I can’t believe this isn’t on mainstream media. The general public have no idea about this or the court cases that are happening around the country. It’s very frustrating. 😡
The "trusted news initiative" decrees what is allowed in our captured MSM. Soon, with the "misinfoBill", even our social media will have to salute ACMA and make sure the TruthPolice are obeyed.
Really! Good grief. Do you have a link or an article etc about that? I’d like to read about that if possible. Wouldn’t that be illegal? The Conversation’s on abc isn’t it? I’m just speculating here, thinking as I type along. (Trying to think!) I suppose they could cover this up by saying it’s donations. Money laundering.
If we had a decent judiciary, there might be a case there.
I think gov’t and MSM are “paid” by the same people, i.e. the globalists. Big pharma may be involved as well, not sure. They certainly “pay” doctors, and probably other medicos by now, not sure though. Definitely doctors.
Our government narrative is the same as it is globally. Remember B. Gates visiting AnAl. I don’t think they were talking about Gates’ jumpers. I believe they were talking incentives for AnAl to present to parliament, to toe the line. Which most happily do.
And AnAl apparently got a congratulatory phone call from K. Schwab, for getting digital ID passed in parliament. Rather, it was forced through parliament. So I guess these boys incentivise gov’t and MSM.
I see a lot of big pharma advertising who pays for that? Also there are some indirect payments to MSM. I am not sure where I read it so cannot provide any links, if I come across it again will do so.
To the best of my knowledge, those "safety limits" for plasmid DNA contamination, were just grandfathered in from previous standards for old style traditional vaccines. They are completely meaningless for a product containing a lipid nano particle that is specifically designed to transport the vial contents into cells. I don't believe there was any real safety checks done, especially for manufacturing process 2. The intial trials were done using a product manufactured by process 1, which did not use bacteria to produce the RNA in the product.
The relevant legal instrument which normally prohibits the description of therapeutic goods as “safe” is the Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) Instrument 2021 (Federal Register of Legislation - Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) Instrument 2021).
This prohibition is found in Part 3 - section 9 of that instrument:
9 Safe and proper use
(1) An advertisement about therapeutic goods must not contain any statement, pictorial representation or design that, expressly or by implication, represents the goods to be:
(a) safe, or without harm or side-effects; or
(b) effective in all cases, or a guaranteed cure; or
(c) infallible, unfailing, magical or miraculous.
The TGA got around this prohibition is by relying on Part 2, section 6 of the same Instrument, which states:
Part 2 Application of this Code
6 Advertisements to which this Code does not apply
(1) This Code does not apply to an advertisement that is:
(a) directed exclusively to a person mentioned in section 42AA of the Act; or
(b) part of, or otherwise comprises, a public health campaign; or
(c) made in accordance with the Therapeutic Goods (Restricted Representations—COVID-19 Vaccines) Permission *(these permissions date across 2021 to 2022 regarding COVID-19 vaccines)
Note: The Therapeutic Goods (Restricted Representations—COVID-19 Vaccines) Permission 2022 is published on the Department’s website atwww.tga.gov.au.
Wonderful to get more confirmation of the contamination, but actually even if there were absolutely no contaminants, this platform needs outright banning because of the mechanism of action: the absurd idea that one could just trick our cells into making a foreign protein, inviting autoimmune attack, without any collateral damage whatsoever! Any student who came in with such an infantile proposal should have been immediately sent to redo the assignment, let alone people who call themselves "scientists"! Only greed and/or a bit of democide-desire could possibly fuel the continuing of this pseudovaccine rollout.
They should indeed hang their heads in shame. They’re being paid by the psychopaths to poison us. Paid/bribed/threatened/whatever. They know no shame. And like most of the last gov’t-they’ve left politics and gone on to high paying jobs-just look at despicable John Skerrit, I think things got a bit hot for him so he left and was helped into a high paying job somewhere. But they’ve all committed treason! WE should be hanging their heads.
Phillip I follow and love your work and think I should send this article to my Uncle, a Covidian scientist who has no idea why his stepson has suddenly developed a turbo cancer. To avoid retorts of inaccuracy, I think there is a “don’t” missing near the end around the TGA (not) randomly testing batches.
Phillip- This to me is one of the most important questions you posed in this piece: “If there is no safety risk, then why are there international drug regulatory safety limits for an upper limit of contaminating DNA? Why are these limits not being observed by the drug regulators?” So glad you brought up these issues. Such important topics. Thanks for sharing. Hope you’re well this week? Cheers, -Thalia
Hi Phillip, Just wanted to ask what legal changes you're referring to when you say that the Advertising guidelines (presumably the Code) had to be amended to enable vaccines to be described as safe. Government-authorised statements are excluded from the operation of the TG Act advertising laws (see, eg, s 42DL), as well as the Advertising Code. Do you have any references?
I can’t believe this isn’t on mainstream media. The general public have no idea about this or the court cases that are happening around the country. It’s very frustrating. 😡
The "trusted news initiative" decrees what is allowed in our captured MSM. Soon, with the "misinfoBill", even our social media will have to salute ACMA and make sure the TruthPolice are obeyed.
MSM are fed by big pharma.
But how? Advertising here is not legal.
