Next we welcome Mr. Julian Gillespie. He's a retired lawyer and former barrister who has come out of retirement to fight the legal battle against the COVID vaccination. He believes that the Australian people have not been given accurate information around COVID deaths and deaths from the COVID vaccinations. He is currently managing proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia related to Australian vaccination risks network incorporated versus Secretary Department of Health. Thank you very much for appearing today. MR. GILLESPIE. And over to you.
Thank you very much for having me on today, gentlemen. So let's go to the first topic. I'll just briefly as best I can speak to the federal court proceedings that we are involved in, we're actually in court today. So I stepped out of out of the hearing to join, join you here. Now what we're doing there's two cases, one quarterman writ of mandamus. The other one is called the chart childrens decision. The writ of mandamus is essentially getting the court to recognize that the Secretary of Health is under an obligation to suspend or cancel any drug where issues of efficacy or safety become fear. We've got a situation with these COVID-19 vaccines were historically vaccines in this country between the ages of 1971 up to nine to the 2020 average to 2.4 deaths per annum. As of today's date, we have reported to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, adverse event database, as many as 800 deaths as a consequence of these vaccines. So we've got 2.4 deaths historically per year. Now, in the last 12 months, we've got 800. And we haven't had the secretary step in and even begin to question whether or not these vaccines are safe and indeed effective. The obligations under the TGA X Therapeutic Goods Administration Act are quite clear. The Secretary up until these vaccines were rolled out had a very good and strong history of canceling drugs of all sorts and nature, even if they are suspected that they might inadvertently give somebody the sniffles. But what we've got now are over 110,000 adverse event reports with respect to these vaccines, as I mentioned, 800 reported deaths, many of those 110,000 will involve indeed do involve people suffering serious injuries from disabilities, blindness, hearing loss. So there are clearly some responsibilities that the secretary of health needs to be reminded about. And that's why we are in the federal court. So that's the first limb of our evidence is the unprecedented injuries and deaths that we are witnessing across the community. The other point is the Department of Health and indeed every other regulator around the world, had a short and continues to restore the public's perspective, public's that these vaccines could not and would not interfere with the nucleolus of cells. With respect to the recipients. The method of action is meant as much to delivery is meant to go into the cytoplasm, which is external to the nucleus, produce a version and type of inactivated version of the spike protein. And besides code to virus, which which induced spike protein was then meant to go and launch in the membrane of the cell, what we have discovered is that these spike proteins r&d, infiltrating the nucleolus, where they are now inhibiting DNA damage repair, the upshot of that and it needs further investigation is, wherever the DNA damage repair is retarded, you have got the precursors for any form of cancer that you wish to name. The other peer reviewed report that came in, I think about three weeks ago now is that the mRNA that is contained within these vaccines is also entering the nucleolus of the recipients cell and it is interfering in measurable form with the DNA, where we have got what is occurring is known as reverse transcription. In other words, the coding of the mRNA within these vaccines, has been encoded onto the DNA within recipient cells and it is causing disruption to a number of chemical activities, typical chemical activities. One of those involves the protein production of protein line one, when you disrupt line one, you lose embryos within females. The other disruption to line one again is another precursor on any cancer that you wish to name. Now, when these provisional approvals in this country have passed through every other drug in the history of Australia Medicine has gone through vaccine
approvals has had to have genotoxicity testing occur to make sure that they don't muck around with our genes. Or they also have to undergo carcinogenicity tests. In other words, that they won't cause cancers. None of those tests were performed with respect to these COVID vaccines, it was blown off the TGA just took it for script from Pfizer, Maderna and AstraZeneca, that it should not be a problem. So this is the first time in the history of drug regulation in this country. That's the TGA did not bother to look at these critical fundamental attributes of the drug. So now this is we have a situate, can I
just interrupt George Christensen, this is an important point, it's want to make sure that we've got this right. Your information is that every other drug and vaccine in this country that has gone through the TGA has been tested for those two safety elements. But this vaccine hasn't.
Yeah, I'll pull that back a little bit. There was there was guidance provided by the World Health Organization back in the late 90s. And as it pertained to what we know as protein based vaccines, they are just such a standard rollout. Where it was just recognized that there was there was such a degree of safety and involved in the continued sort of updating of those from one year to the next. Because the base ingredients were effectively the same from one year to the next though just changing the attenuated protein of the of the virus now going after that, there would have been years of study that went into them and said, they dispense with genotoxicity with respect to some drugs, because there have been decades of research performed into the, what we're talking about with the RMA delivery system,
are essentially the same type of medicine, just with a different virus particle, I guess, inside Olive is
now completely different medicine, this new technology, and it's even regarded as gene therapy by the by the manufacturers themselves.
