Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (43)
Warren Tredrea is a former AFL player and sports presenter (above) with the Nine Network. He spent 14 years in the AFL and 13 years in media, eight of those with Nine. And yet Tredrea was fired from his position as a sports presenter after attempting to exercise his right to refuse the compulsory Covid-19 vaccination demanded by his employer.
Tredrea served as Nine’s sports presenter from 2013 to 2021, when his contract was summarily terminated because he refused to comply with the network’s vaccine mandate.[1] Nine introduced its vaccine mandate in December 2021, requiring all staff to have at least two doses of Covid-19 vaccine. Tredrea, who considers himself ‘pro-choice’ on vaccines, refused to be coerced. “I’m fully vaccinated … but I’m not Covid vaccinated. Everyone is entitled to what they want to do because it’s your body,” he said.[2]
Tredrea was sacked in January 2022 before he could return to the Nine network after the summer holidays. His sacking cost him a high-profile job with an annual salary of $192,500. He brought an unfair dismissal case against Channel 9 Adelaide in the Federal Court of Australia, claiming he had been unfairly sacked for breaching the broadcaster’s vaccine mandate.[3] He wanted the remainder of his 2022 salary, which amounted to $176,458, plus a further compensation for lost income – total fee of $1,481,104.
Tredrea basically argued that Nine’s direction requiring staff to be vaccinated was unreasonable because the Covid virus posed a low risk of illness to healthy people like him. Besides, he also argued that the vaccine was not particularly effective, and it presented potential health risks to recipients.[4] As a consequence, he argued, the broadcaster unfairly terminated his contract as a sport presenter.[5]
Nine countered that it dismissed him not just for refusing to be compulsorily vaccinated but also for supposedly causing the network “reputational damage”. During the case, Channel 9 Adelaide’s director, Jeremy Pudney, told the court that Tredrea’s dismissal was also motivated by the impacts on the network’s reputation following “inaccurate” comments made on a local radio station about the Covid-19 vaccine.[6] The ABC reported that Pudney told the court he was “alarmed” by Tredrea’s opinions and had told him that it was “not constructive to talk about such a hot-button issue … with factual errors”.[7] For good measure, Nine also claimed Tredrea wasn’t a good commentator — an alleged deficiency it apparently took the network eight years to recognise.
The case was run by Tredrea’s lawyers primarily on the fact that he was sacked for not been vaccinated. On March 14, the lawsuit brought by Tredrea was dismissed by the Federal Court. In his judgment, Justice Geoffrey Kennett stated that Tredrea may have had a more compelling case if he had merely focused on his refusal to be vaccinated. The court had heard how Tredrea had voiced his opinions about mandatory Covid-19 vaccinations on Adelaide radio station 5AA. “Those opinions were not particularly well-informed and some of Mr Tredrea’s arguments were not soundly based”, Justice Kennett wrote in his judgment.[8]
Justice Kennett therefore dismissed Tredrea’s application by agreeing with Channel Nine’s claim that it had a right to terminate his contract to protect itself from “reputational damage.” Justice Kennett said: “The evidence does not show that the decision to terminate the services agreement was anything other than a reasonable one, in the sense of a bona fide attempt to protect Channel Nine’s legitimate interests”.[9] Nine as an employer apparently had an interest in its workers being able to come to work without disruption and to respect the “wishes and concerns of the significant majority of the workforce who wanted the people with whom they had contact to be vaccinated”.[10]
Justice Kennett also found that Tredrea would have posed a reputational risk to the company through his outspoken public comments against the Covid vaccine, which were opposed to Nine’s public position, the judgment said, observing “rather than having the studied neutrality of a newsreader, he was associated in public discourse with an unpopular viewpoint on an issue apt to excite strong emotions”.[11] Kennett added that “it did not help that the viewpoint with which he was associated was diametrically opposed to the public position of Channel 9 itself”.[12]
Some of the comments made by Justice Kennett deserve a more careful consideration. For example, the claim that Tredrea’s view of the vaccines caused “reputational damage” to Channel Nine is not shared by millions of equally concerned Australians. After all, they now know that mRNA vaccines prevent neither infection nor transmission of the virus.
