Apart from political proclamations (which I do not regard as sufficient) what is the evidence that an ‘extraordinary emergency’ was involved or that an injection with an unsafe and ineffective drug would lessen it?? An astonishing claim …
Justice Allanson said the evidence showed that vaccination "is effective in reducing rates of infection, and thus transmission" and two doses were effective in preventing serious disease.
He said it was "common knowledge" that WA had "been able, by closing its borders, to limit the spread into the community."
I intend to do a more in depth write up with comment from Ben's lawyer in about a week once everyone's had time to read the decision and digest it. This article was very BREAKING 😝 so had to get it out fast with minimal detail.
So basically until the Courts finally acknowledge the injections were never safe or effective, people are expecting to receive justice from a judiciary that believes disinformation.
I don't know about that. What are people expecting as the receipt of justice for this? Blood on their own hands or their blood on someone else's hands?
I’d say their jobs back without having to reapply for them if that’s what they actually want. Personally I wouldn’t want my job back if I was treated that way.
As well as compensation for lost earnings for the period of time they were stood down.
A surety that this coercion & punishment (because that’s exactly what this was, punishment for daring to defy Government’s edicts) would never happen again.
Yes all that would be nice and I concur about not going back to a job I was terminated from.
Blood is essential for life and many lives were damaged, lost . Today blood continued to be spilt, usually of the victims.
Your expectation of a receipt for just is indeed truly just, and fair. But can it come?
It can't because while waiting for it come, one bloodied hand continues washing the other.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
This judge appears to have no idea that registered practitioners - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - have a legal and ethical obligation to inform people about medical interventions, e.g. vaccinations, so they can make their own informed decision whether to choose to have the medical intervention or not, to give their informed CONSENT. The practitioners are obligated to obtain voluntary informed consent.
It’s not possible to CONSENT under a mandate, as there should not be pressure, coercion or manipulation.
This is such a diabolical mess, which I lay firmly at the feet of the medical profession, as well as the politicians who imposed the mandates.
The medical profession should have refused to collaborate with mandates, as this violates voluntary informed consent.
Seems the judge believes the safe & effective lie. Ergo the unethical & illegal measures are justified. How he manages to reach that conclusion is beyond me.
The ends do not justify the means.
It’s obvious to everyone thinking clearly that the judge is one of those that has complete trust in the TGA/ATAGI etc and is not willing to consider they’re not infallible.
I would be interested to know (precisely) which ‘evidence’ his honour was referring to regarding the effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’ and why he (apparently) thought boosters were unnecessary. It is also disturbing to find a judge incapable of distinguishing ‘common knowledge’ from self-congratulatory, albeit data-free, political propaganda.
I think the judges probably decided correctly based on the law. The fact that they did not order Falconer to pay costs even though the gov wanted him to suggests to me that they were sympathetic to him. But they can't override the law, and unfortunately the law in WA does not protect workers in an 'emergency'.
I suggest none of the people who have been injected have given valid voluntary informed consent.
Because the community was deliberately terrorised about a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
People were coerced, intimidated, and even MANDATED to submit to the COVID-19 vaccine products under threat of losing their jobs and participation in civil society.
I suggest the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - who injected people they knew were under duress to comply did not obtain valid consent for inserting the needle and contents.
This is the sleeper issue that is yet to emerge in the mainstream.
You don't need to suggest it, it is unequivocal Elizabeth!
The 'tested' product was Process 1, relatively clean. The mass produced product was Process 2, which contained billions of SV40 etc. DNA particles per vial (in LNP's designed to get them around the body, and into all sorts of organs and cells). The very fact that this wasn't disclosed or tested means not a single person (outside of the trials) could give informed consent...
Also consider the case of Rogers v Whitaker 1992, which underpins health practitioners' legal and ethical obligation to obtain informed consent. In this case, Maree Whitaker, a patient with an existing eye condition, consulted Christopher Rogers, an ophthalmic surgeon. This was a one on one consultation between a patient and a medical
professional with specific expertise.
