STERN REMINDER OF POTENTIAL NEW TRIALS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

ALARM BELLS NOT RINGING AS FIRST HALF 2021 SEES 1 COVID DEATH AND 210 VACCINE SUSPECTED DEATHS

ALARMED. 

Between January 1 this year and 29 May 2021, Australia, according to the  World Map of Vaccinations has fully (not just the1st shot) vaccinated 492,846 people. * See second photo under article.

It is not clear if the reported deaths are of this section or the entire fully and partially vaccinated sections. It is urgent to clarify this as information indicating it was the fully vaccinated group is no longer available on the Web. We will follow on with the assumption that these reported deaths are of the fully vaccinated section of vaccine recipients.

If it is just the fully vaccinated section then, of the 210 reported on the Australian Therapeutic Goods (TGA) website as having died (see under 6th heading in link) after the Covid-19 vaccination, then this is a 04% death rate.  However, only one of those reported "adverse results" has been accepted as directly related to the vaccination by the TGA.

In the same period where 210 are reported to have died after the vaccine, there has been just 1 reported Covid-19 death.
 

The highest figures given for the lethality rate of the reported Covid-19 deaths last year is .4%. Hence this would be ten times more lethal than the fully vaccinated death rate, if indeed those deaths were related.

This may not alarm some enthusiastic vaccine supporters but if it were true that all 210 deaths were related to the full vaccination, one would ask whether it is acceptable that the lethality rate of the virus is only 10 times that of the vaccine which is supposed to prevent it?

Remember in 2020 Covid-19 deaths were reported despite many reports of the deceased having pre-existing conditions. In what seems as a reversal of this practice when it comes to suspected vaccine deaths, they are disputed to the point of blaming pre-existing conditions as responsible for the deaths and not the vaccine.

If we apply the "rules" of 2020 to the fully vaccinated suspected deaths, the ratio according to the TGA figures would be 10,000 to 1, perhaps some would say it’s worth taking the risk.

But this is not all. The virus reportedly will only kill approximately 4 in a 1000 of those who fall ill with it.

However, the Government wants the entire population to be vaccinated. Based on these figures, if 24 million Australians get fully vaccinated, then 9600 will die.

As for adverse reactions, according to government figures as at May 23, and perhaps many are not reported or acknowledged for what they are, the percentage is 4.47 (22,031) of those fully vaccinated. This doesn’t account for possible long term serious affects, disablement and possible deaths later on.

 

 

* Note: The 3.6 million doses does not refer to the fully vaccinated.


As you can see below only one Covid-19 death is recorded this year for Australia

https://www.health.gov.au/resources/collections/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-infographic-collection?fbclid=IwAR2UGiSZI2WN3JspqqePYuNIk8pMbEhkeeLHcU6PdgQrmadeC6DHXoxmeAI

 

* Updated January 1, 2021.

updated 28 May, 2021

SEEKING REAL DEMOCRACY; Debunking the Two-Party System. Susan and Iman Safi 29 May 2021

SEEKING REAL DEMOCRACY; Debunking the Two-Party System.  Susan and Iman Safi 29 May 2021

One wonders whether Australians realise that the Constitution does not stipulate that a political party must win the majority of seats in the Lower House in order to form Government. This is a fallacy created by the major parties, not only in Australia, but in all other democracies. The political parties won’t disclose this fact as they are equal partners in crime, feathering their own and each other’s caps.

Whilst this is a global problem, Australia can pave the way in restoring true democratic processes and turn these undemocratic practices on their head.

By their own definition, these political parties give the impression that a hung parliament is a disaster.

Some voters will not vote for either party, no matter what. 

 

Some are indeed loyal, and they will consistently vote for one party regardless of any other considerations. But these are not the ones who make or break governments.

 

Another section of voters are those who swing between the two major parties, and election campaigns of the major parties try to swing them to their favour.

 

Then there is another group of voters who argue that they can see little difference between the major parties and that they are dissatisfied with both. The election campaigns focus also on this group to present to them arguments that allege that there are fundamental differences between those major parties. However, when dissecting and analyzing those claimed differences, one can clearly see that they are marginal. The parties often split hairs and argue about trivial matters when in fact both are almost identical at the core.

 

They both have the same stand on COVID and its management policies.

 

They are both supporting the so-called ‘new normal’ and all that comes with it, all the way from diluting family values to gender confusion, taking political correctness to ever increasing, often bizarre extremes and many additional ‘new normals’ that erode commonly held values and beliefs based on morality, trust and altruism.

 

They both support the Great Reset.

 

They have identical foreign policies.

 

Neither possess the sophistication required to deal with China; acting tough on one hand and pleading for good trade relationships on the other.