For example, a study conducted by the Upper Midwest Regional Accelerator for Genomic Surveillance, founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, concluded that the vaccinated can still catch and transmit Covid and, once infected, they are as likely to infect others as the unvaccinated.[13] As another example, a recent study by Cleveland Clinic researchers concluded that people who received two or more doses of the vaccine were more likely to get infected with Covid. They found that, among 48,344 working-aged clinic employees, those not “up-to-date” on vaccination had a lower risk of contracting Covid-19 than those who are “up-to-date”.[14]
“If a vaccine fails to stop disease transmission, then the idea that you need to vaccinate other people so that I’m protected is just false”, says Dr Jayanta Bhattcharya,[15] a professor of medicine and health research and policy at Stanford University.[16]
There is also evidence that Covid vaccines are responsible for the surge in the death rates since 2021. A cost-benefit analysis by a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) looked at official data from the UK and the US for all age groups to determine the risk of dying from Covid. “All age groups under 50 years old are at greater risk of fatality after receiving a COVID vaccination than an unvaccinated person is at risk of a COVID death”, the report says.[17] Furthermore, “all age groups under 80 years old have virtually not benefited from receiving a COVID vaccine, and the younger ages incur significant risks”.[18]
The lack of confidence in the efficacy of vaccine mandates is exacerbated when one considers the standards that vaccines should exhibit. There are at least five medical requirements that need to be met: (i) the vaccine must result in a measurable reduction in the number of sick people afflicted with the Covid-19 virus, (ii) the vaccine must be capable of protecting recipients for a significant time, thereby possibly avoiding booster shots, (iii) the vaccine should have few negative side effects, (iv) the vaccine must be effective against newer variants of the virus, and (v) the vaccine must substantially reduce transmission rates. The Covid-19 vaccines substantially fail to meet these requirements.
One known and serious potential risk is myocarditis—inflammation of the heart. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now acknowledges the evidence shows that mRNA vaccines have caused many types of heart conditions, including myocarditis.[19] In fact, even Pfizer scientists now acknowledge increased cases of myocarditis after vaccination.[20]
These concerns about adverse side effects of Covid vaccines are too serious to ignore. So, given the already known potential harms of the novel vaccines, of which myocarditis is just one, and the entirely unknown potential long-term adverse effects which may become known only in the future, the decision to vaccinate everyone, including healthy people, regardless of age or health conditions, is highly problematic and not scientific.
As can be seen, the suspicion that Tredrea had about the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines has been strengthened by the empirical data.[21] The potential for severe injury is now fully demonstrated and a matter that deserves more serious reflection.
So, the question is, has Channel Nine potentially endangered their employees’ health by disregarding the possible effects and making compulsory the acceptance of an experimental vaccination? If so, how could Tredrea’s termination have been reasonable, considering the ineffectiveness of the vaccine at preventing transmission in the workplace and the availability of meaningfully effective alternative strategies?
This goes without saying that the implementation of mandatory Covid vaccination sits uncomfortably with the High Court’s jurisprudence. Justice Kirby opined in 2009, in Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee,[22] that the purpose of prohibiting the “conscription” in section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution is to ensure that there is no impermissible obligation on people to accept a medical or pharmaceutical treatment which they can refuse on constitutional grounds.
Justice Kirby’s opinion is supported by the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Siracusa Principles”). A document produced by the American Association for the International Commission of Jurists, the Siracusa Principles explicitly state that “No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation” compromise the rights of people to freely consent to medical or scientific experimentation, “even for the asserted purpose of preserving the life of the nation.”
Consistent with the Siracusa Principles, in a climate of uncertainty, characterised by a demonstrable lack of confidence, a program of mandatory vaccination cannot be regarded as consensual. From the perspective of international law, the right to informed consent is the bedrock principle of ethical standards in medicine. According to Article 6:1 of UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005):
Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
The right to refuse vaccination is also supported by the Nuremberg Code – an ethics code – relied upon during the Nazi doctors’ trials in Nuremberg. This Code has as its first principle the willingness and informed consent by the individual to receive medical treatment and/or to participate in an experiment. Moreover, Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights informs us that “States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.”
It is precisely the experimental nature of the Covid-19 vaccines and the widespread disagreement about their capacity to provide protection against the virus that is responsible for the lack of confidence in their effectiveness. Indeed, in a climate of uncertainty, characterised by a demonstrable lack of confidence, as is amply demonstrated by the levels of vaccine hesitancy in Australia, a company’s inoculation mandate violates its employee’s rights as it simply cannot be regarded as consensual nor based on a contractual relationship. The unvaccinated employee, in relying on health implications for the purpose of refusing the vaccine, may invoke the same argument used by proponents of vaccinations, who also rely on health grounds to promote the vaccine.