Contrast this case with the millions of people who have been pressured, coerced, manipulated, and even mandated, to have a medical intervention of no benefit to them. Moreover, these individuals were compelled to present at a 'vaccination clinic' in order to be injected with a medical product, by a health practitioner who is unlikely to have specific expertise in Covid-19 or Covid-19 vaccine products.
Relatively clean but still caused any number of adverse reactions which in other pharmaceutical products would have been enough to permanently shelve these injections.
Add the protocol violations from the S3 trials including not including relevant pre data cut off data ie deaths in the “vaccinated” group for one.
These injections should never have received provisional approval.
I recall (back in 2020, I think before the ‘vaccines’ were available) a discussion regarding liability for adverse events arising from the injections. While manufacturers demanded zero liability (as a condition of supply, presumably redacted somewhere in the contracts), many doctors (and their union, the AMA) were uneasy about being responsible. I think the Australian government - under Morrison or Hunt - agreed to be responsible, letting doctors off the hook, or there would have been no injections. I don’t know how much any of that has changed now that it has become clear (at least for the two mRNA manufacturers) that the approval process was defective (eg DNA contamination, dodgy reporting, improper trials, inadequate safety follow-up, etc). Are the companies still exempt if fraud is established or does the Australian government still carry the can? I guess it probably depends on the (redacted) contracts.
You raised many pertinent questions. Julian Gillespie spoke of Fraud vitiating any waivers or exemptions from liability caused by mRNA jabs and those who administered them.
I agree but I had that thought in late 2020 while working in Insurance Claims Management.
Needed more info at the time and the lack of it made me realise that I'd be blamed for not doing something to my body on the basis of knowing the risks caused by doing something to my body wouldn't be blamed on those at fault.
Thanks Elizabeth. I think we were typing simultaneously …
It looks as if Morrison/Hunt ‘announced’ that injectors were protected from liability, when in fact they weren’t. In most versions of the English language, this would be known as a lie.
No doubt, a scheme to reduce ‘vaccine hesitancy’, and the victims are both the injectors and the injectees. While the politicians who organise all this, and their ultimate controllers in WHO, get off Scott-free (pun intended).
As Elizabeth has made clear ‘valid’ or ‘fully’ informed consent was not possible (then or now) and any doctor who knew their craft would know that.
How, pray tell? There's limited recourse available thru the traditional means of courts and at law.
How is the largest question for me to answer. Part of me is satisfied to lie dormant in waiting until the apex moment with the most potential to answer the "how" crystallizes.
There was a massive cover up in the early stages of Australia's vax rollout when previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy.
Guild insurance likely copped a few multi-million dollar medical malpractice lawsuits after their policy holders (Pharmacy Guild of Australia) assumed they would be covered for any personal injury or bodily harm arising out of their SARS-CoV 2 vaccination activities at work.
Interestingly, I saw my first COVID-19 and SARS-CoV 2 vaccine exclusion endorsed onto Management Liability terms earlier this year. The purpose behind adding this exclusion was to write-back any potential claim being covered when it was caused in a scenario like with the Pharmacy Guild
Re “previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy”.
My point is none of the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - were qualified to administer this medical intervention, as none were experts in ‘Covid’ or the vaccine products, they weren’t qualified to obtain informed consent, which isn’t possible under mandates anyway.
We had the bizarre situation where mass populations were being ordered to front up for vaccinations, regardless of their individual risk of disease, and to submit to the injections.
My point is none of the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - were qualified to administer this medical intervention, as none were experts in ‘Covid’ or the vaccine products, they weren’t qualified to obtain informed consent, which isn’t possible under mandates anyway.
Yes but there's professional and minimum training requirements in place for the act of injecting anything into anyone being done safely.
I get your point but if the clot shot jab manufacturers inserted product safety.& storage instructions were inadequate to begin with, there could be an argument as to whether anyone administering it could do it safely or with an understanding of best practice guidelines.
Aspirating the needle, stored in sub-zero temperature and packed like fragile items when in transit... Endless liability!
Thanks for your discussion, it's reminding me of how fraught with peril this whole public health plandemic was from its outset
When I complete quotes for Healthcare Liability, a common question is "Do you obtain informed consent in all cases" and "do you check and confirm your customer's medical history prior to recommending any product or procedure?".