So are you misunderstanding me? I'm talking about protein based vaccines. The reason they probably were accepted, you know, in Globo rather than the individual protein based vaccines was, because it was essentially the same formula. Whereas Yes, the MMR vaccines are very different. So you're saying that new things like mRNA vaccines would normally under normal conditions, with the TGA be tested for genotoxicity in carcinogens basically?
Absolutely. Particularly since no mRNA technology has successfully arrived to market. In fact, every other every other attempt has resulted in disaster and clinical trials shut down every other form of mRNA drug type that's in production, we've Maderna and Pfizer still remain in clinical trials and do most of them are in phase one, animal testing trials, going through seven or eight years of tests before they can be released to the public. And most of those are for for tumor, it's very cancer, cancer treatments. So this is the first instance, that mRNA technology delivery systems with the liquid nanoparticles have been provided to the human rights. And in those circumstances, we have a radically new technology. It was incumbent upon regulators globally to look at the Geno toxicity and the the issues with respect to cancer. And none of that was done. We did find out subsequently when the Japanese were the first ones to scratched the surface here and turned around to Pfizer and said, well, we don't really trust these lipid nanoparticles the delivery system for the mRNA can you provide us with more information. Pfizer did produce that information to the Japanese regulators. And it turned out that these liquid LMP or liquid lipid nanoparticles are not staying inside of administration in the deltoid muscle of the arm, which is what all conventional protein based vaccines do. Instead, they're entering the circulatory system and depositing throughout the into various organs throughout the bodies, including the heart, the liver, the testes and the ovaries. Now, once in those sites, that means based on the two peer reviewed papers that I mentioned earlier, the spike protein and indeed the MRI At night, he's able to enter the nucleus of cells contained in the testes contained in the ovaries contained in the liver contained within the heart. And that's where the destruction starts to begin. The other aspect of these drugs, we're hearing about the sudden deaths hearing about the myocarditis pericarditis. When a cell is induced to create the spike only portion of the SARS cov to virus and then migrates to the cell membrane, our natural immune system identified as that cell containing that spike protein, and then proceeds to cause cell death. So if there is an accumulation of these mRNA vaccines in the hot for instance, well, once it starts producing inducing spike proteins to be created by heart tissue, then our immune system comes along and destroys the cells within our heart, where it's identifying the spike protein being produced, that's where we're getting the heart attacks. That's where we're getting the myocarditis, for instance, that's occurring in other organs throughout the body, including the brain. So that's why people are dying in their sleep, sudden strokes, blood clots, and so forth. So that's the really critical, enlightening medical evidence that we're presenting forward. In our case, we have put this at the feet of the secretary, indeed, two weeks ago requested that he suspend or cancel the vaccines on the basis of this critical information, he once again ignored us. The other aspect which is affecting the approvals here is the evidence has come to light indeed, evidence was placed before the FDA and the 25th of September in 2020, that the Pfizer clinical trials have been affected by fraud. The person who provided that information who is a a veteran of 20 years standing and running these particular clinical trials, who we have dealt with one to one and verified the expertise of the FDA took the information. And she wasn't five hours later that she was terminated from her employment that went
to a sealed court matter, which was filed in the District Court of the US in, I believe it was February of 2021. That had to remain under seal. In other words, the public was not allowed to know about this. Until Rob Jackson, the whistleblower, went to the British Medical Journal, delivered all her information. The BMJ is excellent investigators vetted all that information verified its bona fide ease, and published a paper on the second of November 2021 That is presumed under the pharmacovigilance duties of the TGA. To have come to the knowledge and notice of the TGA on the second of November 2021. Now any administrative decision which is going back to pure law here, any of the primary material relied upon by decision maker, if there's if prod is said to have touched him. If the decision maker does not suspend that decision and investigate immediately, well then the decision is nullified at more. So what we have is the Secretary failing to investigate if at least those allegations were bonafide a and if at least prima facie, there were substantive questions to be to be answered, both by Pfizer, and indeed the FDA who the TGA relied upon to monitor those trials. The the district court US District Court proceedings were unsealed in February of this year. So a lot of additional information was the the whistleblower was able to start speaking publicly. Her name is Brooke Jackson, Rob Jackson is now providing evidence for our federal court matter. That evidence was put in the face of the Secretary of Health one week ago, he has until tomorrow to suspend or cancel the drugs based on the fraud because of his inaction to investigate the fraud or any aspect of it. We once again expect the Secretary is going to ignore us. So that information will be put under affidavit and we'll go into the substantive hearing, which is next scheduled for the 25th of April. That's the next earliest date. And we also have additional information coming to light which we can't put in at this point in time. But it speaks to we