Ian Hanke pointed out the problems associated with government-directed vaccine mandates:
These extraordinary powers are arbitrary and extreme. They are a draconian attack on civil liberties the like of which Australia has never seen before. Further because all laws are overridden there would appear to be little recourse to any excesses by an authorised officer or their civilians co-opted by them. These laws are so broad and ill-defined that you could be detained for almost anything.[23]
In this context, Dr Rocco Loiacono comments:
For any government either by itself or via corporate proxy to attempt to mandate vaccines in circumstances were there has not been adequate testing and analysis of risks as well as benefits would constitute not only a violation of the principle of informed consent … but a violation of Australia’s obligations under international law with respect to medical experimentation.[24]
Hence, any law that requires vaccine mandates either directly or indirectly, is not only constitutionally invalid, but it also constitutes a violation of Australia’s obligations under public international law.
Of course, a medical treatment which is imposed on an employee without his or her informed consent is a trespass upon that person. In Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp, Lord Justice Scott explained that consent to treatment, including vaccination, is needed to proceed with the treatment:
… a man cannot be said to be truly ‘willing’ unless he is in a position to choose freely, and freedom of choice predicates, not only full knowledge of the circumstances on which the exercise of choice is conditioned, so that he may be able to choose wisely, but in the absence from his mind of any feeling of restraint so that nothing shall interfere with the freedom of his will.[25]
Importantly, the jurisprudence of the High Court indicates that no employer in Australia should impose limitations on the rights of employees that directly or indirectly amount to a form of mandatory medical or pharmaceutical treatment. And if governments cannot constitutionally force anyone to be vaccinated, they certainly cannot indirectly create a situation whereby any employee would be forced to take the vaccine. This point is addressed in a comment of Justice Webb in British Medical Association v Commonwealth:
If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance” (emphasis added).[26]
At least Tredrea will not have to pay his former employer’s legal fees, with Justice Kennett making “no order as to the costs of the proceeding”.[27] This is because of the operation of section 17 of the South Australian Independent Contractors Act (ICA) which governed Tredrea’s legal action. The ICA included a costs section which replicated the protections given to employees under traditional re-instatement/unfair dismissal laws. He will pay “only” for his own legal costs while Nine will cover their successful defence of the claim. [28]
In April, Tredrea formally lodged an appeal with the Federal Court, seeking to challenge Justice Kennett’s dismissal of his claim. In our view, he has good grounds to appeal because the dismissal was clearly unfair, because there are profoundly serious risks attached to any new drug, and Covid-19 vaccines had a limited short-term efficacy and no long-term safety data. As an article from the British Medical Journal points out,
From a public health standpoint, it makes poor sense to impose vaccine side-effects on people at minimal risk of severe COVID-19. The argument that it protects others is weak or contrary to evidence. This conclusion suggests a policy of targeting vaccination to those at highest risk, allowing broader post-infection immunity to provide community protection.[29]
Given the already known potential harms of these novel vaccines, of which myocarditis is just one, and the entirely unknown potential long-term adverse effects which may come to light only after many years, the decision of Channel 9 to require his vaccination was not only illegal but also morally and scientifically wrong.
We hope that at the level of appeal the court finally makes the right decision.
Augusto Zimmermann is head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education, in Perth, Western Australia. Zimmermann is a former commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2012-2017). He is also a former associate dean (research) at Murdoch University, School of Law. During his time at Murdoch, he was awarded the Vice Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Research, in 2012.
Gabriël A. Moens AM is an emeritus professor of law at the University of Queensland. He served as pro vice-chancellor and dean at Murdoch University. In 2003, Moens was awarded the Australian Centenary Medal by the prime minister for services to education. He has taught extensively across Australia, Asia, Europe, and the United States.
