Voluntary Informed Consent
and Mass Population Covid-19 Vaccination:
Considering Jab Mandates
Video Presentation to PANDA, 18 April 2023
by Elizabeth Hart
vaccinationispolitical.net
Presentation slides
Transcript:
Todd Kenyon: Today we have, from Australia, Elizabeth Hart. She's an independent
researcher investigating vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy.
Elizabeth is challenging the increasing number of questionable vaccine products and repeat
vaccinations being foisted upon children, adults, and animals by the burgeoning andunfettered vaccine industry. Elizabeth has a degree majoring in politics and philosophy. Her
interest in vaccination was initiated after she discovered companion animals were being
unnecessarily revaccinated every year, and needlessly subjected to the risk of an adverse
reaction to vaccination. Her experience in investigating vaccination of pets is informing her
investigation into the lucrative vaccination of people, as there are interesting comparisons
to be made.
Elizabeth Hart:
Well, hello everybody. Thank you for coming and listening to my presentation. I'm talking
on the tricky subject of voluntary informed consent and mass population Covid-19
vaccination. I'm looking at particularly being in Australia, there's a case called Rogers versus
Whitaker, which is fundamental to informed consent here.
And so, I've got 'First do no harm', and I think that baby was thrown out with the bathwater a while ago.
So, yes, as I said, Australia's likely to be one of the most Covid-vaccinated countries in theworld under mandates, it's just been so shocking to experience this.
And I've wondered how could the medical profession go along with this, with mandated
medical interventions, and to just trash voluntary informed consent?
I'm suggesting that health practitioners in Australia have been conscripted to participate
in this rollout, and that's in contravention of the Australian constitution.

There's a clause in the constitution, which I think was put in after the Second World War by
Robert Menzies, which is put in there to stop health practitioners being brought in to do
medical issues.
I'm arguing that they've being conscripted, and I've written a letter to Mark Dreyfus,
who's the attorney-general, raising this issue, to challenge it.1
To really start at the beginning, I'm asking a question,“Why was there a global vaccine solution to Covid-19?”
I mean, they knew from the beginning... The World Health Organization was saying fromthe beginning, that most people weren't going to be seriously affected by this. Older
people with comorbidities, but most people weren't going to be adversely affected.
Why was there even any suggestion of a vaccine solution?
And to end up with a vaccine solution to be targeting everybody in the world, this iscomplete insanity.
I want to know how was this decided? What were the meetings? Where's the minutes?
And we know that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Bill Gates, he was running theshow from the beginning. He was running the race for a coronavirus vaccine. 2
Anybody who mentioned that in 2020, eyes would roll and you'd be written off as aconspiracy theorist. And yet, he was actually running the show.
I'm really looking at the UK as well. I'm looking at the UK as being fundamental to getting
this off the ground.
The AstraZeneca vaccine was already running, I think in January 2020. 3 So, this was
obviously something they'd had in the works for a while, I think with Disease X plans, andhere they were running with this.
Andrew Pollard was the chief investigator on the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, he's also
the chair of the Joint Committee on [Vaccination and Immunisation] in the UK, so that's a
big conflict of interest, that he's also running a commercial trial.

1

See updated email thread to attorney-general Mark Dreyfus, including follow-up.
See for example: GatesNotes. What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. 30 April 2020.
3
Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement. Unlimited Hangout, 26 December
2020
2