There was quite a good webinar hosted by an Aussie insurer recently on this, but I can't find it for you.
It’s been confirmed that practitioners do not have specific indemnity for administering the COVID-19 injections, although they were led to believe they DID have protection in July/August 2021 by the Morrison Government.
Hey! I remember reading this last year. All pertinent points raised in your email - ensuring you received no response from those who are addressed as responsible.
Re "There was a massive cover up in the early stages of Australia's vax rollout when previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy."
Crowd sourced peer pressure and mass collusion between all stakeholders benefitting from iatrogenocide isn't quite coercion in any strict legal sense of the term.
How depressing. It has been rather sad seeing almost all of the Covid court cases ending up siding with the gov't, or corporotocracy. It's almost as if the courts are becoming another arm of the state, rather than a means to keep it in check...
A disgraceful, yet entirely predictable result. Our legal system has failed yet again. I'm truly sorry Ben (and colleagues). You are a man of honour and integrity, and you are absolutely right in your position, your sacrifice, and your warning of what may be to come. I hope people continue to see these results and wonder how (and when) such gross, unethical government overreach will be applied to them.
In this case, my read is that the judiciary interpreted the law correctly. I think the problem in this specific case is the law, not the judiciary. WA has some really problematic laws, quite police state-y, and I suspect this is what Ben was getting at when he said think about who you vote for and the kind of laws they will support (or move to repeal).
Rebekah, it’s important to consider what ‘National Cabinet’ and the AHPPC did in imposing vaccine mandates. (See links in my original comment.)
They trashed voluntary informed consent by imposing vaccine mandates, e.g. Mark McGowan in WA and Daniel Andrews in Victoria, along with the rest and the AHPPC.
It’s important that the federal government has confirmed “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations”, see letters received by me and my colleague Emma McArthur:
It’s not possible to give voluntary informed consent under a mandate, under threat of penalty for refusing to comply, e.g. losing livelihood and participation in society.
What’s the point of being ‘informed’ if people are mandated to submit to the medical intervention anyway?!
There’s an obvious clash between the advice from the federal government on informed consent and National Cabinet and AHPPC vaccine mandates.
What a shambles!
The bottom line… People can’t give voluntary informed consent under a mandate.
The courts are a disaster area, this matter needs to be aired thoroughly in the court of public opinion. How do we do this with the mainsteam media being a censoring propaganda machine, and with the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS being worse than useless in providing critical analysis of the Covid debacle?
Yes, it's just that in the court they only deal with one argument at a time I suppose -so in this case they contested the Commissioner's authority, not whether employees were fully informed.
So just to make myself clear, I’m saying this should never have got to court in the first place, because the medical profession should have refused to inject people under duress, they should have known this was violating voluntary informed consent.
And if the practitioners had refused to collaborate, none of this would have happened…
But everyone has the intrinsic freedom to not comply. My right to not consent is far more fundamental to freedom for all of us than a doctor shoulda woulda coulda not violating "voluntary informed consent."
Also consider that in July/August 2021, the Morrison government LIED to practitioners about them having specific indemnity for administering the COVID-19 vaccinations - they DON’T have this specific indemnity.
My point is this is being fought on the wrong grounds.
We should be fighting for voluntary informed consent. The main point being the practitioners shouldn’t have collaborated with vaccine mandates - see "Doctor, I don't want the vaccine." What happens next? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctor-i-dont-want-the-vaccine
Noted and acknowledged, Rebekah. I am certainly not a legal expert (I shudder to use that word, haha), nor am I fully aware of the intricacies of WA laws. Yet I certainly maintain the unfairness of this decision, whether technically correct judicially, or not.
The problem is the legal practitioners that side with the government, however obliquely! I've seen it with farmers and now jab abstainers. They take your money and run! Don't blame the judges or the law - it's the greedy Masonic lawyers that are to blame!!! 😡
Followed Ben's legal struggle for a couple of years and I'm not shocked over this, which bloody sucks.