Moens and Zimmermann are the authors of ‘The Unlucky Country’ (Locke Press, 2024). To order your copy, click at https://lockepress.com/product/the-unlucky-country/
[1] Jesse Hyland and Jo Scrimshire, ‘Ex-AFL star Warren Tredrea leaves behind a $300,000-per-year-job as Nine News Adelaide’s sports presenter after refusing to get the Covid vaccine’, Daily Mail Australia, 8 February 2022, at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10487749/AFL-Warren-Tredrea-loses-300-000-job-Nine-refusing-Covid-vaccine.html.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Jacob Shteyman, ‘AFL great Tredrea has unfair dismissal claim thrown out’, InDaily,14 March 2024, at https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/03/14/afl-great-tredrea-has-unfair-dismissal-claim-thrown-out.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Olivia Mason, ‘Warren Tredrea avoids having to pay Channel 9 legal fees after losing unfair dismissal case’, ABC News, 3 May 2024, at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-03/warren-tredrea-spared-from-paying-channel-nine-legal-fees/103802824.
[7] ‘Former AFL player Warren Tredrea loses $6 million unfair dismissal case against Channel 9’, Fox Footy, 15 March 2024, at https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/former-afl-player-warren-tredrea-loses-6-million-unfair-dismissal-case-against-channel-9/news-story/686c67ec5e5449d7b020b9695a3e6bb2.
[8] Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 3) [2024] FCA 233 [169d] (14 March 2024)
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Kasen K Riemersma et al., ‘Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Individuals Have a Similar Viral Loads in Communities with a High Prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant’, MedRxiv, 31 July 2021, at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v1?
[14] Nabin K. Shrestha, Patrick C. Burke, Any S. Nowacki, and Steven M. Gordon, ‘Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) among Those Up-to-Date and Not Up-to-Date on COVID-19 Vaccination’, MedRxiv, 12 June 2023, at https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.09.23290893v1.full.pdf
[15] At https://profiles.stanford.edu/jay-bhattacharya
[16] Matthew Horwood, ‘Researcher and Professor Criticize COVID-19 Vaccine Trials at National Citizen’s Inquiry’, The Epoch Times, April 13, 2023, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/researcher-and-professor-criticize-covid-19-vaccine-trials-at-national-citizens-inquiry_5193190.html.
[17] Stephanie Seneff PhD and Kathy Dopp MS, ‘COVID-19 and All-Cause Mortality Data by Age Group Reveals Risk of COVID Vaccine-Induced Fatality is Equal to or Greater than the Risk of a COVID death for all Age Groups Under 80 Years Old as of 6 February 2022’, 13 February 2022, at https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Seneff_costBenefit.pdf.
[18] Ibid. f
[19] Zachary Stieber, ‘Pfizer Identified ‘Most Likely’ Mechanism for Heart Inflammation After COVID-19 Vaccination’, The Epoch Times, 22 March 2023, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/pfizer-identified-most-likely-mechanism-for-heart-inflammation-after-covid-19-vaccination_5139370.html?ea_src=open&ea_med=search.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Zachary Stieber, ‘Australian Authorities to Stop Reporting Vaccination Status of Hospitalizations, Deaths’, Nexus Newsfed.com, 9 January 2023 < https://nexusnewsfeed.com/article/health-healing/australian-authorities-to-stop-reporting-vaccination-status-of-hospitalizations-deaths/>.
[22] Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573.
[23] Ian Hanke, ‘Daniel Andrews’ Plan For Indefinite Detention – And More’, The Spectator Australia, 18 September 2020, at https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/daniel-andrews-plan-for-indefinite-detention-and-more/
[24] Rocco Loiacono, ‘Most Covid patients at Israeli hospital fully vaccinated? What does this mean for Australia?’, The Spectator Australia, 12 August 2021, at https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/08/most-covid-patients-at-israeli-hospital-fully-vaccinated-what-does-this-mean-for-australia/.
[25] Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476, at 479 (Scott LJ).
[26] British Medical Association v Commonwealth (1949) 79 CLR 201, at 293 (Webb J).
[27] Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 4) [2024] FCA 453.
[28] Olivia Mason, ‘Warren Tredrea avoids having to pay Channel 9 legal fees after losing unfair dismissal case’, ABC News, 3 May 2024, at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-03/warren-tredrea-spared-from-paying-channel-nine-legal-fees/103802824.
[29] David Bell and Roland Salmon, ‘Public Health Logic of COVID-19 Vaccinations’, The British Medical Journal, 6 September 2021, at https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180/rr-4. See also: “Covid-19: JCVI Opts Not to Recommend Universal Vaccination of 12-15 Year Olds’, The British Medical Journal, 03 September 2021, at https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2180.