 

They both squander public funds, right left and centre, giving little importance to building national infrastructure which strengthens our country, politically, economically, strategically and security -wise.

 

Both, despite one claiming to have a coalition member that is rural based, ignore rural Australia, our national backbone, giving scant regard for serious and meaningful policies or a commitment to a robust agricultural sector which also provides food security, let alone national security. Both parties show a gulf of ignorance when it comes to understanding the need to develop initiatives to make rural life attractive and dynamic again.

 

This duopoly demonstrates little, if any interest in supporting local industries and generating conditions for producing far more goods locally. As a result, Australia has lost most of its industrial base and become highly dependent on imports, not befitting of a nation considered as ‘developed’, and posing as a security risk at all levels.

 

Both sell-out to any stands or commitments made should they ‘need’ to pander to the Greens, even if those policies go against their purported values and even if they are destructive to the interests of the nation. 

 

Despite the scientific community being divided over the nature of ‘climate change’, and the actual problems and solutions, both parties sing from the same hymn book and stifle any intellectually rigorous debate. Most importantly, both parties care about one thing and only one thing; getting elected and re-elected with the national interest sidelined or even betrayed. 

 

The above examples just touch on some of the congruencies of a political culture that presents itself as offering alternatives but really are in bed together and concerned only for the few.

It is clear from the above, that a vote for either the Coalition or the ALP will not change any of the above bipartisan policies. So, if Australians want change, they must keep in mind that a vote for a major party is a wasted vote.

 

When Don Chipp established the Australian Democrats as a third party, his objective/slogan was to ‘keep the bastards honest’. After the Greens hijacked his voter-base, together with bad management issues within the Democrats’ leadership, resulting in the party’s demise, the Greens became the third political force and often the holders of the balance of power. However, instead of the Greens adhering to the values of keeping government accountable, the reverse is occurring, and one can say that in many cases The Greens are keeping the bastards dishonest.

 

Returning to the subject of hung Parliaments; a hung Parliament is in fact a great democratic win for the people. It is a manifestation that screams of the voter-base being dissatisfied with both parties. It is indeed a disaster, but only for the self-appointed custodians of duopoly; the two major parties. 

 

Recently, we have seen many election wins based on a one seat majority. It is a travesty of justice to see that the actual will of the majority, if this is what democracy is all about, is decided by one seat; especially if this seat was won by a few preferential votes.

 

It is time to turn the tables around; and not only on the Coalition and the ALP and deliver them hung Parliaments. It is time to turn the tables around on the Greens as well. Why should they be allowed to continue to hold the balance of power in their deceptive dance with the big powers. We should prevent both major parties from getting more than 50% majority, hence ending their game and scam.

 

The major political parties have created a loophole in the Western system of democracy, and it is a farce and a tragedy. It results in a fair percentage of decent, level-headed Australians from all walks of life, left dis-empowered, unrepresented and disenfranchised in a rotten political system. 

 

Australians deserve proper representation in Parliament. The silent majority need to speak out, be heard, and have their vote count in a meaningful way and not vote half-heartedly on the basis of giving No.1 on the ballot paper to the party that is least harmful.

THE UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THE m-RNA COVID ‘VACCINES’ By Iman Safi 23 February 2021

THE UNTOLD STORY ABOUT THE m-RNA COVID ‘VACCINES’   
By Iman Safi 23 February 2021

People are not told the complete story about the m-RNA COVID vaccines, so let us start with the basics. The DNA of higher forms of life comes in huge clusters called chromosomes. Each individual has duplicate chromosomes; maternal and paternal. Humans have 23 pairs. Each cell carries in its nucleus the same DNA that is half maternal and half paternal.

Now here is the thing. It is the DNA that produces the different types of RNA, with messenger-RNA (m-RNA) being one of them. But it is the m-RNA what provides the code for protein synthesis, a process that produces proteins that are specific to each and every individual, and it is the m-RNA that is of most prominence in deciding what the body does.

It seems that the greatest fear concerning the COVID-19 vaccines stems from the belief that they are capable of changing our DNA. To genetically change a ‘being’ in a specific manner however, one would have to change the DNA structure inside the nucleus of each and every cell. This is a virtual impossibility given the huge number of body cells. Normally animal and plant breeders do this change ‘in advance’ as it were, by changing the DNA in the sperm/egg/flower that are going to produce this ‘being’.

This is why, in the world of genetics, the egg comes before the chicken.

If you change the egg, the change will be transmitted hereditarily.

Early immunologists realized that our bodies have the ability of fighting off certain diseases if we have been struck with them before. This is what immunity means. They used this knowledge to produce substances that can mimic previous disease incidents in order to help us produce immunity to serious diseases that we have not had before.  

