Regarding Covid

More than a little conflict of interest there.

Me smells a rat hole.

This was posted on the British Medical Journal, which as far as I know is usually known as a good source of Information. I am sure someone will try and discredit the source. As it’s usually the way.

It is quite long read, but in short, amongst other things there were errors in the trials of the Pfizer vaccine, the reported errors were omitted from the application to the FDA when they applied to use the vaccine under emergency usage.

The person who raised a lot of the errors with regulatory authorities was dismissed a few days later.

This raises even more questions for me. Maybe Pfizer were more concerned with revenue than people’s health.

In the words of Butch. “Who da thunk it?”

 
Did anyone watch the HBO Documentary - Crime of the Century? Regarding the opiate problem in the US.

If you think that all medical companies are in the game to help people, then watch the documentary.

No need to cure someone when there is more money treating the problem. If there isn’t a problem, then create one.

Hell, we went to war in Afghanistan for the dope.
 

Drawing upon these two documents, other sources of political and legal criticism, and the Bill itself, we wish to bring to your attention the following major issues with the proposed legislation. If the Bill were passed:
  1. It would allow the government to rule the State of Victoria by decree, potentially long-term, without proper oversight, checks, balances or opportunity for review – and without ever having to seek approval from the Victorian Parliament.
  2. The Premier could declare a pandemic even if there were not a pandemic in Victoria.
  3. The Minister’s extremely broad powers would enable him/her to make ‘any’ (i.e. unlimited) health orders (indefinite detention, restrictions, medical testing or examination and much more) based solely on his/her subjective belief in their reasonable necessity, which orders would be practically impossible to challenge.
  4. Orders that target ‘specific classes’ of people would be allowed on the basis of their race, religion, political affiliation, gender or any of 14 other attributes.
  5. Non-compliance could lead to two years’ imprisonment or fines of up to $90,500; up to $452,500 for businesses [3].
  6. The legislation would confer very broad powers on police and also unelected and often low-level authorised officers.
  7. Both the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) and the Bill’s Independent Pandemic Management Advisory Committee would have very limited powers and, furthermore, would be largely or solely appointed by the Premier or Minister respectively.
There is more content of concern in the Bill and we urge you to read it in its entirety if you have not already done so [4]; also, the opinions of the Victorian barristers mentioned above [1], [2].

In short and in the words of the Victorian Bar’s President, this Bill would authorise “virtually unlimited interference with the liberties of Victorian citizens” and “represents the biggest challenge to the rule of law that this State has faced in decades.”
 
Back
Top