Still maintain that it's not whether application of emergency powers for mandating medical procedures as part of employment is unlawful. Emergency powers are in themselves WRONG and government's ability to try enacting them is WRONG.
I feel for Ben Falconer and his fellow officers. I admire him greatly for fighting as he has, but no doubt its taken a toll on him and the dismissal of his appeal must be difficult. To me he is a hero and a man of strong principles. A shame there are not more like him.
Seems like an articulate and switched on guy, he should pursue a career in politics with the likes of One Nation and endeavour to protect our rights from that angle. The misinformation and disinformation bill would not have passed the senate if they'd had one more no vote - thats how important it is to get more freedom parties represented in the upper house.
It is extremely disappointing, but not surprising, that Ben's lawyers omitted the obvious defense that he is NOT a "police force worker" as stated in the unlawful directions, but a "sworn police officer" pursuant to the Police Act! As such, the purported directions do not apply to him or any other police officer!!
Apart from political proclamations (which I do not regard as sufficient) what is the evidence that an ‘extraordinary emergency’ was involved or that an injection with an unsafe and ineffective drug would lessen it?? An astonishing claim …
From the 2022 judgement,
Justice Allanson said the evidence showed that vaccination "is effective in reducing rates of infection, and thus transmission" and two doses were effective in preventing serious disease.
He said it was "common knowledge" that WA had "been able, by closing its borders, to limit the spread into the community."
🥴🫠 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-23/police-officer-loses-challenge-against-wa-covid-vaccine-mandate/101359438
I intend to do a more in depth write up with comment from Ben's lawyer in about a week once everyone's had time to read the decision and digest it. This article was very BREAKING 😝 so had to get it out fast with minimal detail.
So basically until the Courts finally acknowledge the injections were never safe or effective, people are expecting to receive justice from a judiciary that believes disinformation.
I don't know about that. What are people expecting as the receipt of justice for this? Blood on their own hands or their blood on someone else's hands?
It's a quandary of the darkest sort.
I’d say their jobs back without having to reapply for them if that’s what they actually want. Personally I wouldn’t want my job back if I was treated that way.
As well as compensation for lost earnings for the period of time they were stood down.
A surety that this coercion & punishment (because that’s exactly what this was, punishment for daring to defy Government’s edicts) would never happen again.
Where does blood come into that?
Yes all that would be nice and I concur about not going back to a job I was terminated from.
Blood is essential for life and many lives were damaged, lost . Today blood continued to be spilt, usually of the victims.
Your expectation of a receipt for just is indeed truly just, and fair. But can it come?
It can't because while waiting for it come, one bloodied hand continues washing the other.
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress/
What ‘evidence’ is Justice Allanson referring to?
This judge appears to have no idea that registered practitioners - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - have a legal and ethical obligation to inform people about medical interventions, e.g. vaccinations, so they can make their own informed decision whether to choose to have the medical intervention or not, to give their informed CONSENT. The practitioners are obligated to obtain voluntary informed consent.
It’s not possible to CONSENT under a mandate, as there should not be pressure, coercion or manipulation.
This is such a diabolical mess, which I lay firmly at the feet of the medical profession, as well as the politicians who imposed the mandates.
The medical profession should have refused to collaborate with mandates, as this violates voluntary informed consent.
I'm sure he's referring to The Science™️
So in other words he’s grossly misinformed/disinformed…
Seems the judge believes the safe & effective lie. Ergo the unethical & illegal measures are justified. How he manages to reach that conclusion is beyond me.
The ends do not justify the means.
It’s obvious to everyone thinking clearly that the judge is one of those that has complete trust in the TGA/ATAGI etc and is not willing to consider they’re not infallible.
I would be interested to know (precisely) which ‘evidence’ his honour was referring to regarding the effectiveness of the ‘vaccines’ and why he (apparently) thought boosters were unnecessary. It is also disturbing to find a judge incapable of distinguishing ‘common knowledge’ from self-congratulatory, albeit data-free, political propaganda.
Looking forward to it
Absolutely, Barry! A serious of absurd claims one can hardly believe anyone would dare make, let alone supposedly learned legal minds!
*series
The evidence was the mass compliance driven through fear.
