The Federal Health Department is making ludicrous claims that the COVID vaccine actually lowered All cause mortality based on shoddy analysis.
At the recent excess death inquiry I challenged the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare about these claims.
Their claim is flawed for the following reasons:
• The PCR and RRAT tests aren’t reliable – primers are not disclosed and the cycle threshold test is too high.
• Comorbidities are ignored as being a cause of death.
• States didn’t record someone as being vaccinated until 21 days after they were jabbed. FOIs shows half of the reported deaths from the jab came within the first 21 days of being jabbed.
• Analysis ignored autopsy, pathology and histology reports that could have determined if the vaccine had played a part. In other words the Health Department made no attempt to determine what impact the vaccine had on deaths despite limited testing. This is just straight out negligence.
Spreadsheets are not diagnostic tools for the purposes of understanding the cause of death.
We are talking about human lives here. Families of the deceased deserve to know the real cause of death.
Who do these people think they are allowed to gaslight why these people died.
It’s just another lie in the empire of lies.
Community Affairs References Committee
13/06/2024
Excess Mortality
Senator RENNICK: I want to follow up on the remarks of my colleague Senator Canavan about not approaching this in a very scientific way. A lot of the data that we’ve been given so far is, basically, numbers on a spreadsheet, where it has been crunched by various methods. Being an accountant myself, I know that if you put garbage in you get garbage out. I come back to the COVID-19 Register, which is looking at people who were diagnosed with COVID-19. Are you testing the quality of the diagnostic tool that was used to diagnose people with COVID-19, both the PCR tests and the RAT tests? I note that 9,970,000 people were diagnosed with COVID from January 2022 through to September 2022, so most of the people who caught COVID were already vaccinated. Can these diagnostic tools distinguish whether someone had a condition because of the vaccine or because of the virus?
Ms Gates: I think I understand your question correctly. To clarify: what we have is the information that comes from the notifiable disease system, which comes from the different information systems in each of the states and territories, as to whether people were diagnosed with COVID or not. That will be one source of information that we’ll be looking at. We’ll also be looking at information as to whether they were hospitalised or in intensive care for COVID.
Senator RENNICK: So you’re just taking it on face value that, if they’re diagnosed with COVID, that’s it. When you say that you’re going to engage other external researchers, will these people be performing pathology tests and histology tests? Will they actually look at the tissue samples of the people who passed away, to look for the presence of vaccines by protein, vaccine lipids, and whether their condition was due to the codon optimisation or the transfection that the lipids caused?
Ms Gates: No, there will be no research like that.
Senator RENNICK: That’s what I mean by scientific research: that we’ve actually got someone with a biochemistry background, a pathologist or histologist, who is looking at tissue samples.
Ms Gates: No. We’ll be looking at the information that’s already been provided.
Senator RENNICK: So that will be provided via a spreadsheet or numbers in a database, rather than the actual content or the actual pathology tests or anything like that.
Ms Gates: That’s correct.
Senator RENNICK: Will you be getting autopsy reports to validate the numbers that you’ve been given on the spreadsheets?
Ms Gates: No.
Senator RENNICK: Thank you. That’s all.