The Conversation for example receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Really! Good grief. Do you have a link or an article etc about that? I’d like to read about that if possible. Wouldn’t that be illegal? The Conversation’s on abc isn’t it? I’m just speculating here, thinking as I type along. (Trying to think!) I suppose they could cover this up by saying it’s donations. Money laundering.
If we had a decent judiciary, there might be a case there.
Why would it be illegal? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funds and works with many media organisations around the world. It's no secret. The Conversation is pro pharma. https://theconversation.com/us/partners/the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation. Also see The Corbett Report on Bill Gates.
I thought the conversation was on “our abc” gov’t funded. Maybe I’m wrong.
Advertising where?
Australia
For MSM to be directly fed by big pharma they would need to be able to control their money via advertising (as in the US and NZ).
In Australia it tends to be Pharma feeds politicians and government stomps on MSM. Not quite so openly direct.
I think gov’t and MSM are “paid” by the same people, i.e. the globalists. Big pharma may be involved as well, not sure. They certainly “pay” doctors, and probably other medicos by now, not sure though. Definitely doctors.
Our government narrative is the same as it is globally. Remember B. Gates visiting AnAl. I don’t think they were talking about Gates’ jumpers. I believe they were talking incentives for AnAl to present to parliament, to toe the line. Which most happily do.
And AnAl apparently got a congratulatory phone call from K. Schwab, for getting digital ID passed in parliament. Rather, it was forced through parliament. So I guess these boys incentivise gov’t and MSM.
I see a lot of big pharma advertising who pays for that? Also there are some indirect payments to MSM. I am not sure where I read it so cannot provide any links, if I come across it again will do so.
Agree-VERY frustrating!
To the best of my knowledge, those "safety limits" for plasmid DNA contamination, were just grandfathered in from previous standards for old style traditional vaccines. They are completely meaningless for a product containing a lipid nano particle that is specifically designed to transport the vial contents into cells. I don't believe there was any real safety checks done, especially for manufacturing process 2. The intial trials were done using a product manufactured by process 1, which did not use bacteria to produce the RNA in the product.
The relevant legal instrument which normally prohibits the description of therapeutic goods as “safe” is the Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) Instrument 2021 (Federal Register of Legislation - Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) Instrument 2021).
This prohibition is found in Part 3 - section 9 of that instrument:
9 Safe and proper use
(1) An advertisement about therapeutic goods must not contain any statement, pictorial representation or design that, expressly or by implication, represents the goods to be:
(a) safe, or without harm or side-effects; or
(b) effective in all cases, or a guaranteed cure; or
(c) infallible, unfailing, magical or miraculous.
The TGA got around this prohibition is by relying on Part 2, section 6 of the same Instrument, which states:
Part 2 Application of this Code
6 Advertisements to which this Code does not apply
(1) This Code does not apply to an advertisement that is:
(a) directed exclusively to a person mentioned in section 42AA of the Act; or
(b) part of, or otherwise comprises, a public health campaign; or
(c) made in accordance with the Therapeutic Goods (Restricted Representations—COVID-19 Vaccines) Permission *(these permissions date across 2021 to 2022 regarding COVID-19 vaccines)
Note: The Therapeutic Goods (Restricted Representations—COVID-19 Vaccines) Permission 2022 is published on the Department’s website atwww.tga.gov.au.
The TGA needs to be disbanded.
Wonderful to get more confirmation of the contamination, but actually even if there were absolutely no contaminants, this platform needs outright banning because of the mechanism of action: the absurd idea that one could just trick our cells into making a foreign protein, inviting autoimmune attack, without any collateral damage whatsoever! Any student who came in with such an infantile proposal should have been immediately sent to redo the assignment, let alone people who call themselves "scientists"! Only greed and/or a bit of democide-desire could possibly fuel the continuing of this pseudovaccine rollout.
We need protection from the regulators- they’re aiding and abetting the psychopaths trying to poison us. They should hand their heads in shame
They should indeed hang their heads in shame. They’re being paid by the psychopaths to poison us. Paid/bribed/threatened/whatever. They know no shame. And like most of the last gov’t-they’ve left politics and gone on to high paying jobs-just look at despicable John Skerrit, I think things got a bit hot for him so he left and was helped into a high paying job somewhere. But they’ve all committed treason! WE should be hanging their heads.
We need to make the regulators, and the whole of gov’t irrelevant. This Aussie substacker, Michael Ginsberg, has great ideas on real things we can do! https://actionabletruth.substack.com/p/must-regain-focus
Phillip I follow and love your work and think I should send this article to my Uncle, a Covidian scientist who has no idea why his stepson has suddenly developed a turbo cancer. To avoid retorts of inaccuracy, I think there is a “don’t” missing near the end around the TGA (not) randomly testing batches.
Could you please check and if warranted, amend?
Thanks and blessings!
Phillip- This to me is one of the most important questions you posed in this piece: “If there is no safety risk, then why are there international drug regulatory safety limits for an upper limit of contaminating DNA? Why are these limits not being observed by the drug regulators?” So glad you brought up these issues. Such important topics. Thanks for sharing. Hope you’re well this week? Cheers, -Thalia
Hi Phillip, Just wanted to ask what legal changes you're referring to when you say that the Advertising guidelines (presumably the Code) had to be amended to enable vaccines to be described as safe. Government-authorised statements are excluded from the operation of the TG Act advertising laws (see, eg, s 42DL), as well as the Advertising Code. Do you have any references?