Facts and evidence tend to dispel fear. Commencing the investigative process, or your own line of enquiry leads to doubt, but then less than doubt.
Astonishing people are still weighing up unsafe medical products against the alleged extraordinary emergency of four years ago.
Might be a good time to look at the judges connections - after all the judge that ruled against the GP had ties to pfizer...
I think the judges probably decided correctly based on the law. The fact that they did not order Falconer to pay costs even though the gov wanted him to suggests to me that they were sympathetic to him. But they can't override the law, and unfortunately the law in WA does not protect workers in an 'emergency'.
Meanwhile…
I suggest none of the people who have been injected have given valid voluntary informed consent.
Because the community was deliberately terrorised about a disease it was known from the beginning wasn’t a serious threat to most people.
People were coerced, intimidated, and even MANDATED to submit to the COVID-19 vaccine products under threat of losing their jobs and participation in civil society.
I suggest the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - who injected people they knew were under duress to comply did not obtain valid consent for inserting the needle and contents.
This is the sleeper issue that is yet to emerge in the mainstream.
For more background see:
- Coercion, intimidation and mandates preclude voluntary informed consent for vaccination. There has been no valid consent for COVID-19 vaccination: https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/coercion-intimidation-and-mandates
- The destruction of voluntary informed consent via mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. “A political decision, not a health decision": https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed
You don't need to suggest it, it is unequivocal Elizabeth!
The 'tested' product was Process 1, relatively clean. The mass produced product was Process 2, which contained billions of SV40 etc. DNA particles per vial (in LNP's designed to get them around the body, and into all sorts of organs and cells). The very fact that this wasn't disclosed or tested means not a single person (outside of the trials) could give informed consent...
That’s right JakeUrlus, lots of things not disclosed…
Also see:
- "Doctor, I don't want the vaccine." What happens next? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctor-i-dont-want-the-vaccine
- Vaccinators DO NOT have specific medical indemnity for administering COVID-19 vaccines in Australia. Have vaccinators obtained valid voluntary informed consent for COVID-19 vaccination? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/vaccinators-do-not-have-specific
Also consider the case of Rogers v Whitaker 1992, which underpins health practitioners' legal and ethical obligation to obtain informed consent. In this case, Maree Whitaker, a patient with an existing eye condition, consulted Christopher Rogers, an ophthalmic surgeon. This was a one on one consultation between a patient and a medical
professional with specific expertise.
Contrast this case with the millions of people who have been pressured, coerced, manipulated, and even mandated, to have a medical intervention of no benefit to them. Moreover, these individuals were compelled to present at a 'vaccination clinic' in order to be injected with a medical product, by a health practitioner who is unlikely to have specific expertise in Covid-19 or Covid-19 vaccine products.
See my email to Health Minister Mark Butler on this matter: Informed consent and mass population Covid-19 vaccination - considering Rogers v Whitaker: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/informed-consent-and-mass-population-covid-19-vaccination-considering-rogers-v-whitaker.pdf
Relatively clean but still caused any number of adverse reactions which in other pharmaceutical products would have been enough to permanently shelve these injections.
Add the protocol violations from the S3 trials including not including relevant pre data cut off data ie deaths in the “vaccinated” group for one.
These injections should never have received provisional approval.
I recall (back in 2020, I think before the ‘vaccines’ were available) a discussion regarding liability for adverse events arising from the injections. While manufacturers demanded zero liability (as a condition of supply, presumably redacted somewhere in the contracts), many doctors (and their union, the AMA) were uneasy about being responsible. I think the Australian government - under Morrison or Hunt - agreed to be responsible, letting doctors off the hook, or there would have been no injections. I don’t know how much any of that has changed now that it has become clear (at least for the two mRNA manufacturers) that the approval process was defective (eg DNA contamination, dodgy reporting, improper trials, inadequate safety follow-up, etc). Are the companies still exempt if fraud is established or does the Australian government still carry the can? I guess it probably depends on the (redacted) contracts.
You raised many pertinent questions. Julian Gillespie spoke of Fraud vitiating any waivers or exemptions from liability caused by mRNA jabs and those who administered them.
