The official response to Covid was modern-deay Lysenkoism

Comment from Australia

‘Truth, like all other good things, may be loved unwisely – may be pursued too keenly – may cost too much.’ (Spigelman, 2004).

Has this statement by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce in 1846 become the principle to which governments, health regulators, and the pharmaceutical industry proclaim?

Well, perhaps Dr Kerryn Phelps and her wife, in their disclosure just before Christmas 2022 admitting that they had suffered severe side effects from their Covid vaccines, would agree. But why are we no longer seeing the daily media parade at 11 am from Health Ministers, regulators, and fringe-dwelling health bureaucrats with little to no clinical experience with Covid addressing the serious adverse effects and deaths from vaccines?

If we recall, government Ministers and bureaucrats across the country all marched to the beat of the same drum – get vaccinated as the alternative of being ostracised. Losing your livelihood and being publicly ridiculed was too much for the majority. We could not move outside a 5km radius, work, or visit loved ones for fear of transmitting the virus unless we were injected. Strangely the Supreme Court held that this was not coercion, because apparently you had a choice as to whether you wanted to work or travel outside the ‘5km bubble’, but of course, this was predicated on whether you had the jab.

Daily briefings similar to a kindergarten roll call for Australians became a generic message about the importance of addressing Covid in the community with no response to genuine concerns from those seeking relevant, accurate, and scientifically proven data.

It is ironic that given we are entering the third year of the Covid era, Public Health Officials continue to use the only two weapons in the fight against the continual increase in Covid Infections: facemasks and further boosters for prior injections that did not stop transmission, hospitalisations, or deaths.

Meanwhile, antivirals with decades of safety data are now being prescribed despite being made previously illegal and/or banned by regulators, all in an effort to socially construct a perception that the only thing that could save humanity was an untested mRNA injection. Or was this to ensure the Bio Security Act 2015 (Commonwealth) was complied with, ensuring that ‘no other medications were available’, thereby perceivably justifying a national campaign of social and medical coercion? I will leave this logical conundrum for you to grapple with, as many still need help understanding this line of reasoning.

Could the flood of experimental vaccines mandated upon the Australian population have, in effect, put ordinary Australians on trial? Greg Hunt, the former Federal Health Minister, said of the Pfizer and other Covid injections, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.’ (Roberts, 2022) I would go further and say, in history…

The phrase ‘on trial’ does not solely relate to being tried in a court of law. It can apply when a government observes people to see whether they succeed or fail. It seems that government priorities now depend on getting people to act differently through enforced compliance whilst reducing transparency and accountability measures. (Shergold, 2007; Boughey, 2021)

One could assume that following the rollout of the injections, there are now two groups of people:

Those who complied with the government’s policy to get injected; and

Those that have now been put on Santa’s naughty list.

In return, they cannot work or engage in what was normal life free from government intervention, harassment and, in some cases, State-sponsored police brutality, similar to that of paramilitary organisation exacting extra curial punishment for not complying with the edicts of their grand masters.

Reminiscent of Trofim Lysenko (Lysenkoism), whose maligned ideological influence dominated biology in the Soviet Union, Lysenko, like the health bureaucrats of today, owe their ascendancy to the repeated promises of fear, doom, and insecurity, topics that worked well in Marxist-driven society.

As Lysenko’s power grew, he smothered scientific debate despite the fact that his strategy was and remains an epic failure. He crushed all opposition by deploying the State’s apparatuses to censor, intimidate, arrest, and execute scientists until the only scientists left standing were those who sold their souls to the Lysenkoism doctrine.

The result was the development of an ideology-based pseudo-science (a mere semblance of science wrapped in politics, State-run media marketing, and ideology) that did not base itself on evidence. Instead, ideology was enforced through coercion and paramilitary doctrines. State apparatuses such as Courts (if one made it to the court) were not there to hear the evidence; rather, they were used to sanitise the public record and act as gatekeepers of truth, holding back knowledge. They held back knowledge using State-sponsored experts rewarded through promotions for their loyal adherence to the cause.

The Lysenko phenomenon is the most extreme but by no means the only example of the perversion of science by ideology (as seen in Germany during the second world war and later prosecuted through Nuremberg), often with the acquiescence of the scientific community. Over the past three years, legislation has been introduced to silence medical practitioners/scientists in California (USA) and Queensland (Australia), which does not give us confidence that nothing of the kind could happen today in what used to be legally obliged participatory democracies. Perhaps the parliamentary Ministers and health bureaucrats during Covid have aligned themselves with this doctrine…?

