I wonder how Broadbent and Rennick will go at the next election. Sadly, I think not well. The Australian public will continue to sleep walk to their own demise.
I mean, they publicly made those genotoxicity and carcinogenicity statement way back when, and now say there is no evidence or is inconsequential.
While Russel Broadbent should be getting Australian of the Year. Instead, he gets labelled "crank" of the year, or worse, a spreader of disinformation.
The legislation is a problem and I hope it is successfully blocked from going through. The name calling is a bore, and I personally cannot even be bothered getting offended over it anymore.
Neither is he a deer, but it would be preferable if he was, as Forestry is often doing deer culls from helicopter, and if you accidentally hit a deer with your car, most people feel bad about it, but you don't have to go to court or jail.
Quality research should be able to determine the extent to whcih risk increases ... in absoulte terms and relative terms. For instance, if the risk goes from 1 chance in 10 000 to 1 chance in 1000 it has increased by a FACTOR of 10 (1000%). This is the RELATIVE risk increase. In ABSOLUTE terms it has increased from .01% to .1% ... ie by .09% ... which is a piss in the proverbial ocean. I recall a situation similar to this obtaining in the case of HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy).
I wager that stress and worry (including about carcinogens:)) outweighs all of the above put together.:)
Anyway, good on Broadbent for digging in and voting with his conscience. If someone is merely going to vote along party lines every time then they are effectively no better than vastly overpaid cardboard cutouts.
Fair point, and I actually think the failure of regulators to take this risk seriously and investigate it further has probably made it loom larger in people’s minds than it ought. Intuitively I also would imagine that stress would make a larger impact, but I can’t support that with evidence.
It can also take years for cancer to show up as a signal. You’d have to hope that, behind the scenes, the manufacturers are working to reduce the residual DNA for future vaccines and reduce the toxicity of the LNP substances used. The TGA are currently reviewing the next JN.1 boosters and, likely, the Moderna mRESVIA RSV shot – I wonder if they are even raising these issues? Ultimately, they can do nothing and hide behind international “standards” (which do not specifically cover the mRNA platform – there are no specific mRNA standards), but, if they want to push more, they should show how they are addressing this and improving overall safety.
Links to WHO standards below (written pre-mRNA platform).
I wonder how Broadbent and Rennick will go at the next election. Sadly, I think not well. The Australian public will continue to sleep walk to their own demise.
I agree.
Add Craig Kelly to that list, and one can see the true nature of the Lineral party regarding the jabs.
How long before Alex Antic is disendorsed.
Not long I'd imagine. Libs and Lab are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.
The Murderers DON'T WANT TO HEAR US! 🤑🤑🤑 Their very existence depends on us allll dieing quietly 🤫 mmmm... how's that cancer? Oh! Delicious! 😃
TGA have become the Bagdad Bob of Australia.
I mean, they publicly made those genotoxicity and carcinogenicity statement way back when, and now say there is no evidence or is inconsequential.
While Russel Broadbent should be getting Australian of the Year. Instead, he gets labelled "crank" of the year, or worse, a spreader of disinformation.
The legislation is a problem and I hope it is successfully blocked from going through. The name calling is a bore, and I personally cannot even be bothered getting offended over it anymore.
The PrimeMinister is not a dear.
Neither is he a deer, but it would be preferable if he was, as Forestry is often doing deer culls from helicopter, and if you accidentally hit a deer with your car, most people feel bad about it, but you don't have to go to court or jail.
I am usually underwhelmed by headlines like: "X may cause Y" .... or "X may help reduce Y (a favourite of big pharma).
Imagine how many things have been conjectured to increase cancer risk. I shall name some:
1. Electromagnetic radiation associated with electricity.
2. Plastic food wrapping/containers.
3. Pesticides.
4. EMR associated with mobile phones.
5. EMR associated with WIFI.
6. HRT.
7. Fish (ie by virtue of heavy metal pollutants found in same).
8. Cow milk (ie containing radioactive fallout traces - esp strontium 90).
Quality research should be able to determine the extent to whcih risk increases ... in absoulte terms and relative terms. For instance, if the risk goes from 1 chance in 10 000 to 1 chance in 1000 it has increased by a FACTOR of 10 (1000%). This is the RELATIVE risk increase. In ABSOLUTE terms it has increased from .01% to .1% ... ie by .09% ... which is a piss in the proverbial ocean. I recall a situation similar to this obtaining in the case of HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy).
I wager that stress and worry (including about carcinogens:)) outweighs all of the above put together.:)
Anyway, good on Broadbent for digging in and voting with his conscience. If someone is merely going to vote along party lines every time then they are effectively no better than vastly overpaid cardboard cutouts.
Fair point, and I actually think the failure of regulators to take this risk seriously and investigate it further has probably made it loom larger in people’s minds than it ought. Intuitively I also would imagine that stress would make a larger impact, but I can’t support that with evidence.
It can also take years for cancer to show up as a signal. You’d have to hope that, behind the scenes, the manufacturers are working to reduce the residual DNA for future vaccines and reduce the toxicity of the LNP substances used. The TGA are currently reviewing the next JN.1 boosters and, likely, the Moderna mRESVIA RSV shot – I wonder if they are even raising these issues? Ultimately, they can do nothing and hide behind international “standards” (which do not specifically cover the mRNA platform – there are no specific mRNA standards), but, if they want to push more, they should show how they are addressing this and improving overall safety.
Links to WHO standards below (written pre-mRNA platform).
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/nonclinical-evaluation-of-vaccines-annex-1-trs-no-927
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/clinical-evaluation-of-vaccines-annex-9-trs-no-1004
If this is true, then the conspiracy theorists will be roughly right yet again....