Health bureaucrats are just making it up as they go along
This line of questioning has probably been the most damming to date. Brendan Murphy was the Chief Health officer when the vaccines were approved. (He is now the Secretary of Health and Paul Kelly is the Chief Health Officer.) About half way through the clip Murphy admits he never read the TGA Non-Clinical report on […]
1. Regarding wind turbines, are there standards to ensure that the epoxy used will have a UV filter to stop the epoxy breaking down and allowing bisphenol A to run off into the environment?
Question Number: 224 PDR Number: SQ22-000283 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 1. The Australian Government is committed to a sustainable offshore wind industry with strong social licence for its operation and benefits to the community. It is important that this new Australian industry reduces emissions […]
1. Can the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water provide a comprehensive roadmap of the work required for Australia to meet a 43% reduction in CO2 by 2030. This roadmap should set out the length of transmission lines, the number of transmission towers, the number of solar panels (for a give wattage), the number of wind turbines (for a given wattage), the number of batteries (for a given storage), the amount of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel, concrete, and steel etc. needed to build the aforesaid generators and storage. It will need to include the amount of land needed for solar, wind, transmission and storage products, and the biodiversity offsets. Could the amount of CO2 required to build, recycle, or dispose of the aforementioned items also be included? Likewise, could the cost of building, recycling, and disposing of the aforementioned items also be clearly outlined? Biodiversity impacts such as increased tyre wear due to heavier batteries in cars, increased breaking distance on roadkill, impact on bats and birds from transmission lines and wind turbines, and removal of native flora and fauna due to land use should also be clearly outlined. 2. If the Department cannot provide, can it state which department is responsible for maintaining and tracking the roadmap and refer the question onto them?
Question Number: 223 PDR Number: SQ22-000282 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 1. The Australian Government’s Powering Australia plan sets out how it will support and drive change across all sectors of the economy to meet its 2030 target of a 43 per cent reduction in […]
1. What research is the CSIRO undertaking in regard to using mosquitoes as a way to spread vectors? 2. Referring to this NASA energy diagram http://climateimages.homestead.com/nasa-2.jpg we see a claim that greenhouse gases (GHG) send 324 w/sqm downwards but there is only a total of 165 + 30 = 195 w/sqm going from the atmosphere and clouds upwards to Space. Does the CSIRO agree that the GHG molecules somehow “know” to radiate more downwards than upwards? How does it explain these figures in that NASA energy diagram? 3. The same diagram shows a total of 168 + 324 = 492 w/sqm coming out of the base of the atmosphere and into the surface, whereas the solar radiation that enters the atmosphere after some is reflected back to Space is only 342 – 77 = 265 w/sqm, so how is that 265 somehow increased to 492 w/sqm by the atmosphere as is implied? 4. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law calculator at https://coolgyan.org/calculators/stefanboltzmann-law-calculator and entering 1 for emissivity (because reflection by the surface has been deducted) and 168 w/sqm does the CSIRO agree that we get a temperature of about 233.3K (about -40C) for what the Solar radiation could achieve on its own? 5. Using the same calculator, does the CSIRO agree that 342 w/sqm is what would be emitted by a blackbody at about 278.7K (about 5.5C)? 6. Does the CSIRO agree that water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane each only radiate in a few frequencies whereas a blackbody radiates a full spectrum of frequencies? 7. Considering all questions above, is it likely that GHG spread out over the height of the troposphere would radiate as much to the surface as a blackbody at an altitude of only about 1.5Km where the average temperature would be about 278.7K? 8. A climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once admitted that the 324 back radiation figure was not a measurement but merely calculated so that all figures balance. Has the CSIRO any contrary information as to how it was either measured or calculated, noting the fact that it implies that the atmosphere generates energy? 9. Referring to the calculations in the note below the NASA diagram, does the CSIRO agree, using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculator, that the net 390 w/sqm is the (uniform) radiation from a blackbody that would achieve a temperature of about 288.0K namely just under 15C as the global mean surface temperature? 10. Can the CSIRO produce any documentation or experiments that confirm that the StefanBoltzmann Law can be used for the arithmetic sum of radiative fluxes from different sources, such as is implied it can be in the NASA diagram. Does it have any such proof that it can be used and give correct temperatures for such a sum of atmospheric and solar radiation less nonradiative surface cooling? 11. In light of responses to all the above, does the CSIRO agree that the NASA diagram does not represent reality and the surface temperature cannot be quantified with such radiation calculations as are implied (and no doubt used in computer models) by that NASA diagram? 12. In the 1870’s a physicist named Josef Loschmidt explained that gravity forms a temperature gradient in solids, liquids, and gases. Do you agree that Loschmidt was correct? 13. Climatologist Dr Roy Spencer once stated “that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect.” This is in accord with the “explanation” once appearing on the IPCC website that the solar radiation achieves a temperature of 255K at the “radiating altitude” and that GHG radiation then raises the surface temperature (from what it would have been if the troposphere were isothermal, namely 255K) by 33 degrees to 288K, this being the global mean surface temperature. That would mean that water vapour (the main GHG) does most of those 33 degrees and thus increases the magnitude of the temperature gradient. But it is well known that water vapour reduces the magnitude of the temperature gradient (AKA “lapse rate”) so how do scientists explain this contradiction? 14. It may be shown that the temperature gradient in all planetary tropospheres is a function of the quotient of the acceleration due to the planet’s gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the gases. This is accurately the case for the planet Uranus where Voyager II made measurements. Yet the base of the 350Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus is estimated to be 320K – hotter than Earth’s mean surface temperature, even though the Solar radiation can achieve only about 53K at the top of that troposphere. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Troposphere) There is no compelling evidence of net cooling of Uranus and there is no Solar radiation reaching the base of that troposphere and nor any solid surface there, so how do scientists explain the necessary heat input to support such a temperature? 15. Climate change theory appears to explain quite cogently that the “science” upon which it is assumed that carbon dioxide and methane could warm the planet is based on a false supposed application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in that (as implied in climatology energy diagrams) it depends upon the false assumption that radiation from these gases in cool regions of the atmosphere could cause heat transfer into the warmer surface. Why does the CSIRO not believe in the second law of thermodynamics? 16. Albert Einstein in his 1917 paper on the Quantum Theory of Radiation states the radiation is so insignificant as compared with other heat transfers that it drops out. Does the CSIRO believe Albert Einstein is wrong? 17. Won’t convection naturally offset any insignificant impact of radiation as a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics?