It is apparent that politicians and so-called experts had not seen any scientific data to support their claim that the vaccines were safe and effective because we know now that the manufacturer did not have this data. So, what evidence did ATAGI, State-sponsored experts, and the TGA rely on to approve these vaccines if the manufacturer did not have that data available? The TGA states on its website:

Before any Covid-19 vaccine is approved for use in Australia, it will be subject to the well-established and rigorous assessment and approval processes of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

One of the most poignant examples relates to the experts and high-level politicians all over Australia and the world stating that the science supported their claims when in fact, no such science existed.

We heard many notable prominent people go on the public record and state (words to the effect), ‘if you get vaccinated you will not get the virus’ or ‘get vaccinated to save your grandmother and family’.

Well, all you have to do is refer to the statement of Greg Hunt above relating to the World’s biggest ‘clinical trial’. So who is telling fibs? The manufacturer, doctors, health bureaucrats, and/or politicians? Or, is this a well-coordinated program where it is the consumer who must work out the dangers as to who is responsible (similar to the Abbott and Costello movie): ‘Who’s on first? No… Who is on second!’ Or will the doctors and injectors be thrown under the bus and held to account under the learned intermediary doctrine (LID)?

The Lysenko affair stands as a classic example of how politics can corrupt and undermine the rational, proven approach of the evidence-based scientific method. Subtle subversion of the scientific method occurs at many levels, but as with Lysenko, there must be a root and branch adoption by the highest institutions of power to ensure that the burden of proof for the ‘commoner’ is perceivably futile. And those who question the ideology are publicly ridiculed by the Fourth Estate (media) and reprimanded for daring to challenge ‘their’ agenda with evidence.

The traditional common law method of induction in our legal system is the principle of a fair trial (Spigelman, 2004) yet, according to Phelps in her recent submission to Parliament:

‘The burden of proof seems to have been placed on the vaccine injured.’ (Phelps, 2022)

I too have written previously about the burden of proof being shifted so far that the consumer must prove a product or medical device is dangerous rather than well-resourced multi-national pharmaceutical companies to prove they are safe. In simple legal terms, the bar is so high, it is difficult for anyone to suggest that any future plaintiffs may have a fair hearing.

The High Court has provided an opinion relating to the burden of proof and how it can be managed in Kuczborski v Queensland (2014) inter alia, in which it was noted that the Parliament may reverse the onus of proof, but will this be enough if its interpretation is misguided?

For people to have confidence in any system, it needs to be perceived as open, balanced, transparent, and operate without fear or favour; this is something that has yet to occur because all we have seen is censorship, exclusion, ridicule, and propaganda which is creating the impression of an alternate reality, one where truth has been manipulated to become misinformation, and misinformation has become truth.

Many may not be aware from the Kassam Judgement that 6,000 individual patient medical records, 50 per cent vaccinated and 50 per cent not vaccinated were before the court. Of the 6,000, only four people passed away due to advanced Covid (that is, they arrived at the hospital too late). More telling is that Dr Bryan Tyson provided the (anti-viral) treatment protocol to the Supreme Court of NSW that assisted the remaining patients (5,996) in recovering. Yet the State expert Prof Kristine Macartney was declared an impressive witness even though Prof Macartney conceded that she had never treated a Covid patient. Still, we know that this was a golden opportunity for the administrative bodies to take notice for the sake of community safety, but did they? Indeed, the mystery of Lysenko’s Australian-adopted science continues to evade logic.

Evidence is now emerging from NSW Health data indicating that it is the jabbed presenting high levels of hospital admissions. The media have not hyped the message that the unjabbed may not be at significant risk, but the data is telling if anyone decides to examine it closely without bias

Almost 18 months later from the plaintiffs in Kassam adducing evidence and placing their stake in the sand, documents emerged from Pfizer revealing this untold truth to all that there was never any research to support the experts making representations that the injections reduced or stopped transmission; a topic very quickly deflected or ignored in the legacy media networks. Indeed, Australia’s chief health officers conceded they had never read the Pfizer nonclinical report, so where on earth did experts and politicians get their information from if it was not the manufacturer?

Perhaps government experts should have called upon the Kassam plaintiffs’ experts, who had demonstrated extraordinary insight when they made submissions in the NSW Supreme Court to Chief Justice Beech-Jones at CL that lockdowns do not stop transmission, nor does the Covid injection provide lasting immunity or stop transmission rates, thereby rendering any lockdowns and fines nugatory and legally unreasonable. However, anyone questioning such anomalies were labelled ‘anti-vaxxer’, a bullying term that strangely also attaches to those who have been vaccine injured.