have internal emails from the European medic Medicines Agency showing that the regulator's it's saying what do we say, I assisted and facilitated by Pfizer and Maderna. With their production production methods. Now take one example, the Pfizer clinical trial was said to have been run with a mRNA integrity of 72%. That means 72% of any vial was fully composed mRNA for delivery, as it was meant to do. That was the clinical batches that they produced. But what what they subsequently discovered after they got approval and went to commercial operations, that they could not get stability on the end mRNA integrity, indeed, the fluctuations coming out of the giant, that's where and have been and continue to vary radically, from the down to the low 50 percents to into the high 80%. In a rush to get this stuff out the door and approved, all of a sudden, the regulatory agencies the FDA, together with the EMA, together with the English equivalent, the MH Ra, all of a sudden dropped the mRNA integrity requirement to 50%. Point been, there were no clinical trials done with respect to any vaccine, which was only putting forward an mRNA integrity of 50%. So there's no safety. There's no safety data with respect to the lower mRNA integrity, and there's no efficacy data with respect to the low mRNA efficacy. Not to mention those batches that have been going out, which are way above 72%. And the data coming in is pretty clearly shown that if you're one of the unlucky recipients of a batch that was fresh off the cookout, and high with mRNA integrity. And indeed we've verified that TGA has tested in this country batches coming in and the variance has been between at 1.3%. Down to 5.7%. Huge range 55.7% Part of me
a recipient of a batch above 72% mRNA integrity is essentially getting a toxic dose. Had they used 80% mRNA toxicity in the clinical trials, we would have seen a lot of problems, they would have scaled back the actual dosage below the 30 micrograms that are currently being administered now. So we've got this cooking of these drugs going crazily all over the place. And we've never seen such instability in drugs. And then there's plenty of data to show the history of vaccine stability and integrity, going back 20 years where the variance goes very little above like a percentage above zero. But here we're getting variances of 30 or 40%. In terms of integrity. Any questions at this point?
Mr. MR. GILLESPIE, we've got about nine minutes left, eight minutes left. Are you going to cover your the failure of opera to legitimately protect informed consent?
I will quickly go over and speak to opera just to say that when opera delivered its position statement. What's that was that now on nine March 2021, that was effectively placing the jackboot on informed consent, and snuffing out that legal right within this country. And indeed, they put the object booze on the sanctity of the patient client relationship. were indeed if a medical doctor, with years of experience began to question the efficacy or indeed the safety of these drugs, by that position statement of nine March, or immediately to be referred to as an anti Vaxxer. Or an individual providing misinformation having no regard to their expertise. When quizzed about the basis for that position statement via an foi, a simply responded, we're not a Commonwealth agency, and I'm not obliged to answer your questions. I'll just draw to your attention that the National Board of APRA the agency Management Committee, is composed of two social workers, one educator, one accountant, one physio therapist, one mathematician, and three lawyers, and three lawyers. So we've got and one psychiatrist, so 90% of that board have no legal qualifications whatsoever, but still fit to tell every qualified Doctor in this country that if you don't tow the government line here, we will do the registry you suspend you or place conditions on your practice. If Africa was doing its job correctly, they would have been investigating the Secretary of the Department of Health, for the medical misinformation that his department continues to place before the public with respect to these vaccines. Now,
Could you could you just re emphasize please the point that opera is outside of the purview of the Australian Parliament, because it's been basically privatized and taken away from from being held account? Yes.
It's been a sleight of hand they are, they are a body, which was created by an intrastate agreement. So all the all the states and territories implemented the same legislation, and in unity, gave rise to the Australian health practices Regulation Authority, which is a very, very neat trick on the part of the fence. We know the federal government's behind it, because they orchestrated that legislation to be agreed to by all the states and territories in return for funding of some form or another, you'd have to go back and see what sort of promises were provided. But it places upfront pretty well. And I'm still looking into it. But beyond the reach of judicial review, for instance, so getting a court to call them into question, you'd have to do it on a state basis. And really, that's difficult. We've seen with these COVID cases brought under state basis Supreme Courts, that they generally go down and they hit the ground burning. If I could just quickly move on knowing the time probably.
Is there any legislation that a federal government could potentially introduce to basically get Apple to pull their horns in?
Nothing that I'm aware of. No, nothing that I'm aware of. It's really a state and territory based initiative, which was brought together by the federal government. The federal government wants to relies upon that fraud. And in the last body, the current executives, that the two leading parties, they've got no interest in taking that for hours. They want that per day because Efra enforces government policy, particularly if they know by a batch of vaccines, they want those vaccines
just out of control and body that is beyond the scope of the parliament,
isn't it? Isn't it worse than that, MR. GILLESPIE isn't a deliberate?