I agree but I had that thought in late 2020 while working in Insurance Claims Management.
Needed more info at the time and the lack of it made me realise that I'd be blamed for not doing something to my body on the basis of knowing the risks caused by doing something to my body wouldn't be blamed on those at fault.
Barry, re practitioners’ liability for administering the injections, see my responses to Rebekah below.
Thanks Elizabeth. I think we were typing simultaneously …
It looks as if Morrison/Hunt ‘announced’ that injectors were protected from liability, when in fact they weren’t. In most versions of the English language, this would be known as a lie.
No doubt, a scheme to reduce ‘vaccine hesitancy’, and the victims are both the injectors and the injectees. While the politicians who organise all this, and their ultimate controllers in WHO, get off Scott-free (pun intended).
As Elizabeth has made clear ‘valid’ or ‘fully’ informed consent was not possible (then or now) and any doctor who knew their craft would know that.
Yes, they lied.
Why should they get off Scott free?
I’m pursuing this matter…
Indeed. I’m pleased you’re pursuing it.
How, pray tell? There's limited recourse available thru the traditional means of courts and at law.
How is the largest question for me to answer. Part of me is satisfied to lie dormant in waiting until the apex moment with the most potential to answer the "how" crystallizes.
How?
I'm just patiently writing emails aagabriel...
This is a long game and I've been playing it for 15 years.
There was a massive cover up in the early stages of Australia's vax rollout when previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy.
Guild insurance likely copped a few multi-million dollar medical malpractice lawsuits after their policy holders (Pharmacy Guild of Australia) assumed they would be covered for any personal injury or bodily harm arising out of their SARS-CoV 2 vaccination activities at work.
Interestingly, I saw my first COVID-19 and SARS-CoV 2 vaccine exclusion endorsed onto Management Liability terms earlier this year. The purpose behind adding this exclusion was to write-back any potential claim being covered when it was caused in a scenario like with the Pharmacy Guild
Re “previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy”.
My point is none of the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - were qualified to administer this medical intervention, as none were experts in ‘Covid’ or the vaccine products, they weren’t qualified to obtain informed consent, which isn’t possible under mandates anyway.
We had the bizarre situation where mass populations were being ordered to front up for vaccinations, regardless of their individual risk of disease, and to submit to the injections.
The entire community was under threat - normal life would not open up until a vaccination target was met, 80% I think, so there was a lot going on in coercing the community to comply, including the emotional blackmail ‘we’re not safe until we’re all safe”: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/new-covid19-vaccine-ad-were-not-safe-until-were-all-safe/video/af733eb3566314ca3c8f9ce87eec2a36
In regard to practitioners being qualified to administer the intervention, see my email to Health Minister Mark Butler on this matter: Informed consent and mass population Covid-19 vaccination - considering Rogers v Whitaker: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/informed-consent-and-mass-population-covid-19-vaccination-considering-rogers-v-whitaker.pdf
My point is none of the vaccinators - doctors, nurses, pharmacists - were qualified to administer this medical intervention, as none were experts in ‘Covid’ or the vaccine products, they weren’t qualified to obtain informed consent, which isn’t possible under mandates anyway.
Yes but there's professional and minimum training requirements in place for the act of injecting anything into anyone being done safely.
I get your point but if the clot shot jab manufacturers inserted product safety.& storage instructions were inadequate to begin with, there could be an argument as to whether anyone administering it could do it safely or with an understanding of best practice guidelines.
Aspirating the needle, stored in sub-zero temperature and packed like fragile items when in transit... Endless liability!
Thanks for your discussion, it's reminding me of how fraught with peril this whole public health plandemic was from its outset
For more background, also see my notification/complaint to AHPRA about Paul Kelly, Chief Medical Officer of Australia and Chair of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), 16 June 2023: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/notification-to-ahpra-re-medical-practitioner-paul-kelly.pdf
Also see my email to AHPRA - Reckless disregard for voluntary informed consent - the AHPRA Position Statement 9 March 2021, sent 31 July 2023: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/reckless-disregard-for-voluntary-informed-consent-the-ahpra-position-statement-9-march-2021.pdf
I’ve also raised this with the medical insurers many times, see for example my email to Avant in September 2022: Failure to obtain informed consent for Covid jabs - what is the indemnity insurance position of health practitioners? https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/failure-to-obtain-informed-consent-for-covid-jabs-what-is-the-indemnity-insurance-position-of-health-practitioners_.pdf
When I complete quotes for Healthcare Liability, a common question is "Do you obtain informed consent in all cases" and "do you check and confirm your customer's medical history prior to recommending any product or procedure?".
