WHO SAID THE COVID-19 “VACCINES” WERE “SAFE”?

Here is how it was done.....

From the very beginning, the Australian government and so-called “health experts” said the COVID-19 “vaccines” were “safe”.  Period.  The public believed them.

Now, that claim of “safe” really surprised me on 2 counts:

Firstly, the COVID-19 “vaccines” were not “Approved” when they were released for use.  No.  They were not “Approved”.  Anybody who tells you they were “Approved” either is lying or doesn’t know what they are talking about.

I’ve testified in court when asked the question: “Do you agree the COVID-19 vaccines have been approved in Australia?”.  My answer was: “No, they have only been Provisionally Approved and there is a big difference”.  With that statement I was immediately dismissed from the proceedings.

The reason why I said: “No, they have only been Provisionally Approved and there is a big difference” is because drugs which are “Provisionally Approved”, by definition, are not supported by the usually required quality, safety and efficacy evidence considered adequate for “Approval”.  The manufacturer (Sponsor) is given years to generate the missing quality, safety and efficacy evidence.  This is a relatively new system introduced in 2018.  Hummmm …..Did they see COVID coming?

So, how could anybody say the COVID-19 “vaccines” were “safe” if they did not have the evidence of safety and the shots had no medium or long term safety record?  They could not.

Secondly, I always clearly understood that no drug was “safe”.  This is how I was trained.  “Safe” was not a word used without qualification in the pharmaceutical industry when I was a busy consultant.  Sometimes it was necessary to use the term “relatively safe”.   Indeed, it was illegal to say a drug was “safe” in an unqualified manner under the Therapeutic Goods (Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code) instrument (see exerpt below).

Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2015 (Cth) published 13.11.2015

“4.       General Principles

(2) An advertisement for therapeutic goods must not:

(i)          contain any claim, statement or implication that the goods are safe [bolding for emphasis] or that their use cannot cause harm or that they have no side-effects; or……”

Here is where it gets interesting……..

On 4 June 2021 a special permission apparently was made by John Skerritt (head of the TGA) pursuant to section 42DK of the TGA act and published on the TGA website and later apparently made by “Tracey Duffy – acting Deputy Secretary, Health Products Regulation Group, Dept  of Health. 

These “permissions” exempted the COVID-19 “vaccines” from the time-honoured prudent principle of not ever referring to a therapeutic (drug) as being “safe”.

Here is the astounding wording:

This prohibition on the use of the word “safe” is found in 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.”

Now, how they 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 at www.tga.gov.au.”

What this appears to mean is that any advertisement/representation ‘promoting the use or supply’ of COVID-19 vaccines was exempt from the TGA Advertising Code requirements in full, including prohibitions about whether the vaccines were “safe” or not pursuant to Part 3 - Section 9.  

It appears to me that the ‘Secretary’ of the Department of Health can ‘delegate’ some random individual at the Department of Health to make permissions, whenever they want, and permit violations of the TGA Advertising Code whenever they want – with no oversight, accountability, evidence or even review it seems. They probably can also make these permissions as part of a ‘public health campaign’, and not just from a specific COVID-19 vaccines permission.

In other words, the Advertising Code was able to be completely nullified whenever the government wanted with respect to COVID-19 vaccines.  

This is how they have been able to make the extraordinary claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are “safe” despite evidence to the contrary. 

DISCLAIMER:

The information and personal opinions presented in this Substack is based on or derived from sources which I believe are credible and usually reliable.   Any inadvertent errors or inaccuracies in my Substacks which come to my notice will be corrected as soon as possible.  I endeavour to reference any relevant published information and provide links to websites so readers can do their own research.  The opinions expressed are not intended nor should they be interpreted to be medical advice.  I do not accept any liability for comments placed on my Substack and my failure to respond to any potentially defamatory or contentious comment should not be taken as passive or otherwise approval by myself.  I neither seek nor receive any financial compensation for my writings.   

MY SUBSTACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE FREE.  I ENDEAVOUR TO BRING YOU THE TRUTH.  PLEASE SHARE WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY.  THAT IS ALL I ASK.