Well, indeed, we believe it is. I mean, they have no right to say what they did with their nine March 2021 position statement. They get their guiding influence from what used to be the old co ag ministers of health council. Now, that leads me on to the probably more important aspect there. Like we can't get APRA directly well, who can influence APRA? The body that influences APRA is the Australian Health Protection principle committee, the ah PPC. Now that's the star chamber, but everything that we've seen go down over 2020 and 2021. People aren't aware that the federal government was responsible for the state and territory based mandates, social distancing rules, masking rules, contact tracing, quarantining isolation rules, because it was run by the ah PPC for perspective. So, you know, we have the who has what's called the International Health Regulations created in 2005, the federal government became a treaty signatory and member to those ihr to the ihr rules in 2007. Now, whenever the who declares a public Emergency of International Concern, which is what they did, what was that in February or March last year with respect to the source code to that enlivens articles 15 through 18 of the International Health Regulations, when those articles are enlivened the who then start sending out recommendations to member countries. Those recommendations, though not obligatory, nonetheless, are meant to be very, very strong guidance towards member states of which Australia is so after that public health emergency was declared by the WHO. All the action stations were alerted within the Federal Department of Health to activate the Australian Health Protection principle committee to start dealing with the recommendations From the who. Now? Let's take a look at it. Back in 2019, we Australian federal health department, together with the states and territories, finalize the second edition of the Australian Health Management Plan for pandemic influenza get the word that pandemic August 2019. Go and look at attachment h, which is the evidence Compendium, the evidence Compendium. And the reason why they produce the second version after the original version of 2014 is that they employ teams of scientists to go and investigate the following issues, travel restrictions, quarantine funnel scans, school closures, work closures, work from home, mass gatherings, contract chasing early antiviral treatments, masks, PPE, gear, all of those particular issues, had extensive teams look at all the evidence. And in just about I think it was 90% of those instances, seeking to employ any of those measures came back from those expert panels as having minor effectiveness, that is to say, an effectiveness of somewhere between zero and 10% of producing any favorable outcome. In other words, the advice came back is that you do not do these things do not do these things. The best advice and deed was to teach people not to cough in other people's faces and to wash their hands regularly. Now, when we look back into the response by our federal government, they did I'll just go through it.
They produce the Australian in February 2020. The health department produced the Australian Health Sector emergency response plan for novel Coronavirus in brackets COVID Dash 2019. So that's February 2020. Australian Health Sector emergency response plan for novel Coronavirus. The executive summary of that document says the Australian Health Management Plan for pandemic influenza is the key nationally a great document to guide Australia's response. Christ, that's where all the science was. But once the World Health Organization declared its emergency, and then started sending recommendations to the Australian Health Protection principle committee, those recommendations contained everything which was opposite. Indeed, all the science. And each one of those recommendations had sections on what's called public health and quote, social measures. Now all of those social measures concern travel restrictions, quarantine, scanners, that whole list that I gave you before. And the World Health Organization said we have to do these things, these must be implemented now. And so that was the excuse that the ahppc use. We are receiving these recommendations from the who, what greater authority. Now I understand that the ahppc has as its head, the Chief Medical Officer of Australia, Mr. Paul Kelly, he runs that shop, and every other Chief Health Officer from each state and territory. Every determination and recommendation coming from the HP PC is a recommendation that goes up to that national cabinet, the newly formed national cabinet taking over from the old COAB body who sits at the head of the National Cabinet table, of course, Scotty Morrison. That recommendation by the ahppc to adopt these measures radically opposite the science that Australia had already invested in under our own influenza pandemic plan. Once that recommendation, recommendation was adopted and stand up from the ahppc to the national cabinet. That's where Scott Morris could say with plausible deniability. These are the best recommendations in the world. We must pursue these. I'm going to give you all the share of just over $7 billion to go and implement. quarantining lockdowns, school closures, workplace closures, Now run along. Now, we've added incentive over $7 billion offered as the carrot. That's where we saw individual states run back. Premiers run back to their states, pardon me and territories and in their own hazardous ways. start implementing as many of those items as they possibly could, even though they were co offers on the pandemic influenza plan back in August of 2019. Every single health department in every single site and territory was a current contributor, and author of that pandemic plan. They knew the science, but instead wanted to take the cash that Mr. Morrison was offering them instead. Now the ahppc is the new body who asked for answers to just so we're clear. Now when the ahppc is effectively a federal body, because its secretariat is the Ministry of Health. Its head is the chief medical officer. And it responds and advises the national cabinet. Well, we've got all the markings of a quack like a duck, does a walk like a duck. So if we need to, we can drag the ahppc into a court and get a proper federal court to say, Listen, let's let's stop with all of the tiptoeing around. Yes, the ahppc was created by an interstate agreement, one of these Sleight of hands that the federal government tries to get up, get all the states and territories to agree upon, because the federal government could not create the ahppc by insane legislation under the Constitution. But if it got all the states together, to do it, and agree upon it, then you can have its own star chamber, run its own star chamber, tell the states and territories. Listen, help us create the HP PC. We'll take after look after the secretarial functions, we'll look after the funding we needed. So we can have a coordinated national response to to any pandemic that arises. Well, what that really was, yes, a very
