Who pulls the strings

Summary

This transcript discusses critical concerns surrounding the handling of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly focusing on mRNA technology. It critiques government reviews on excess deaths, accusing them of lacking depth and transparency. The conversation highlights growing distrust in official health institutions, the media, and the scientific community's reluctance to admit mistakes. There are also legal challenges regarding the expedited approval process of vaccines, alongside concerns over contamination and gene therapy risks. The speaker calls for more transparency, informed consent, and accountability, stressing that the issues in Australia could set a precedent for global public health practices.

Takeaways

• 😀 The official review of excess deaths in Australia was influenced by political pressure and failed to consider important expert commentary and data on the issue.
• 😀 There is a growing concern about the loss of trust in official bodies and media, particularly due to conflicting information from doctors and experts who lack practical experience in patient care.
• 😀 The correlation between excess deaths and the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly mRNA vaccines, is being questioned by some groups who believe the government has not adequately investigated this issue.
• 😀 Some individuals in the scientific and medical communities are reluctant to admit mistakes, leading to the suppression of critical discussions about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
• 😀 The approval process for mRNA vaccines bypassed important regulatory committees, raising legal and ethical concerns about the way these vaccines were rolled out and their potential long-term effects.
• 😀 The presence of DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, including traces of a monkey virus (SV40), raises concerns about the possibility of dangerous mutations or even cancer as a result of these vaccines.
• 😀 A significant legal case is being pursued against vaccine manufacturers for bypassing proper regulatory approval processes, although media coverage of these legal proceedings has been limited.
• 😀 There is a conflict of interest between government, universities, and pharmaceutical companies, where large financial investments in vaccine research and production may be influencing scientific and medical advice.
• 😀 Despite the availability of an effective antigen vaccine developed in Australia, the government chose not to use it, while other countries like Iran have successfully adopted it, creating frustration and confusion among the public.
• 😀 Calls for increased transparency and informed consent are growing, with some regional councils in Australia pushing for wider public awareness of vaccine safety issues and for doctors to discuss potential risks with patients.

Q & A

What are the main concerns about the mRNA vaccines raised in the conversation?

The main concerns include potential contamination of the vaccines with DNA, the bypassing of regulatory committees that would normally oversee gene therapies, and the risk of genetic mutations caused by insertional mutations. Additionally, there are worries about the long-term safety and efficacy of these vaccines, particularly when compared to traditional vaccines.

How does the conversation characterize the Australian government's response to the vaccine rollout?

The Australian government's response is characterized as problematic, with critics suggesting that the process lacked proper review and transparency. It is also noted that the government has been influenced by financial interests, and there is a sense that those in power are not addressing public concerns adequately.

What role do conflicts of interest play in the issues discussed?

Conflicts of interest are seen as a major issue in the handling of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. The conversation suggests that financial ties between the government, pharmaceutical companies, and universities have compromised the objectivity of scientific research and public health decisions.

What concerns are raised about the regulatory oversight of mRNA vaccines in Australia?

Concerns are raised that the approval process for mRNA vaccines bypassed important regulatory committees, such as the gene therapy committee, which is required to evaluate gene-based treatments. This is seen as a legal and ethical issue, with critics arguing that the vaccines were not subjected to proper scrutiny before being rolled out to the public.

How has public trust in health authorities been affected by the pandemic response in Australia?

Public trust in health authorities in Australia has been severely impacted by the pandemic response. The conversation suggests that government actions, including inadequate reviews of vaccine safety and the perceived influence of pharmaceutical companies, have eroded confidence in the system. Many people are now highly skeptical of official narratives and the role of certain doctors and experts in promoting government policies.

What is the significance of the legal challenges being raised in Australia regarding vaccine approval?

The legal challenges highlight concerns about the approval process for mRNA vaccines, with critics arguing that the vaccines were not subjected to proper legal scrutiny. The challenges are aimed at holding both the government and pharmaceutical companies accountable for bypassing necessary procedures and for the potential safety risks of the vaccines.

What are the potential risks of contamination in mRNA vaccines mentioned in the conversation?

The potential risks include the presence of DNA contamination in the vaccine, which could lead to genetic mutations and other unforeseen health issues, such as cancer. Additionally, the conversation mentions contamination with SV40, a monkey virus, which could potentially disrupt DNA and cause further harm.

Why is there criticism of the Australian government’s refusal to use the locally developed antigen vaccine?

The criticism stems from the belief that the Australian government overlooked a locally developed antigen vaccine in favor of mRNA vaccines, despite evidence that the Australian antigen vaccine may have been safer and more effective. The conversation highlights the fact that other countries, such as Iran, have successfully used the Australian-developed vaccine while Australia chose not to pursue it.

What role does financial influence play in shaping public health decisions, according to the discussion?

Financial influence is seen as a major factor in shaping public health decisions, particularly through funding from pharmaceutical companies to universities and research institutions. This financial backing is believed to create conflicts of interest that may bias research and policy decisions in favor of certain products, such as mRNA vaccines, despite potential risks.

What steps are being taken by concerned groups to raise awareness about vaccine safety in Australia?

Concerned groups, including doctors, lawyers, and independent experts, are taking legal action and pushing for greater public awareness of vaccine safety issues. These efforts include sending letters to politicians, reaching out to regional councils, and asking doctors to provide patients with more information about the risks of vaccines as part of the informed consent process.