No more indemnity for Big Pharma

Yesterday I spoke in favour of removing indemnity for pharmaceutical companies.

The moment you remove risk you can guarantee shortcuts will be taken. And that’s exactly what happened with Pfizer. Pfizer took shortcuts in both testing for safety and efficacy. They also lied to cover up injuries and the efficacy of the jab in stopping transmission and infection.

Governments are meant to protect people, not corporations. They need to be held to account.

Chamber Senate on 10/08/2023
Item: BILLS – Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023 – Second Reading

Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (09:57): I rise today to speak in favour of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Vaccine Indemnity) Bill 2023. I think it is way overdue and I think that it’s a real shame that this wasn’t introduced earlier, because too many people have suffered. What’s worse is that the people who have been injured by the vaccine have effectively been gaslighted and haven’t got proper compensation to help with their injuries. That we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on shutting down a country in regard to coronavirus when healthy working-age people had very little risk from the virus and yet spend nothing on these same people when they are injured from the vaccine is gross hypocrisy.

Before I get into the vaccine I actually want to talk about this side of the chamber and what the Liberal Party pretend to believe in or what we are supposed to believe in, and that is capitalism. The capitalist is someone who risks their own capital. As I have always said, I don’t believe in the free market. I am in good company there because Robert Menzies himself did not believe in the free market. He said in his ‘forgotten people’ speech that we should not go back to the ‘old and selfish notions of laissez-faire’. I have spent my whole life working in finance and I have never seen freedom as a line item on the balance sheet. There are only two outcomes in the market: you are either making money or you are losing money. The real capitalists out there are the Australians who get out of bed every day and put their noses to the grindstone. I don’t care whether you are a teacher, nurse, lawyer, doctor, engineer, scientist or small-business person; if you are out there busting your gut, you are the one risking your capital. I’ve always tended to have thought of that in terms of economics, but, unfortunately, because of this contrived crisis that was brought about by state governments who lost the plot basically, we’ve now found that people have had to risk their health because of a government mandate. That is totally wrong. I think we need to have a good look at that.

Effectively, I can tell you who isn’t a capitalist, and that’s big corporations. They’ve never been capitalist, because they’ve always hidden it under the veil of limited liability. This is another example of where big pharma—it’s the same for bureaucrats; they don’t have to be held accountable for superannuation funds. They don’t have to be accountable, because they risk other people’s capital. When you have situations where big organisations are risking other people’s capital, you need proper checks and balances. One of those things is definitely not indemnities because indemnities effectively remove the checks and balances.

The whole point of democracy is to protect the government from the people. It’s not the other way around. We are here to protect the people. We are not here to protect the big end of town. We are not here to protect corporations, the bureaucrats or big wealth funds, who own these big corporations today. The corporations are just puppets on the string now. The puppeteers and the puppet masters are actually the superannuation funds here in Australia or BlackRock and Vanguard overseas. They have these cross-interests that allow them to get away with lots of things.

The other thing that makes this indemnity particularly bad is the fact that there’s been no transparency about the contract. We have, on many occasions, tried to get the terms and conditions of the contract with Pfizer, and it hasn’t been forth coming. Yet again, one of the hallmarks of democracy is accountability and transparency, and we have not got that.

No. 1, it’s bad that we gave an indemnity without knowing the risks. No. 2, it’s even worse that we aren’t being transparent. No. 3, I don’t believe that this contract will still hold up. I was taught at university in introductory law, in the bowels of the Forgan Smith Building in Queensland university, that there are three elements to a contract. There is the offer. There is the acceptance. And there are the terms and conditions. And the terms and conditions of this particular drug were not made available to the people.

One of the things in the immunisation schedule—it’s on the internet; it’s basically an oral contract between the Australian government and the people: the Immunisation Handbook—is that people have to be fully informed about the risks of the drug before they take it. Of course, they weren’t fully informed at all. They were lied to. They were lied to by the government and they were lied to by big pharma.

You don’t need to take my word for it. Right here we’ve got the Australian public assessment report for the Pfizer vaccine. This came out, by the way, in January 2021. You can google this. It’s the Australian public assessment report. If you go to page 31, you will see what they tested this on. I’m going to read out some of the ‘missing information’ that was involved with the sale of this drug. It says, ‘Missing information: use in pregnancy and while breast feeding; use in immunocompromised patients’—I wonder why they did that!

I’ll tell you why this really matters. Last week I finally got the TGA to admit that myocarditis is an autoimmune disease. So they knew. This is the thing: a normal vaccine generates an immune response against the foreign body that’s in the vaccine. This vaccine doesn’t do that; this vaccine creates an autoimmune response via generating a T-cell response against the little peptides that are present on the cell membrane. That’s in the Pfizer FOI-289-6 report. That generates a T-cell response. That means you now get an autoimmune response against your own cells. So the pathway of this vaccine was completely different. It created an autoimmune response, yet, right here, it says they never actually tested the drug on immunocompromised patients.

Under ‘missing information’, the report also says:

Use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes—

Well, diabetes has jumped a lot in excess deaths; it’s one of the largest contributors to excess deaths, yet they never tested for diabetes.

… chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disorders)—

Hmm, is myocarditis a cardiovascular disorder? All of this was missing information, and, yet again, it’s relevant, because last week Pfizer and Moderna could not explain why their vaccine causes myocarditis. It turns out that they never actually tried to find out before they rolled this thing out. They were happy to say the vaccine was safe and effective, but they didn’t actually understand what they were selling. And, of course, we’ve got use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders. Wow!

Next there is ‘Interaction with other vaccines’ and ‘Long term safety data’. They lied. They lied, and people died. Yet these people were given an indemnity. I’ve been contacted by the mother of a child this week whose child was recognised by the TGA. She was offered $85,000. That included $15,000 for funeral costs. Her daughter was worth $70,000. That is a disgrace. That is an absolute disgrace.

Let’s go to the initial reason why this was approved. This is on page 7 of the product assessment report. It says:

COVID-19 vaccine has provisional approval for the indication below:

Active immunisation to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, in individuals 16 years of age and older …

The decision has been made on the basis of short term efficacy—

They’re not wrong about that—

and safety data. Continued approval depends on the evidence of longer term efficacy and safety …

Guess what? The TGA fully approved the Pfizer vaccine just last week. So they’re not really being held to account on what they said they would do.

Let’s talk about the so-called efficacy and the 95 per cent efficacy that Pfizer originally claimed that they provided. It turns out that was all a scam. You see, in the initial trial there were about 44,000 participants. Of the 20,000 each that they ended up measuring, 162 in the non-vaccinated group caught COVID and only eight in the vaccinated group caught COVID. That was less than 1 per cent of the trial group in either trial. That is not statistically significant. Here is what is interesting: 1,594 people were suspected but not confirmed to have COVID in the inoculation group, and 1,816 were suspected but not confirmed to have COVID in the vaccine group. They actually excluded 3½ thousand people from the efficacy trial. The reason they did was, if they included all those people, it would have reduced the relative risk reduction to 19 per cent. That was below the 50 per cent threshold necessary to get European approval for the vaccine. They engaged in deliberate—in my view—fraud.

You don’t have to take just the efficacy. Let’s talk about Maddie de Garay. She was one of the children in the children’s adolescent trial. She ended up in a wheelchair being fed through a tube. How did Pfizer describe her injury? As ‘functional abdominal pain’. This was a girl who developed gastroparesis, nausea, vomiting, erratic blood pressure, memory loss, brain fog, headaches, dizziness, fainting, seizures, verbal and motor ticks, menstrual cycle issues, lost feeling from the waist down—hence the wheelchair and lost bowel and bladder control, and she had a nasogastric tube placed because she lost her ability to eat. She was hospitalised many times and has been wheelchair bound and fed via a tube. How did Pfizer treat this victim of their own trial? They gaslighted her. They gaslighted her own injury. Shame on you, Pfizer. What an absolute disgrace. We gave these people indemnity.

That’s not all. You see, one of the things these Pfizer are claiming is, ‘It wasn’t meant to stop transmission and it wasn’t meant to stop efficacy.’ But here’s the thing. Look at their own trial data. Last week Pfizer were claiming it’s going to reduce serious illness and death. That’s not true. Their own six-month data, which was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed that adverse events related to Pfizer were 300 per cent higher in the inoculation group—that is, in the vaccine group—than in the placebo group. Any severe adverse event was 75 per cent higher in the vaccine group than in the actual placebo group, and any serious adverse event was 10 per cent higher.

So, even in Pfizer’s own six-month trial data, injuries were higher—significantly higher—in the vaccine group, yet these people still try to claim that the vaccine reduces illness. I find that very hard to believe, and you don’t have to base it just on a trial. We know that in May 2021 the number of deaths jumped by about four per cent and continued to stay that high throughout the year, so there were 172,000 deaths in 2021, all from May onwards, in the last eight months of the year, straight after the vaccine rollout. This is significant because it was before COVID was in the community. What caused it? There were almost 10,000 more deaths in 2021 than there were in 2020. Yes, 2020 saw a reduction in deaths of 2,000 from 2019, but that’s a long way short of 10,000. We had 1,300 deaths from COVID in 2021, but we had 1,000 deaths in 2020. So, out of that extra 10,000 deaths, only 300 were due to COVID.

What was the cause of all the other excess deaths, and why were those excess deaths in the states that were locked down? The highest jump was in Queensland and WA, where there was absolutely no COVID. That figure is three standard deviations from the average mean of the prior five years. That is a six-sigma event. That has a one-in-1,000 chance of happening statistically. It’s an outlier of enormous proportions. Yet these people will sit here and claim that this vaccine reduced illness and death, and that is not true.

We can’t get Pfizer’s contract, but what we can get is Pfizer’s set of financial accounts. I managed to get them yesterday. You can pay $47 from ASIC and get their financial accounts.








Click on an interest area to read articles and learn more about the work I am doing in Parliament.

Taxation, Finance & Economy


Education & Family






Health, Aged Care & Seniors


Primary Industries


Immigration & Foreign Affairs


Infrastructure, Manufacturing, Transport & Tourism




Federation Reform


I may get kicked off social media soon for speaking too much truth so please join my mailing list so we can always stay in touch...

Thank you,