis. For harsh lockdowns to be justified elsewhere, Sweden had to be discredited. Hence the harsh criticisms of Sweden’s approach last year by the New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, CBS News and others.
But with Sweden’s demonstrable success, goalposts have shifted. Every time it’s mentioned as a counter to Europe’s high Covid-toll lockdown countries, the response now is: ‘But their Nordic neighbours did much better. Look at Denmark’. Let’s ‘interrogate’ this argument.
Citizens subjected to punitive restrictions on their liberties and movement for more than 12 months, are now being forced into mass, and what will soon be, mandatory vaccination programs to gain back their freedoms. Political leaders continue use the vacuous and dishonest slogan of “following the science” that many still believe, but are they leading us into another form of hell?
The Covid-19 vaccines are new vaccines and only provisionally approved. They are still in the trial phase which ends at earliest in 2023. Brilliant they may well be, and enormously enriching for their investors, but are our Government’s providing the facts for informed choice in vaccination? Are there other risks to their rushed vaccine rollouts, including to front line medical and essential service workers? And why are so many eminent scientists and influential community leaders in our countries being silenced by social and mainstream media?
The Victorian Government recently commissioned a paper entitled Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies. We are not hopeful but will attempt to discuss the paper with one of its authors in another episode.
In the meantime, to talk about mRNA vaccines and Antibody Dependent Enhancement is Professor Dolores Cahill, a renown expert in immunology and the study of immune systems.
Dr. Cahill is a Professor of University College Dublin and was Group Leader of the Max-Planck-Institute in Berlin, Germany from 1995 to 2003. She is an Inventor, Founder and Shareholder of companies and has international Patents with applications for improving the early diagnosis of diseases such as auto immune diseases & cancer.
Dr. Cahill has been an Expert in the EU for some 15 years in Future & Emerging technologies. Professor Cahill’s latest business ventures include the World Freedom Alliance, a worldwide platform of organisations offering access to justice, true dialogue for health science and politics, holding worldwide officials to account under the law. The World Freedom Alliance offers transparent evidence-based solutions and encourages robust debate with media, scientists and governments to ensure fundamental freedoms for people of the world.
Diagnostic pathologist Dr Clare Craig: “We have really good evidence that lockdowns don’t work which people find very difficult to accept”.
- Airborne viruses spread and you can’t control the spread, which is why making people hide away doesn’t have the impact that you think it has.
- The data demonstrates lockdowns don’t work and have possibly made things worse.
- We now have examples other than Sweden, such as US states like Florida and Texas, that demonstrate that lifting restrictions make no difference to the virus.
- Florida and Texas prove that the lockdown advice was wrong.
Toby Kent the Rockefeller funded “Chief Resilience Officer” who is based in Melbourne planned out, over the past 5 years, how to handle the city in the event of a pandemic. Rockefeller funded and started “Strong Cities Network” and Melbourne has been their “poster child” since inception.
Dan Andrews visited New York 3 years ago to learn about and then add surveillance structures and systems into Melbourne that complement the SCN strategies and system. The completion of the installation has taken place during lockdowns (look at your local roundabouts and intersections now). There has been a workforce here from China installing them – a group of these workers have been staying at a suburban hotel right by where I live – an incredible coincidence. Anyway….
The premise of SCN is that you surrender your policing policies to the Network ‘Think Tank’ (based in London) and they produce the guideline for you. They also provide the troops and training on militia-style tactics (the knee on neck is one of them and the stormtrooper approach is another).
The Rockefeller Foundation and United Nations have multiple networks in place that deal directly with city Mayors and leaders of LG municipalities – bypassing national and state structures – a form of infiltration so they do not have to go through ‘normal’ layers of legal, moral, and constitutional authority – they cut through all that red tape. The longer term goal being to do away with government as sovereignty and nationality are obstacles to a one government world – which is the ultimate and underpinning goal of the WEF and UN MOU they signed in 2019. (Yes the WEF and UN are now essentially one overlord organisation).
Note: This article, published on 5 February 2010, originally appeared in Forbes. It was removed sometime in mid October 2020 with no explanation.
While you can find a capture at archive.org, we have saved a copy here to protect against censorship and for easy sharing.
The World Health Organization has suddenly gone from crying “The sky is falling!” like a cackling Chicken Little to squealing like a stuck pig. The reason: charges that the agency deliberately fomented swine flu hysteria. “The world is going through a real pandemic. The description of it as a fake is wrong and irresponsible,” the agency claims on its Web site. A WHO spokesman declined to specify who or what gave this “description,” but the primary accuser is hard to ignore.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights watchdog, is publicly investigating the WHO’s motives in declaring a pandemic. Indeed, the chairman of its influential health committee, epidemiologist Wolfgang Wodarg, has declared that the “false pandemic” is “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Center for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labeled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
They’re right. This wasn’t merely overcautiousness or simple misjudgment. The pandemic declaration and all the Klaxon-ringing since reflect sheer dishonesty motivated not by medical concerns but political ones.
Unquestionably, swine flu has proved to be vastly milder than ordinary seasonal flu. It kills at a third to a tenth the rate, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates. Data from other countries like France and Japan indicate it’s far tamer than that.
Indeed, judging by what we’ve seen in New Zealand and Australia (where the epidemics have ended), and by what we’re seeing elsewhere in the world, we’ll have considerably fewer flu deaths this season than normal. That’s because swine flu muscles aside seasonal flu, acting as a sort of inoculation against the far deadlier strain.