There was quite a good webinar hosted by an Aussie insurer recently on this, but I can't find it for you.
Quick web search brought these up.
https://acupuncture.org.au/event/aacma-webinar-with-guild-insurance--informed-consent-and-record-keeping - October 2024
MDA National appears to be one of the better medical industry mutual insurers here. https://www.mdanational.com.au/advice-and-support/library/articles-and-case-studies/2021/11/12-commandments-to-mitigate-ahpra-notifications
It’s been confirmed that practitioners do not have specific indemnity for administering the COVID-19 injections, although they were led to believe they DID have protection in July/August 2021 by the Morrison Government.
See this email thread to Health Minister Mark Butler for more background: Response re: Are health practitioners covered for indemnity insurance re the Covid jabs? https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/response-re_-are-health-practitioners-covered-for-indemnity-insurance-re-the-covid-jabs2.pdf
Hey! I remember reading this last year. All pertinent points raised in your email - ensuring you received no response from those who are addressed as responsible.
Re "There was a massive cover up in the early stages of Australia's vax rollout when previously untrained pharmacists started administering Vax jabs in their pharmacy."
Can you expand on this?
I've got an archived folder on my other computer. Give me a day or so
Consent is crucial to the process.
Crowd sourced peer pressure and mass collusion between all stakeholders benefitting from iatrogenocide isn't quite coercion in any strict legal sense of the term.
I do really like your points here though. https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/the-destruction-of-voluntary-informed
However i see it as a military and global managerial decision. Politics is the procedure and public health was the poison.
Both are outlasted by military / occult tradition and millenia old bloodlines harbouring beliefs that exist without borders.
How depressing. It has been rather sad seeing almost all of the Covid court cases ending up siding with the gov't, or corporotocracy. It's almost as if the courts are becoming another arm of the state, rather than a means to keep it in check...
‘Almost’. ??
That was tongue in cheek. Hard to communicate a raised eyebrow in characters ;-)
A disgraceful, yet entirely predictable result. Our legal system has failed yet again. I'm truly sorry Ben (and colleagues). You are a man of honour and integrity, and you are absolutely right in your position, your sacrifice, and your warning of what may be to come. I hope people continue to see these results and wonder how (and when) such gross, unethical government overreach will be applied to them.
In this case, my read is that the judiciary interpreted the law correctly. I think the problem in this specific case is the law, not the judiciary. WA has some really problematic laws, quite police state-y, and I suspect this is what Ben was getting at when he said think about who you vote for and the kind of laws they will support (or move to repeal).
Rebekah, it’s important to consider what ‘National Cabinet’ and the AHPPC did in imposing vaccine mandates. (See links in my original comment.)
They trashed voluntary informed consent by imposing vaccine mandates, e.g. Mark McGowan in WA and Daniel Andrews in Victoria, along with the rest and the AHPPC.
It’s important that the federal government has confirmed “Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual consent procedures for other vaccinations”, see letters received by me and my colleague Emma McArthur:
- Department of Health 21 December 2021: https://humanityattheprecipice.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/doh-reply-21-12-2021.pdf
17 November 2022 Department of Health and Aged Care: https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/mc22-018819-signed-highlighted-1.pdf
It’s not possible to give voluntary informed consent under a mandate, under threat of penalty for refusing to comply, e.g. losing livelihood and participation in society.
What’s the point of being ‘informed’ if people are mandated to submit to the medical intervention anyway?!
There’s an obvious clash between the advice from the federal government on informed consent and National Cabinet and AHPPC vaccine mandates.
What a shambles!
The bottom line… People can’t give voluntary informed consent under a mandate.