But who benefits from this forced clinical trial – Big Pharma! Perhaps this is why the burden of proof has shifted from the manufacturer to the consumer. Or could this be a military operation whereby the military, acting as prime movers, deployed vaccines as militaristic countermeasures against a perceived biological attack? (Altman et al, 2022). In either case, both do not accord with transparent democratic processes and appear to contravene the Nuremberg code. The court created this code (U.S.A. v. Karl Brandt et al.: The Doctors’ Trial) to combat gross institutionalised overreach and mass experimentation on populations. It has become clear that there are apparent complexities associated with institutions providing a balanced approach to accessing information to allow consumers to meet the burden of proof.

Presently the consumer has an insurmountable task to establish any causal link between injury or death. Rather than engaging in an adversarial struggle with the opponent, they find themselves battling a government-sponsored ideology promulgated by the legacy media that places pressure on institutions to toe the line, thereby unreasonably shifting the burden of proof on the consumer. Perhaps next, we will see the vehicle manufacturers rely on consumers to do their own car crash tests, too; only time will tell.

By virtue of the preponderance of the evidence, the burden of proof has been switched so much that it has legally muzzled the consumer/patient/doctors, and scientists in what should be a balanced system governed by the Rule of Law. Even where a consumer may seek information, it is often an unreasonably tedious and costly threshold because it is difficult for a consumer to gain access to the data under Freedom of Information laws. A sentiment shared by Sir Anthony Mason (2007), who stated: ‘The Freedom of Information Act 1982 had proven to be a “substantial disappointment.’

This has placed a disproportionate disadvantage on individuals who cannot have confidence in a system perceived to be broken by the significant erosion of certain key administrative institutions and values. Some of these issues involve the institutions of government withholding key documents such as vaccine procurement contracts from the public or the documents relating to the discussions of the National Cabinet meetings about the federal and state government rollout of jabs.

Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry has been able to establish with governments a special type of privilege within the legal system, which has made it very difficult for consumers to demonstrate that vaccines (along with many other pharmaceuticals) can ever be at fault for anything.

This privilege often carried through lobbying and grants, has been aided to a great extent by medical regulatory bodies such as the TGA and APHRA, silencing those that seek to question or challenge the increasing concerns surrounding the safety and efficacy of these drugs. (Burger, 2020)

These facts raise a very relevant question as to whether the onus of proof has shifted to such an extent that pharmaceutical companies are just ‘too big to fail’ or is it just part of a counterfeit business plan where million-dollar settlements are factored into the business plan – yes! Preempted.

Without engaging in litigation and risking costs orders, consumers are held hostage by an almost prohibitive costs regime restricting access in matters of significant public interest. Perhaps this is the goal of Lysenkoism, or perhaps not? The same cannot be said for multi-national companies who are prepared to defend their special privileges at any cost!

Australians like Phelps and many others before her, who fell into line to take their shots, are suffering. Many only took their shots to save their jobs, but now they are still waiting for compensation. All over the world, millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions are living with severe adverse reactions, including the suspected deaths of ‘children’. These people are not just statistics in some database – no, they are human beings, family members, and loved ones that deserve to be heard, but is it an uncanny coincidence that cases coming before Courts ‘globally’ appear to be dismissed often with adverse costs orders, despite the laser-focused temporal correlations being evident?

Individuals now face difficulties after suffering a vaccine-related injury. Many Australians are still awaiting compensation after more than one year of lodging their report to the TGA. Indeed, a forensic pathologist report of patient (X) (also tendered in the Kassam case) directly linked a vaccine to the death of a 51-year-old father. This family is still waiting for compensation and still waiting for the TGA to list the death on their public website. Perhaps these delays are not intentional due to a large number of reports that have clogged the system. But suppose the daily media parades announcing the deaths of the elderly with comorbidities on the hour were sufficient, then why are we not seeing the same treatment for those injured by the so-called vaccine or gene therapy now?

Has the ‘pat on the back’ given to many Australians from the government for complying with their policy to get vaccinated become a ‘slap in the face’?

As suggested in the journal articles reviewed, what is becoming increasingly clearer is that the experts claiming boosters improve protection against the XBB variant may be the ones engaging in disinformation, and this squarely places them at potential risk of breaching the California and Queensland legislation relating to disinformation.

Why were government officials left in the dark if the Kassam plaintiffs knew this truth from publicly available scientific data 18 months ago? This is clear, the state of scientific knowledge was available in 2020, and by the time Kassam went to the hearing, that knowledge had progressed sufficiently to provide protections for Australian citizens. But, this was not to be. Since our letter dated July 7, 2021, to Brad Hazzard and Co in response to community concerns about the safety and efficacy of the various Covid vaccines, we have unfortunately seen these numbers increase considerably. We raised questions relating to the conduct of some of Australia’s highest institutions, such as the TGA and AHPRA, aligned universities, and health bureaucrats all vying for research grants and recognition.