Did the WHO have any indicators of this mildness when it declared the pandemic in June?
Absolutely, as I wrote at the time. We were then fully 11 weeks into the outbreak and swine flu had only killed 144 people worldwide–the same number who die of seasonal flu worldwide every few hours. (An estimated 250,000 to 500,000 per year by the WHO’s own numbers.) The mildest pandemics of the 20th century killed at least a million people.
But how could the organization declare a pandemic when its own official definition required “simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” Severity–that is, the number of deaths–is crucial, because every year flu causes “a global spread of disease.”
Easy. In May, in what it admitted was a direct response to the outbreak of swine flu the month before, WHO promulgated a new definition matched to swine flu that simply eliminated severity as a factor. You could now have a pandemic with zero deaths.
Under fire, the organization is boldly lying about the change, to which anybody with an Internet connection can attest. In a mid-January virtual conference WHO swine flu chief Keiji Fukuda stated: “Did WHO change its definition of a pandemic? The answer is no: WHO did not change its definition.” Two weeks later at a PACE conference he insisted: “Having severe deaths has never been part of the WHO definition.”
They did it; but why?
In part, it was CYA for the WHO. The agency was losing credibility over the refusal of avian flu H5N1 to go pandemic and kill as many as 150 million people worldwide, as its “flu czar” had predicted in 2005.
Around the world nations heeded the warnings and spent vast sums developing vaccines and making other preparations. So when swine flu conveniently trotted in, the WHO essentially crossed out “avian,” inserted “swine,” and WHO Director-General Margaret Chan arrogantly boasted, “The world can now reap the benefits of investments over the last five years in pandemic preparedness.”
But there’s more than bureaucratic self-interest at work here. Bizarrely enough, the WHO has also exploited its phony pandemic to push a hard left political agenda.
In a September speech WHO Director-General Chan said “ministers of health” should take advantage of the “devastating impact” swine flu will have on poorer nations to get out the message that “changes in the functioning of the global economy” are needed to “distribute wealth on the basis of” values “like community, solidarity, equity and social justice.” She further declared it should be used as a weapon against “international policies and systems that govern financial markets, economies, commerce, trade and foreign affairs.”
Chan’s dream now lies in tatters. All the WHO has done, says PACE’s Wodart, is to destroy “much of the credibility that they should have, which is invaluable to us if there’s a future scare that might turn out to be a killer on a large scale.”
Michael Fumento is director of the nonprofit Independent Journalism Project, where he specializes in health and science issues. He may be reached at [email protected]
Sky News host Alan Jones says he has warned time and time again the political leaders who are the architects of this coronavirus response will not be able to escape the criticism that is now finding its way into the public place. It comes as an economist in the Victorian Department of Finance and Treasury, Sanjeev Sabhlok, on Wednesday penned an article in the Australian Financial Review announcing his resignation from his position.
- Policies are a sledgehammer to kill a swarm of flies.
- The Spanish Flu killed killed at least 50 million out of 1.8 billion people out of worldwide.
- To compare with Spanish Flu, COVID-19 would need to kill 210 million people. It has only killed 0.9 million.
- 60 million people worldwide normally die each year.
- There are strong scientific arguments against lockdown.
- The data was clear from February that the elderly should be protected but this wasn’t done.
- Epidemiological models have badly exaggerated the risk.
- There was never any reason to mandate measures such as face masks.
- COVID-19 is no worse than the Asian Flu.
- Lockdowns cannot eradicate the virus.
Sky News host Alan Jones says people are being swept up into a sense of hysteria and alarmism around COVID-19.
There are only 17 people in hospital with the coronavirus in NSW, eight of them in intensive care, while the World Health Organisation continue to maintain that 99 per cent of all cases will experience mild symptoms.
“I don’t think there’s going to be a vaccine, and we’re going to have to learn to live with this,” Mr Jones told Sky News host Chris Smith.
“But we learned to live with a whole lot of other communicable diseases.
“More people are dying from the flu with a vaccine than are dying from coronavirus without a vaccine.”
The consequences to be inflicted on the personal wellbeing of Australians, business viability, the national economy, and mental health are far beyond what could be described as responsible management of the situation says Sky News host Alan Jones.
“The nation is swimming in debt, kids are out of school, people are locked up while all along the mental anguish of what is taking place is beyond calculation,” Mr Jones said.
On Monday, Premier Daniel Andrews outlined the details of his stage four lockdowns which will affect Metropolitan Melbourne for at least six weeks in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19.
Mr Andrews ordered all non-essential workers not to leave their homes from Thursday but promised people they will not need to bulk buy food as supermarkets, grocery stores and pharmacies would stay open.
Mr Jones said if lockdowns were the answer, why do deaths continue to escalate around the country.
Mr Jones discussed the issue with Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.
- Australia-wide: 43 critical cases
- 1% of patients critical
- 99% of cases are mild
- 221 COVID-19 deaths so far out of a population of 26 million
- 440 Australians die every day
- 1,000-1,500 flu deaths each year
- COVID-19 not in top 50 death causes
- Professor James Allan: “In a decade this will be looked back on as one of the most colossal public policy fiascos of the century.”
- Around 161,000 Australians die every year (440 per day)
- 1,200 die in car accidents
The authors of the commentary, titled “COVID-19 Transmission and Children: The Child Is Not to Blame,” base their conclusions on a new study published in the current issue of Pediatrics, “COVID-19 in Children and the Dynamics of Infection in Families,” and four other recent studies that examine Covid-19 transmission by and among children.