'Debunking' Port Hedland Council

Journalists don't know what the word means

Earlier this week I reported that the local government of West Australian mining town Port Hedland had voted in favour of sending written warnings to health practitioners and to every local council in Australia about evidence of synthetic DNA contamination in the Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines, and associated potential risks of cancers, genomic integration, and other health impacts.

At a special meeting last Friday night, Councillors reviewed scientific evidence, watched a presentation by one of the world’s most pre-eminent oncology experts, and heard testimony from local residents. You can review a summary of the evidence, with links to supporting documentation, here:

But, Australian media want you to know that it’s all been DEBUNKED. Do not give these anti-vax loons the time of day, what morons pushing DEBUNKED conspiracy theories:

“Claims vaccines can cause cancer or alter human DNA have been debunked by health authorities including Health Canada and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration.” (North West Telegraph)

“Claims vaccines can cause cancer or alter human DNA have been debunked by health authorities including the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration.” (Daily Mail)]

“The Premier has slammed the Town of Port Hedland that’s passed a motion about Covid vaccines based on debunked research.” (Triple M Radio)

“The problem with that is that the report that was initially done by this veterinary doctor has been debunked by other peers.” (6PR’s Gary Adshead, mistaking virologist Dr David Speicher for a vet.)

And, synonymously:

“The DNA argument surfaced during the pandemic and has been discredited by several international bodies and the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care.” (ABC)

Problem is, debunking requires refutation, falsification, proof that something is false.

Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

What proof is cited in the above media reports that the scientific and anecdotal claims made in the Port Hedland Council meeting and supporting documentation are false?

Nothing, because the government said it, so it must be true.

As though government officials have never said false things before.

Like that Iraq had WMDs.

Or that Thalidomide, DES, Vioxx, and OxyContin were perfectly safe.

Or that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign.

Chris Bray

discussed this extraordinarily dumb media paradigm in a post about recent coverage of gang violence and disaster relief in the U.S., whereby two epistemological orientations compete in present-day media reporting:

1. I am talking to people who are on the ground, in direct contact with the thing itself, and they say X

2. No, I am talking to government officials, and they say Not-X, so the matter is closed.

The direct experience of the uncredentialed cannot be considered. ‘I am cold and hungry, and my home is destroyed.’ Oh yeah, what agency do you work for?

‘I’m an Aboriginal woman and funeral home director in Port Hedland and I’ve seen aggressive cancers and untimely deaths linked to the jab rollout in my community.’ Well the Health Department says you’re wrong, so…

But it’s worse than that because the professional experience of credentialed experts outside of the government and its sanctioned vassal institutions cannot be considered either.

As a thought experiment, let’s give the media the benefit of the doubt in the Port Hedland Council scenario. They didn’t offer anything to debunk the science and lived experience presented at the council meeting, but perhaps they didn’t feel it was necessary because the quoted government agencies have done such a good job of publicly debunking it themselves.

Right?

Wrong.

As longtime followers of this Substack know, Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Adminstration (TGA), has failed to produce any scientific evidence, ever, to disprove the claims made in the Port Hedland Council meeting and associated materials, namely that:

a) The mod-RNA Covid vaccines contain levels of residual synthetic DNA way above the limit allowed under international regulation,

b) The lipid nanoparticle (LNP) packaging of this residual DNA presents a unique risk because the LNPs deliver the DNA directly into cells in all major organ systems of the body,

c) Consequently, the residual DNA can enter the cytoplasm, and in some cases will enter the cell nucleus,

d) Where it then poses risks of cancer formation, genomic integration and other health impacts.

The TGA and other regulators have made many authoritative statements denying the above claims, so it’s really quite something that not one of them has managed to provide supporting evidence.

You can read a comprehensive account of all the ways the TGA has evaded questioning and failed to ‘debunk’ emerging scientific evidence, here:

It’s plain that what these journalists who don’t know how to use words correctly actually mean is that authorities deny that the scientific evidence and anecdotes from on the ground are valid.

And denial is a very different thing to debunking.

---

To support my work, share, subscribe, and/or make a one-off contribution to my Kofi account. Thanks!

Follow me on X

Follow me on Instagram