Another example of the herd mentality. Throughout history this way of not thinking has been responsible for injustice grading to disaster.
Good on you, Augusto and Gabriel for this well researched piece, shining light into another dark corner of our recent history. (So many dark corners, they sum to a black hole). Your work is massively important. This is the kind of truth-telling we need.
PS: And good on you, Warren Tredrea for fighting this from start to finish. A great example of conviction and courage.
The Western Bulldogs’ Liam Jones is another profile in courage. He was stood down by the Blues after declining to be jabbed and spent a year in AFL exile. Since picked up by the Bulldogs, where his career began, he’s been a pillar of strength and courage in defence all season. If umpires were capable of noticing players other than those in the centre, he’d be an early Browlnow contender. After the debacle at Windy Hill, where blameless players suffered for their club’s jab-o-mania, you might have thought more players would have said ‘Hang on a tick.’ But no. Unlike Jones, many no doubt thought of the money. Who can blame them?
(There are many reasons to wish the AFL would just shut up and play football — spare us the glitter shoelaces and please keep the didgeridooing to a respectful minimum — but their overseas streaming service is A1plusdoublegood. It could be cheaper, but no complaints about service and quality, not when you can watch the Bulldogs play Brisbane in Ballarat from aatop mountain in Tennessee
Hear hear, Roger. I was going to mention Liam Jones, as I am a Carlton fan, but wanted to keep my post brief. There are many “ordinary” heroes throughout this wide brown land who refused to be cowed by the proto-totalitarians. Each of us know at least a few of them. Let us always honour them and support them where we can.
William Pike, WA’s best ever Jockey by statistics and opinion refused to be cowered and packed his gear and headed East, where he rode mostly in NSW, but also in Qld and Vic for 9 months.
We will remember them.
Lest we forget.
It seems that Nine’s reputation is more important than the health of their employees. Take heart Warren Tredrea. You may have lost the case but you have won in the high court of moral fortitude. Added to that, your biggest win is your uncompromised immune system.
Even setting aside what we now know about the inefficacy and side effects of the vaccines, (and we started to get that feedback pretty quickly) what we did know, at the time of their introduction was that they were brought into production in about one fifth the normal timeframe for vaccines. That was certainly a legitimate basis for doubt and questioning.
What else can be expected? The vermin in ermine and politicians are are all in the scam together.
Watching the full Federal Court with interest …
Groupthink isn’t exactly flexible. People still maintain all the untruths in the face of new evidence. I’d be surprised if the high court do anything useful or beneficial to the Australian public.
Sadly, Quadrant Online is afflicted by the Anti-Vaxx cult of pseudoscience.
” (i) the vaccine must result in a measurable reduction in the number of sick people afflicted with the Covid-19 virus, (ii) the vaccine must be capable of protecting recipients for a significant time, thereby possibly avoiding booster shots, (iii) the vaccine should have few negative side effects, (iv) the vaccine must be effective against newer variants of the virus, and (v) the vaccine must substantially reduce transmission rates.”
None if this is true. Covid vaccination reduces risk of death, has relieved or hospitals of the burden of Covid infected patients requiring admission to ICU, and reduced the risk of death. Booster shots are needed to cope with Covid variants.
Even the Editor of Quadrant has been sucked in by the Antivaxx cult, publishing articles promoting Ivermectin, when even a short review of the trials literature would show that Ivermectin has no benefit.
The worst aspect of this antivax cult is that it will discourage booster vaccines and increase the death rate among the vulnerable older population.
Just received an email from my retired Australian doctor friend, like me “older and vulnerable”. In part:
.
******
Hope you feel better. I would certainly take ivermectin, zinc and Vit D
.
expose-news.com/2024/01/26/this-is-the-end/? mid=5686969b-677a-4df1-9b37-c83a64f160d7
******
He and another doctor friend, still practising in Australia, steered me clear of “vaccines” during the Covidiocy.
.
The Editor of Quadrant publishes rantings like yours along with well-researched, factual, considered articles by Augusto Zimmermann & Gabriël Moens and others.