Vaccines were therefore developed to ‘instruct’ the body to produce its own defense systems by injecting it with a weakened form of the disease that the body can defeat by producing anti-bodies specifically designed to fight it. So, if/when the real disease attacks, the body would have its defense mechanism already in place.

Early immunologists used large animals like horses to inject the weakened disease with, and then extracted the plasma of their blood to produce the vaccine. This was definitely a procedure that involved huge risks, but the risks were outweighed by the benefits the vaccines generated. Large animals were chosen because they are able to produce larger amounts of plasma, no doubt this was animal cruelty.

The m-RNA COVID-19 ‘vaccine(s)’ are different because they are not based on instructing the body how to build up its own defense system. They are a short-cut process, based on injecting our systems with synthetically-produced m-RNA that is meant to generate the antibody (protein) that will fight the virus. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Technically-speaking therefore, an m-RNA-based vaccine is not a vaccine by definition. It can even rightfully be argued that it is an experimental technique.

Normally, m-RNA is broken down after its use by a group of enzymes, known as an RNA-ase, soon after it has accomplished its mission of protein synthesis. But according to Dr. Mikovits, the synthetic m-RNA in the m-RNA ‘vaccines’ is protected by blocking the action of the RNA-ase. If true, this means that once injected into the system, Dr. Mikovits argues that it could stay for years. On one hand, the m-RNA in the vaccine needs to be protected so it doesn’t breakdown before it accomplishes its mission, but its longevity seems to be unknown. Such protection against breakdown would be within the synthetic m-RNA code; and not something that has to be disclosed in the list of constituents of the vaccines as regulatory requirements stipulate.

Dr. Mikovits is a pioneer in the world of virology and microbiology. She has had serious legal battles with Dr. Fauci, ending up in jail and with a gag order that expired in 2020. She alleges that she was the subject of a fabricated witch hunt, but no matter what opinions exist about Dr. Mikovits, the issue at hand here is the science she is presenting.

In this interview she is warning against the dangers of the vaccines.

The interview has been checked by medical doctors and virologists known to me and they concur that her warnings are true and legitimate.

There are publications that assert that research into stabilizing synthetic m-RNA has been around for quite some time. Two Polish scientists patented the technique back in 2008.  ‘The patented invention enables delivery of modified mRNA that can withstand the human body's enzymes. The more stable mRNA is five times more effective and lasts three times longer within a cell than naturally occurring mRNA molecules.’  Dr. Mikovits therefore is not talking about some future science fiction, if anything, the technique would be much improved by now and possibly giving the synthetic m-RNA greater longevity.

The technology of encoding a synthetic m-RNA in a manner that makes it resistant to the body’s own m-RNA-ases, the enzymes designed to break it down, are already in existence. It would be hard to imagine that manufacturers of the m-RNA ‘vaccines’ did not use this technology to make their products more effective.

Furthermore, in a paper published by Dr. J. Bart Classen in ‘Microbiology & Infectious Diseases’ in Jan 2021, , Dr. Classen concludes in his abstract that his own findings lead him ‘to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA based vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 was premature and that the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit’.

Last but not least, a newsletter published by the University of Rochester in December 2020 implies that m-RNA stability can be encoded in a synthetically-produced m-RNA to ensure higher level of efficacy if/when used in treating certain medical conditions.  

So whilst the American CDC is assuring the public that the m-RNA in the ‘vaccines’ will not enter the nucleus of cells and change the DNA, and whilst this is true, the CDC ignores the fact that if the m-RNA remains floating inside the cytoplasm (the bigger portion of the cell outside the nucleus), then this actually mimics a DNA change in its outcome.

This alone is potentially dangerous in any given situation. But if the m-RNA in the ‘vaccine’ has other unknown effects on the human body, then this becomes a very serious matter, one that can cause a myriad of health problems to people, especially those with compromised immune systems, propensity to some diseases, and as well existing conditions including, but not restricted to, non-active viral infections.

Furthermore, even though the m-RNA in the ‘vaccines’ has no impact on the DNA in the nucleus as proclaimed by the CDC and mentioned above, its presence in the cytoplasm's of cells, including reproductive cells (i.e., sperms and eggs), stipulates that it can be passed on to the offspring in what is known as cytoplasmic inheritance.  This is only a scientific assumption, but one that needs to be verified either way for safety.

But, above all, the vaccines' effectiveness is questionable, and we do not know their adverse long-term side effects. Last but not least, there are no guarantees that taking them will prevent an infected person from passing it on to others.

To say then that the concept of m-RNA ‘vaccines’ is at best experimental, is not an overstatement.