Our letter, written before vaccine-related injuries and deaths were as bad as they are now, clearly articulated these risks and essentially puts politicians and courts on notice. We are still waiting for a response from the government addressing these concerns.

Sadly, many Australian citizens have paid the ultimate price as a result, and many families were unaware of the true state of scientific knowledge because it was censored, ridiculed, and shunned. Although a clear vindication of the Kassam plaintiff’s position is on the cards, it is too late for many families who have lost loved ones, something we warned would occur. However, there are many courageous and ethically minded senators and politicians from all over the world, such as Senators Gerard Rennick, Alex Antic, Malcolm Roberts, Matt Canavan, Ralph Babet, Pauline Hanson, Craig Kelly (former MP), Senator Rand Paul, Rob Johnson (USA), and European parliamentarians who have continually voiced concerns over the manner in which the injections were rolled out across their respective continents.

Lawyers from around the world have united, strongly driven by perceived injustices against humanity, such as Aaron Siri, Thomas Renz, and Reiner Fuellmich et al., and have launched actions and continue to do their duty to ensure the Rule of Law is followed internationally.

Lessons learnt over the past few years have taught us that the idea of informed and valid consent has become a thing of the past with relentless labelling of people as ‘anti-vaxxers’ that chose to seek information about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. In fact, what Dr Kerryn Phelps and others injured by the vaccine have come to know is that in exchange for speaking out about their vaccine injury, they are rubber-stamped as anti-vaxxers, the go-to attack line by the captured legacy media.

We have been directly involved with matters concerning long-serving police members (without disciplinary records) who have been dismissed from employment for electing, under their ‘informed consent rights’, not to comply with the Commissioner’s Direction to be vaccinated. These hardworking Police Officers, who only 12 months earlier were labelled heroes, cannot find employment in other industries, such as the security industry, because the Commissioner has sacked them for misconduct and classified them as not having sufficient ‘integrity’. Minister Paul Whelan MP, in his second reading speech to Parliament, on November 13, 1996, said:

‘The vast majority of police are, of course, hardworking and honest. They are constantly let down by the corrupt and incompetent. It is essential that these undesirable elements are removed to allow talent to blossom and performance to improve.’

He further stated:

‘The government recognises that the authority to terminate employment under the Commissioner’s confidence provisions vests considerable power in the Commissioner … checks, and balances are required to ensure that it is only used as it is meant to be, and is neither exceeded nor abused.’

Whilst we deeply respect our Police forces, I merely point out that Lysenkoism appears to be thriving in Australia in 2023.

Similar to Maoist China we have also seen Fair Work Commission members sent into reeducation for towing the party line. One stark example is Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd[2021] FWCFB 6015 Deputy President Lyndell Dean stated that mandatory immunisation could not be justified in ‘almost every workplace in Australia’.

‘All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia,’ she said. ‘It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the antithesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.’

In a move from Maoist China, Deputy President Dean was removed from hearing any further vaccine-related cases and was required to undertake ‘re-education’. Anyone who understands history will tell you that similar conduct occurred in China if one did not adhere to the Communist party line.

Many brave professionals worldwide risked their livelihoods to fulfil their duty to raise the alarm about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing Covid policies. These ethically minded doctors, scientists, and social advocates, such as Prof Jay Bhattacharya, Prof Gupta, Prof Martin Kulldorff, Dr Peter McCullough, Prof Clancy, Dr Malhotra, Dr Phillip Altman, Dr Hobart, Dr Sabine Hazan, Dr Maryanne Demasi, Dr Chris Neill, Dr Cosford, Prof Brighthope, Dr Ryan Cole, Dr Bryan Tyson, Dr Michael Palmer, the late Dr Zelenko, Prof Robert Clancy, Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, Ivor Cummings, Dr Ah Khan Syed, Arkmedic, Nicki Evans, and JikkyLeaks (to name a few); along with tens of thousands of others, signed the Great Barrington Declaration. Many social media personalities also spoke out about the experimental vaccines’ effects on ordinary Australians’ daily lives, such as Graham Hood, John Larter, and prominent journalists Alan Jones, Rowan Dean et al. I dread to think how worse our society would be if it were not for these individuals.

https://spectator.com.au/2023/01/truth-is-knowledge-held-back-by-power-where-did-the-burden-of-proof-go

**************************************************

Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH) Also here

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH) Also here

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

**************************************************