My German uncle over there chose not to receive any coronavirus injections. Miele accommodated this by providing a separate entrance to the manufacturing plant for employees who also did not receive vaccinations. Mildly patronising, but they did not sack their staff. Oddly enough, during the height of the pandemic he was hit by a car on his bicycle, which broke his leg and made him more disabled than any virus. So one must weigh up the risk of daily life.
My 92 year old grandmother over there was scheduled as usual to have her cataracts cleared. My fathers doctor here shut up his practice. I was not allowed to attend my university graduation because myself and my guest (father) were not triple vaccinated.
My vaccination, forced upon me, gave me the hottest fever and the worst head and body pain I have ever experienced in my life, so delirious I was surely speaking in tongues.
My father here had to wear a mask (though nowhere near the next machinist) under a hot tin roof pushing 50degC performing heavy duty machining. Funnily enough while he drove home the local pub was full of happy drinkers head to head, face to face eating, drinking and merry, all without masks. Lo and behold they put their masks on as the exited to the car park! One rule for these young revellers and one rule for my 65 workhorse father was a bitter pill to swallow.
The false advertising mantra by the government to ‘protect yourself and family from Covid – get vaccinated’ lead most of my circle of girlfriends to believe, erroneously, that being vaccinated meant they would not catch the virus.
In comparison to other Western countries, Australians, and in this case Mr Tredrea, were treated very poorly by the governments (particularly Labor), corporations and their own countrymen and women. I got mighty fed-up of irrational women behind their perfectly curated zoom laptop backgrounds telling everyone to stay home.
Well, seagull and Bron, be that as it may the bottom line is the Nuremberg Code, tilt, game over! Never mind the conspiracy theories or who did what to whom, the Nuremberg Code hammered out just after WW2 ended is the defining statement and all concerned from ignorant public servants to medical people to employers, should have been made aware of that by the legal people who remained surprisingly quiet for many of them are vociferous enough when it comes to the rights of a supposed refuge or country shopper.
@seagull. Your opinions are notable for their total lack of deviation from leftist establishment talking points.
.
As the less brainwashed and most intelligent of our “vulnerable elders” are best placed to remind you, a society cannot exist to prevent natural deaths in the geriatric popularion although it may do so IF the cost is not too great. It must protect the young, especially women and children. Protecting them from barely tested and demonstrably ineffective prophylaxis against a disease which is not even dangerous to them should have been the first priority.
Day after day in what used to be my lovely country, we see disgusting and devious efforts to invoke new synthetic authorities to pass the buck. There was once a time when people from kings down in rank manfully admitted personal mistakes, apologised and resigned. (In Japan, suicide was a form of apology for hurting others.)
Start with the simple, unchallengeable observations that some victims were killed by these less-than-perfect chemicals. A person finally approved these injection that killed others. A person who kills another is always required to account for the death. Yet we see no evidence yet that any pusher/promoter of these chemicals has been brought before a court.
Further complexity arises in those cases when a victim has declined the injection, no matter what the grounds for objection were. There has to be some primacy in the argument “It is my body and I have final say about what is put into it.” Have we seen this debated and settled?
Another complexity, we had expert pandemic plans in place sever years before the Covid debut in 2019. These plans appear to have been suddenly reversed, leading to procedures and chemicals with the power to kill people. Have we had mature discussion? No, more like Expanded Omerta.
There was a period of decades in which our government granted the chemical factories immunity from prosecution. Things envisaged before the immune agreement are not the same as events happened. Has there been a deep legal study of the validity of this unusual agreement, with some terms said to apply for 75 years? Crickets.
We have agreements for huge new chemical plant to make more of this style of injection, with little mention of its lethality. Where is the advocacy from the legal profession to protect people by calling for a pause and review? Have senior legal professionals joined the 2020s trend of problem solving by staying quiet, saying little and working behind the scenes on the best way to protect backsides of important folk, forgetting that ordinary people have been killed and damaged by poor science and poor morals?
Thank you, authors, for being realistic in the ugly face of wealth and power. Geoff S
Quote: “what used to be my lovely country”
.
I’m please to see increasing use of a qualifier such as “once” or “used to be” when talking positively of Australia.
Seagull
I agree with you 100%.
The scientists who developed the technology which enabled messenger RNA vaccines to be manufactured were awarded the Noble Prize.
Consider this fact when listening to Anti-vax
Bullshit.
