My second letter to Tanya Davis MP:

Dear Tanya,

I have contacted several regulatory agencies (SIRA, Australian Government Department of Health, Mr Gavrielatos at SafeWork NSW, Australian Medical Association, and Safe Work Australia) with two, very basic, ethically and legally relevant questions about a possible conflict between Covid-19 vaccine mandates and workplace safety. I have received only generic responses; not one agency or person contacted has explicitly answered my two questions, which were formulated as follows:

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

I find it extremely concerning that all the agencies responsible for workplace safety and health of Australian people are tacitly refusing to answer such fundamental and legally critical questions about workplace safety. Would you be willing to apply some pressure to get these questions explicitly addressed to by the Commonwealth government?

Can you assist?

Today I received another generic (NON)response from Safe Work Australia to my two above questions. I sent the following reply:

Thank you for the response.

You did not answer my two basic questions regarding the impact of a known vaccination side effect (death) on workplace safety. Are you not allowed to do so? Could you please clarify why these questions are not being answered?

Privacy, anonymity and secrecy protect us from the wrongdoings of others, but these also limits the scope of social participation, so it is up to us to determine the right balance of these variables.

An article that may be useful for people wishing to write a submission relevant to the proposed Digital ID legislation: https://privacy.org.au/policies/biometrics/

Aspirin shown to reduce Covid related hospital admissions and deaths by half, according to study: https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2021/04000/Aspirin_Use_Is_Associated_With_Decreased.2.aspx

COVID19 Deaths and Survival. Innate Health vs Pharmaceutical Intervention

Having lost all material support does not mean you have nothing to fight for. Rather, you have nothing to lose and everything to win. You are now fearless.

Reasonable excuses not to comply with vaccine mandates:

1) Vaccine mandates discriminate against our healthy, innate biological characteristics, and are therefore unethical.
2) Vaccine mandates violate the right to life by arbitrarily killing a small percentage of the population for the benefit of others, and are therefore unethical.
3) Vaccine mandates are contrary to the principle of free, uncoerced medical consent, and are therefore unethical.

Unethical law is not law.

I advice every Normal person to assume that Every public figure that appears to agree with you and vows to serve your interest is either a Fake or Controlled Opposition, until proven otherwise. The standard of proof should be severe, and the process of scrutiny permanent. I want you to apply the same level of evidential scrutiny to me and this channel. We live in times of Zero trust. Do not be deceived.

Do you ever wonder why no registered lawyer will use this argument?

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

Because the primary (sworn) function of lawyers is to protected the SYSTEM; every lawyer swears to act as an officer of the court. Only you are free to make certain legal arguments.

How would I argue against vaccine mandates in the court of law:

1) The Parliament does not possess the constitutional authority to infringe on citizen freedoms without first passing a law to that effect by a majority vote in both Houses of Parliament. A non-existent authority cannot be delegated. The delegation of emergency CHO powers to limit citizen freedoms at the Government’s discretion is legally void. Victorian residents can also sign a petition to correct this legal error: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/council/petitions/electronic-petitions/view-e-petitions/details/12/374

2) Vaccine mandates discriminate on the basis of healthy, innate, biological characterists of the human race, a protected category, in favour of biotechnologically augmented (transhuman) sub-species. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

3) Vaccine mandates violate the right to life by requiring certain classes of people to participate in an activity where some percentage of those people are expected to die as a result of their mandated participation.

4) Medical consent must be free - un-coerced - in order to be valid. Any discrimination against the unvaccinated is economic or social opportunity coercion, precluding the possibility of valid medical consent.

This is to provide you with an update on the progress of your recent petition on the following terms.

Petition number: EN2939
Date submitted: 14/07/2021
Number of signatures: 24608

Reason: Since death is a possible side effect of vaccines, mandatory vaccination amounts to mandatory human sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. Forcing people to play a death-lottery (or they will lose their job or can’t travel) is barbaric. In legal terms, vaccine mandates violate the right to life by arbitrarily killing a minority for the benefit of the majority. Vaccine mandates also imply that all children are born in a defective, inherently harmful state that must be technologically augmented to allow their unrestricted participation in society, and this constitutes discrimination on the basis of healthy, innate characteristics of the human race.

Request: We therefore ask the House to prohibit mandatory vaccination and any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status.

The petition was considered at a recent meeting of the Committee, and certified as meeting the requirements for petitions. It was presented to the House on 18/10/2021 and has recently been referred to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Under the petition requirements, Ministers have 90 days from presentation in the House to respond to a petition.

Thank you for your interest and involvement in petitioning the House of Representatives. We will let you know if there are any updates to your petition.
Yours sincerely

Secretariat
Petitions Committee

I had first dose unwillingly last week - don’t need to go into the why again, however I thought it interesting:
It was clearly noted on my electronic form that I did not consent willingly, rather under duress, due to threat of employment status. The nurse read it and said is that correct? I said yes, I don’t want to do this but am forced. She got another RN to ‘witness’. I don’t know what she witnessed other than me distressed and teary. My comment was documented on form. The second RN then left and nurse lifted a piece of foil off an IV tray to reveal pre-drawn (not pre-filled) insulin needle with a tiny white printed tag and injected. She was quite kind and I didn’t want to make a big scene but I did say I’m confused about a few things. She asked what. I said:
You just proceeded with a procedure that I clearly stated and documented I was under duress to do so my consent is invalid and technically you’ve acted illegally per the law and NSW Nursing code of ethics and standards. Secondly, I’ve asked for the product info and you’ve given me an information sheet when I’m entitled to the manufacturer safety data sheet from from the vial or box that provides ALL information required for informed consent. Thirdly, since when is it best practice or permitted to pre-draw a drug and have pre-prepared in a tray without even the vial? It could be nuclear waste for all I know and you didn’t even look at the syringe or show me or anyone else before you administered it. I technically don’t know what you just injected. I think these are things you might want to reflect on. She did look a bit troubled. Then I stayed a timed 5 minutes only before allowed to leave. I think an anaphylaxis or vasovagal driving myself home would have been so safe. 🥴

Vaccine mandates discriminate on the basis of healthy, innate, biological characterists of the human race, a protected category, in favour of biotechnologically augmented (transhuman) sub-species. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/03/01/discrimination-on-the-basis-of-vaccination-status-is-inherently-wrong/

The earth’s resources are a cost for the majority and a profit for the ultra-rich minority (the de facto owners of resources). Sustainability is a means of ideologically leveraging the cost and thus increasing the associated profits. There is no net advantage to preservation of non-renewable resources over total exploitation and substitution, but the reduced rate of exploitation under the guise of sustainability (“saving the Earth”) favours the ultra-rich while holding the consumers in a state of permanent moral blackmail in order to reliably extract the artificially inflated costs.

Face masks are psychologically damaging even to those who are not themselves wearing one. I have discussed the underlying phenomenological mechanism here: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3840787