Question Number: 104 PDR Number: BI-70 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 1. CSIRO researchers are developing new and novel ways to understand mosquitoes and how they spread viruses by: Use of genomic sequencing to investigate population movements, – Develop novel technologies to improve surveillance of mosquito-borne diseases, […]
213.Does the AMA have to disclose their conflict of interests, such as payments from pharmaceutical companies or the fact their doctors get paid to administer vaccines, when they promote vaccines – if not, why not?
Question Number: 302 PDR Number: SQ22-000678 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Department of Health Currently Unanswered – TBA
248.Is it mandatory for TGA staff to be vaccinated? 283.Are performance bonuses paid on the rollout of the vaccine to any staff in the Health Department? Can the employment contracts of Head of TGA, the Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Health Department please be provided?
Question Number: 263PDR Number: SQ22-000634Date Submitted: 21/11/2022Department or Body: Department of Health Currently Unanswered – TBA
128.What is the health department doing about misinformation being spread by Premiers such ”the virus will hunt down the unvaccinated” and ”Queensland hospitals are for Queensland people and NSW hospitals are for their people.”
Question Number: 236 PDR Number: SQ22-000606 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Department of Health Currently Unanswered – TBA
1.Is the National Blood Authority able to test for Covid antibodies found in stored samples from the second half of 2019? 2.Does the National Blood Authority keep blood samples from the second half of 2019? 3.How much would it cost for the blood bank to test for Covid antibodies from the period? 4.Professor Murphy said in estimates that there were no spike proteins in the blood. Yet Professor Skerrit said in an earlier round of estimates the spike proteins travel throughout the circulation. Given the confusion between two leaders in the Health Department what confidence can people have that there are absolutely no spike proteins in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross? 5.What confidence can people have that there is absolutely no cationic lipids in the blood when it is donated to the Red Cross three days after receiving a Covid vaccine? It is noted that lipids were still increasing in the body organs of rats after two days. 6.What evidence/studies are there that the covid-19 ‘vaccine’ or part there-of, does not transfer from donor blood to the blood transfusion recipient via the transfusion and in the event it does, that there is no short- or long-term risks of any adverse events/ reactions related to the Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ to the recipient (which have been seen in thousands of ‘vaccinated’ individuals globally.) 7.Is the National Blood Authority familiar with the TGA non-clinical review and other studies that have shown that lipids and spike proteins stay in the body much longer than 3 days? If not, why are they confident there are no spike proteins in the blood 3 days after receiving a Covid vaccine? 8.What measures does the Red Cross/CSL take to ensure that all spike proteins and lipids from the Covid-19 vaccine are removed from the blood? 9.Can people elect to donate blood in advance to store for later use and if so, could the necessary steps please be outline?
Question Number: 147 PDR Number: SQ22-000511 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: National Blood Authority Currently Unanswered – TBA
Why are the scheme administrators taking the word of the sponsors as to what the side effects are as opposed to specialists who have far greater knowledge of the patient and field of medicine?
Question Number: 469 PDR Number: SA SQ22-000194 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Services Australia Services Australia (the Agency) administers the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme on behalf of the Department of Health and Aged Care, which has policy responsibility. The Agency assesses claims in accordance with the published Scheme Policy.
How many claims were backed up by medical specialists claiming the applicant was injured by the Covid vaccine only to be overruled by indemnity scheme administrators?
Question Number: 467 PDR Number: SA SQ22-000192 Date Submitted: 21/11/2022 Department or Body: Services Australia As at 16 November 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme (the Scheme) has deemed 213 claims not payable. A claimant will be deemed not payable if they have not met all of the eligibility requirements.