This comment betrays a bizarre ignorance of: the politics of the Nobel system, the uncertainties of science, the right to dissent, and enabling manufacture has nothing to do with the efficacy of individual products and tells us nothing about long term effects.
Clearly our education system now produces adulation of ‘science’ instead of healthy scepticism about any claims made about any scientific topic.
The prize is hardly noble. The Academy’s egregious political bent was on full display when Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize with scarcely three weeks in office.
Agree with the thrust, however Obama was inaugurated as president on Jan 20, and announced as Nobel Peace Prize recipient on October 9th.
Nominations for the prize closed eleven days after Obama took office. Other than photo opportunities he had achieved very little in that time. Even if he had done good works in the months that followed leading up to the award ceremony (doubtful) it was premature. All the committee could do was rabbit on about his efforts to strengthen international diplomacy.
There’s a long hard road between nomination and selection with a very large number of eligible nominees:
A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize may be submitted by any person who meets the nomination criteria. A letter of invitation to submit is not required. The names of the nominees and other information about the nominations cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
.
There are 285 nominees for the 2024 Peace prize and have been up to 376 in the past.
285 nominations, NOT nominees – there are likely some nominated by more than one person, maybe thousands, but I won’t be around in 50 years so I’ll never know.
Not so long. Short list in place by end of March. Obama could have sat on the Oval Office dunny for the first 8 weeks of his presidency and he would still have got the gong. That was my point.
20 May 2024
Dr. Robert Malone, one of the developers of the mRNA technology, was vocal in his opposition to the wuflu jabs.
So le bron , you agree with every measure taken by our various govts, no matter how harsh and knee-jerk? You’re at the wrong site here, comrade. I feel sorry for the breathtaking ignorance you and seagull display. I refused to be vaccinated. Got covert and a half day of mild discomfort, and at 62 never worried . Still locked in your home fully vaxxed and masked ?
Now, to my main point:
‘reputational damage’ in connection with any free to air TV broadcaster is cue for a fall-about-laughing moment. I say this in respect of the turgid junk produced by such broadcasters, which I am cursed to tolerate while checking the morning traffic and transport news over my breakfast of grits and chitlins with tomato sauce.
Given the basis of the court’s decision – that Channel Nine needed to protect its “legitimate interests”, including the need to respect the “wishes and concerns of the significant majority of the workforce” – one would imagine that a Christian school (for example) may legitimately refuse to employ a person who is not a Christian, and ito sack an employee who abandons the faith.
Incidentally I note that the belief, widely held in the general population, that Covid vaccination is safe and effective, is essentially based on faith – since the public on the whole cannot possibly understand the scientific debate or access and evaluate relevant evidence. Hence the court in this case is really acting to protect the faith-based beliefs of the employer and the majority of the employees.
No , the “widely held belief” is not based on “faith”. It is based on well designed scientific trials an population studies by epidemiologists (a branch of science that would be unknown to the Anti-vaxx cultists that infest Quadrant Online). The Court was acting on rational evidence from public health professionals that considered risks and benefits from particular courses of action that had to be taken in the face of an epidemic with a known toll of fatal outcomes.
By way of digression, my first Covid infection occurred in Piachenza, Italy, where the high mortality of Covid was first recognised. The further details would be tedious to relate, but Stephen, if your are not fully vaccinated, and you are old like many of the Quadrant Online readers, make sure that your executors let us know of your passing. I understand that Covid is on the increase in Victoria – no doubt that anti-vaxx campaigns against booster vaccination for new variants have contributed to this.
I’m sorry, but I think you are quite wrong about the “well designed scientific trials” – but more importantly wrong about the basis of the opinions of Quadrant readers, and authors. For example, Robert Clancy, who has published several articles in Quadrant, is a world expert in the field. He has explained, in detail, why the Covid vaccines are ineffective, why people who take the boosters may be repeatedly infected with Covid, and why there is an exceptionally high rate of serious adverse effects from these vaccines.
My field of expertise is medical informatics. I can tell you for certain, that many other world class experts, like Prof Clancy, have published extensively on the lack of effectivess of these injections, and the injuries they cause. There are reasons why this information is not reaching the general public. The sad fact is that any assurances you have, based on statements by government officials and the mainstream media, are simply not trustworthy. Australia’s chief health officer, for example, stated publicly that the vaccine “stayed in the arm.” This was a gross error, in regard to a product that was expressly designed to go throughout the body. He also stated that the mRNA in the vaccine would last only a very short time in the body. This too was a gross error, since the mRNA in the vaccine had been modified so that it remained active in the body for months. The public have taken assurances like these on trust. It is faith, not science, which is the basis of public trust in these products.