The courts are a disaster area, this matter needs to be aired thoroughly in the court of public opinion. How do we do this with the mainsteam media being a censoring propaganda machine, and with the taxpayer-funded ABC and SBS being worse than useless in providing critical analysis of the Covid debacle?
Yes, it's just that in the court they only deal with one argument at a time I suppose -so in this case they contested the Commissioner's authority, not whether employees were fully informed.
So just to make myself clear, I’m saying this should never have got to court in the first place, because the medical profession should have refused to inject people under duress, they should have known this was violating voluntary informed consent.
And if the practitioners had refused to collaborate, none of this would have happened…
But everyone has the intrinsic freedom to not comply. My right to not consent is far more fundamental to freedom for all of us than a doctor shoulda woulda coulda not violating "voluntary informed consent."
What should have happened in this hypothetical scenario?
"Doctor, I don't want the vaccine." What happens next? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctor-i-dont-want-the-vaccine
Also consider that in July/August 2021, the Morrison government LIED to practitioners about them having specific indemnity for administering the COVID-19 vaccinations - they DON’T have this specific indemnity.
See this email thread to Mark Butler for background: Response re: Are health practitioners covered for indemnity insurance re the Covid jabs? https://vaccinationispolitical.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/response-re_-are-health-practitioners-covered-for-indemnity-insurance-re-the-covid-jabs2.pdf
I’ll do a substack article on this soon.
My point is this is being fought on the wrong grounds.
We should be fighting for voluntary informed consent. The main point being the practitioners shouldn’t have collaborated with vaccine mandates - see "Doctor, I don't want the vaccine." What happens next? https://elizabethhart.substack.com/p/doctor-i-dont-want-the-vaccine
Noted and acknowledged, Rebekah. I am certainly not a legal expert (I shudder to use that word, haha), nor am I fully aware of the intricacies of WA laws. Yet I certainly maintain the unfairness of this decision, whether technically correct judicially, or not.
Yes I agree. Like Lance said, “it doesn’t feel right.”
How does a law give priority to government advertising over scientific data as a source of evidence on a life-and-death matter??
By our consenting to it.
Does the law say that the Minister is right-regardless of whether in fact they are right?
Does it matter?
The minister said it and there may exist a law to say he was right.
Regardless of wrong or right, people are fixated on their roles to play "Yes, Minister!"
I think it does matter, especially if the law defines the Minister as right, a truly Orwellian event.
The problem is the legal practitioners that side with the government, however obliquely! I've seen it with farmers and now jab abstainers. They take your money and run! Don't blame the judges or the law - it's the greedy Masonic lawyers that are to blame!!! 😡
Followed Ben's legal struggle for a couple of years and I'm not shocked over this, which bloody sucks.
Still maintain that it's not whether application of emergency powers for mandating medical procedures as part of employment is unlawful. Emergency powers are in themselves WRONG and government's ability to try enacting them is WRONG.
Now that’s an argument that needs further exploration!
I feel for Ben Falconer and his fellow officers. I admire him greatly for fighting as he has, but no doubt its taken a toll on him and the dismissal of his appeal must be difficult. To me he is a hero and a man of strong principles. A shame there are not more like him.
He deserves a medal, and not one of those stupid Covid medals 🥇
Seems like an articulate and switched on guy, he should pursue a career in politics with the likes of One Nation and endeavour to protect our rights from that angle. The misinformation and disinformation bill would not have passed the senate if they'd had one more no vote - thats how important it is to get more freedom parties represented in the upper house.
well, that sucks.
I guess the only thing to do now is ensure your in a job where you can ignore the next round of stupid obey or else scare mongering.
Please also refer to the SANDBAG site... https://bit.ly/-SANDBAG-COVID-Review
It is extremely disappointing, but not surprising, that Ben's lawyers omitted the obvious defense that he is NOT a "police force worker" as stated in the unlawful directions, but a "sworn police officer" pursuant to the Police Act! As such, the purported directions do not apply to him or any other police officer!!
Did you read the decision? They referenced multiple pieces of legislation. Which bit specifically did you disagree with?