After The World Got Injected Video and A Letter To The South Australian Premier

Editor’s note: A video (above) interviewing Prof Dolores Cahill and then Sucharit Bhakadi, followed by an email by Elizabeth Hart.

Letter by Elizabeth Hart

Vaccination is political…

‘Our elected representatives’ are being manipulated to impose highly questionable and lucrative medical interventions on the community, e.g. Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ and flu jabs. These medical interventions are being mandated for millions of people in a variety of circumstances.

Who is actually behind the push for the never-ending stream of ‘vaccine’ products…? We really need to get to the bottom of this.

In the meantime, please see below my email to South Australian premier Peter Malinauskas, questioning the evidence for ‘free’ Covid jabs and flu jabs, and raising the subject of natural immunity, a matter I brought to the attention of Peter Malinauskas in March 2020, when I forwarded him my BMJ rapid response: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2.

There’s a lot to look back on now to consider the grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted global Covid-19 response.

For example, who drove the plan to inject the entire global population with Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ over and over again…against a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people? 

Where were the doctors? Why didn’t they challenge this INSANE plan to jab the entire population?

Time to track this back now… 

Please see my email to Peter Malinauskas below. This email is also publicly accessible via this link, please feel free to share: https://bit.ly/3NumNA0

THE EMAIL

For the attention of: Peter Malinauskas

Leader of the SA Labor Party, Premier of South Australia

Peter Malinauskas, re the unfolding Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ disaster, and the recent suggestion you are “considering making flu vaccinations free for all South Australians following calls from health experts”. See: Flu vaccine Adelaide: SA Premier considering making flu jabs free, The Advertiser, 25 May 2022. (Copy attached.)

I’ve submitted the following comment on The Advertiser article:

What is the evidence supporting flu vaccinations “for all South Australians”?

Who exactly is at serious risk of flu?

Flu jabs are now being pushed for children also – what is the evidence supporting flu jabs for children?

What is the impact of flu jabs and Covid jabs on the natural immune response?

What are the cumulative long-term effects of repeated flu jabs, and repeated Covid jabs throughout life?

Who exactly is behind this push for ‘free’ flu vaccinations “for all South Australians”?

On the subject of children and Covid jabs, I have still not received a response from ATAGI chair Nigel Crawford to my email: Why does ATAGI recommend COVID-19 mRNA injections for all children aged 5 to 11 years? 22 April 2022. Similarly, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners President Karen Price has not deigned to respond to my questions re ‘valid voluntary consent’ or my queries to her re COVID-19 mRNA injections being pressed upon children.

The lack of accountability to the Australian public for taxpayer-funded vaccination policy, including mandated vaccination policy, is a shocking situation in our supposed ‘liberal democracy’, and demonstrates utter contempt for the bodily autonomy and bodily integrity of all Australians.

Peter Malinauskas, here’s a reminder for you… 

Please see in the email thread below your email to me dated 1 April 2020, in response to my email of 28 March 2020, which included my rapid response published on The BMJ (aka The British Medical Journal).

Peter Malinauskas, I suggest you think very, very carefully about my previous email and my BMJ rapid response published on 25 March 2020…because some chickens could be coming home to roost in the emerging defective Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ disaster…

BMJ rapid response: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2

If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus? 

According to the WHO, “Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults.”[1]

Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say “The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission”.[2]

In regards to young people’s and others’ right to natural immunity, it’s also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. “…We’ve shifted the human population…to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity…We’re in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations”.[3]

This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it’s not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.

In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that “School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease”.[4] The UK’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]

Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry? 

This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.

The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.

The thing is Peter Malinauskas, I don’t think there were any independent and objective thinkers carefully considering the way ahead on this matter – ‘independence’ and ‘objectivity’ were very far indeed from the industry-driven Covid-19 response and the INSANE plan to inject the entire global population with Covid ‘leaky vaccines’ over and over again…

And now here we are, in a diabolical shambles, awash with defective Covid jabs, flu jabs, whatever lucrative jabs the vaccine industry wants to foist upon the community….and no idea of the impact on people’s natural immune response and long-term health.

Peter Malinauskas, please see our correspondence from 2020 in the email thread below.

Sincerely

Elizabeth Hart

Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy. vaccinationispolitical.net

THE 2020 EMAIL

Sent: Saturday, 28 March 2020 12:35 PM

Dear Mr Malinauskas, what evidence is being used to support the draconian measures being imposed on 25.4 million Australians re COVID-19?

Who is advising our elected representatives on this matter? Who are your advisers and what qualifies them to recommend such drastic measures which are going to impact severely on our economy, our society, our health, our freedom to associate, our very liberty?

I understand a group of eminent Go8 infectious disease researchers has been convened at CMO, Professor Brendan Murphy’s request, to discuss and synthesize recommendations of the scope and scale of Social Distancing Measures re COVID.

Who are the members of this group who are influencing policy affecting all of us?

It is understandable to want to protect the vulnerable in our community who might be at risk with the current threat. But the WHO indicates most people will not be too troubled by the novel coronavirus. Is it not better for those at risk to self-isolate, and still provide them with services such as pharmacy deliveries, home library etc, and let others continue with their lives and livelihoods as herd immunity is built up?

My recent rapid response published on The BMJ (The British Medical Journal) is relevant, please see below:

BMJ Rapid Response: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2

If children, young adults and others can mount their own effective immune response to SARS-CoV2, is it ethical to impede their ability to access natural immunity by interfering with the natural progression of the virus?

According to the WHO, “Illness due to COVID-19 infection is generally mild, especially for children and young adults.”[1]

Is the focus on future fast-tracked vaccine products blocking full consideration of the opportunity for natural herd immunity? Who is Neil Ferguson to say “The only exit strategy [in the] long term for this is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allows us to control transmission”.[2]

In regards to young people’s and others’ right to natural immunity, it’s also vital to consider the startling admission by Heidi Larson, Director of The Vaccine Confidence Project, during the recent WHO Global Vaccine Safety Summit, i.e. “…We’ve shifted the human population…to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity…We’re in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations”.[3]

This is a very alarming statement by Professor Larson, particularly with the prospect of other epidemics emerging in the future. We have to learn to deal with epidemics and illnesses as they emerge, it’s not feasible to vaccinate the global population against every threat.

In a recent article raising concern about making decisions about this pandemic without reliable data, John Ioannidis notes that “School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease”.[4] The UK’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, raised the prospect of developing natural herd immunity[5], but this idea was subsequently howled down by Matt Hancock, the UK secretary of state for health and social care[6], and others such as Willem van Schaik, a professor of microbiology and infection, as reported by the Science Media Centre.[7]

Again, is it ethical to deny children, young people and others their opportunity for natural immunity, and to plan to make them dependent on vaccine-induce immunity, to in effect make them dependent on the vaccine industry?

This is even more serious to consider in light of emerging vaccine product failures, e.g. pertussis and mumps.

The international community must be assured that independent and objective thinkers are carefully considering the way ahead on this matter.

[References SUPPLIED]

Competing interests: No competing interests

25 March 2020

Elizabeth M Hart

Source

Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)