Well said!
The problem with the “trials” relied upon by Prof Clancy were mostly small observational studies, lacked data disclosure, and often disclosed no data on controls, if any. But since you have knowledge of “medical infomatics” the main defect of his “trials” was that none were large enough to demonstrate a statistically significant differance in the ourcomes being studied. These outcomes, ICU admission and death, are infrequent, so would require study groups of many thousands. For this reason, what knowledge we have about the effectiveness of Covid vaccination has come from whole population studies. This information can be found online, but I doubt if the antivaxx cultist would bother.
20 May, 2024
Information on the safety and efficacy of vaccines is supposed to come from studies that take time; vaccines are not SUPPOSED to be tested on the entire population. Other vaccines have been developed over years, partly because long-term side effects cannot possibly be known any other way. As it was, the majority of the world’s population was turned into lab rats without having their status clearly explained to them. NO new medical treatment can be declared to be “safe and effective” after mere months of trials; but people were told that these jabs were in that category, while the truth was that they were still being tested–on them!
Seagull
Anti-vaxxers prefer series of one-e.g.Fred up the road had a Covid vaccine injection and his knob fell off.
Incidentally, incidence of hooping cough in Queensland reportedly increased 12-fold.
The fact that you resort to your pathetic little pejorative ‘anti-vaxxer’ to describe the likes of Tredrea and others here who have had every vaccine under the sun other than this experimental mRNA gene therapy says much about the lack of critical thinking capacity you possess.
The epidemiology is unequivocal – After the introduction of the vaccines in the second half of 2021, hospitalisations and deaths from COVID skyrocketed worldwide as did excess mortality (unassociated with COVID) in every highly vaccinated country.
In Australia, NSW health published the most complete data sets of any jurisdiction in Australia and by as early as February 2022 those data sets demonstrated that vaccinated individuals were more likely to be hospitalised, suffer severe morbidity and/ or die than the unvaccinated. This statistical trend continued to grow within NSW Health data, becoming such an embarrassment that they ceased the analysis by the second half of 2022.
It is generous indeed to call mRNA agents a vaccine. They infact co-opt the proteogenomic machinery of of each cell the injected synthetic mRNA enters in order to synthesis a foreign protein – in this instance the Covid spike protein. This is in no way allied to the pharmocokinetics of traditional vaccines. All such mRNA therapy should be seen for the inherent dangers such an approach brings. Foreign proteins circulating are always highly likely to be idiopathic (basic biology).
To pretend that in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the failure of the mRNA agents to arrest spread and infection, morbidity and mortality of COVID (indeed may have contributed to it) takes a special kind of species of intellectual pygmy – of which you are clearly one.
The first rule of staying healthy – steer clear of Quack Bron
Stephen Due
Medical findings are published in journals which are peer-reviewed. Medical and scientific journals are ramked by their citation index and impact factor. The order of authors in articles shows the amount of contribution, first authors generally write the content. Stephen with your expertise in medical informatics you would know this.
Can you provide details of the relevant first-authored article by Dr Clancy published in a medical or scientific journal with a citation index of 5-10 or higher?
And a relevant one first authored by Quack Bron documenting double blind placebo-controlled trial demonstrating efficacy in prevention of transmission, reduction in morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2 post mRNA ‘vaccine’ treatment from January 2022 onwards while you are at it thanks Stephen.
Duck egg? thought so! – nothing like an obtuse double standard in our resident expert who thinks whooping cough is spelt ‘hooping’ cough
Sindri
In the past you have pointed out that I was not able to recognise a Strawman arguement. Perhaps you, or a reader with an English major (from a sandstone university only), could read the comment above from CK and tell me whether it is a Stawman arguement?
In relation to Bron comment above CK.
Citizen Kane
I have authored numerous first-authored papers in respectable journals. These papers have been well cited by others, so I have made my contribution to Medical Science.
As far as your suggestion for a SARS-CoV-2 manuscript, the data is out there, so why don’t you write it. I may be pretty, but I am not your handmaiden.
,