There's a lot to be looked into here. I've written to the ethics committee that was involved
with the AstraZeneca vaccine trial [in the UK] to ask them how could they approve trials in
healthy people, with a disease that wasn't a problem for healthy people? 4This is the sort of thing that I want to be tracked back now, that we've got to investigate
this.
And do you remember back, March 2020 in the UK, Patrick Vallance had announced on... It
was reported on the 13th of March, 2020 that they were really going to go with a natural
herd immunity solution.5 That's what they were planning, people to catch it and to just geton with life. It would just become an annual situation.
But then, a few days later, the Ferguson Report comes out. Report 9, dated 16th of March,and it's all changed.6 In this report, they're comparing Covid with the 1918 flu pandemic,
which I've got serious question marks over that one as well. That's another issue. But why
were they comparing Covid with 1918, which was supposed to be... It's reported about 50
million deaths, or 20 million deaths, or 100 million deaths, give or take 50 million, with thescientific figures that we have on this pandemic. Why were they comparing Covid to this atthat time?
In this report, Report 9, they're suggesting that they can either do mitigation or suppression,and they go with suppressing the virus, which leads now to the lockdowns and social
distancing and what have you.
And that's going to happen until the vaccine becomes available.
But a really important piece of information that wasn't disclosed at the time, is that Neil
Ferguson is sponsored by or funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.7
Now, if that had been in that report, we might've looked at things a bit differently, butpeople went along with this report. Even though Neil Ferguson had this incredible
reputation for all these dire predictions with foot and mouth, I think it was in 2000, madcow disease, swine flu. He made all these dire predictions about what was going to happen,
and they didn't transpire. And then they take him at his word with what he's saying about
what's going to happen with Covid.
How could that happen? How could they just run with this report? And this has impacted
around the whole world. It impacted in Australia because Ferguson's modelling influenced
the Doherty modelling8, which put us into lockdown in March 2020. So, it had a massive
impact here. And subsequently, the Doherty Institute and the Murdoch Children's
4

See my email to Andrew Pollard: Who initiated the plan to vaccinate the entire global population against
SARS-CoV-2?
5
See for example: Coronavirus: 60% of UK population need to become infected so country can build ‘herd
immunity’, government’s chief scientist says. Independent, 13 March 2020.
6
Neil Ferguson et al. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19
mortality and healthcare demand. Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, 16 March 2020.
7
SAGE COVID-19 Register of Participants’ Interests.
8
Doherty modelling. 7 April 2020.

Research Institute are involved in Covid-19 vaccines.9 There’s a lot of conflicts of interest
to look back on here.
At the time in March 2020, I submitted some rapid responses to The British Medical Journal.
I was querying at the time, is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity with this
vaccine solution?10
And I asked, "Who is Neil Ferguson to say that the only exit strategy in the long term forthis is really vaccination or other forms of innovative technology that allow us to control
transmission?" Who is Neil Ferguson when he's at home? This modeller in the Imperial
College London, and yet, he seems to have such enormous power, I suppose, because he's
backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
In that same rapid response, I was also talking about the impact on young people with thenatural immunity. And I quoted Heidi Larson, she's the director of The Vaccine Confidence
Project, which is an organisation which is campaigning against vaccine hesitancy, and it's
pretty well-backed by the vaccine industry.
And it's very telling to look back now. There was a conference, a WHO global vaccine
summit, which was held in December 2019. So, really interesting to think about that now,
just prior to the Covid thing exploding. And during that conference, Heidi Larson says,"We've shifted the human population to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity. We'rein a very fragile state now. We've developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations."
Now, that's a startling statement for her to make, to think that that's what we're doing,trying to move people to this artificial state, and it's really trying to make people
dependent on the vaccine industry.
We should be thinking about this, about what's happening to children with all thesevaccines they've been given, when in most cases, they might have the wherewithal towithstand things themselves, like Covid for example.
And also at that conference, Heidi Larson speaking at that conference, she also made thepoint that the health professionals were starting to question vaccines and the safety ofvaccines, because there's a lot of concern in the community.
And she was saying, "This is very worrying for the vaccine industry because the healthprofessionals are trusted people in society." She's saying, "If we lose them, we're introuble." She's saying, "We haven't lost them yet, but if they feel like they haven't got thegood enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it, to the people who are asking
questions..." They're worried about losing them.

9

See Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group (VIRGo) on the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute website,
as at 28 August 2023.
10
Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2. Elizabeth Hart BMJ rapid
response, 25 March 2020

She's also making the point too, that these health professionals do not have a lot ofexpertise in vaccines, that she's suggesting they might get half a day on vaccines inmedical school.
When you think these people are giving these medical interventions, they're not expert inthese medical interventions, and yet, they're giving them to people, so that's something
we really have to think about.
But this is interesting now to think about what she was saying at that time, because it looks
like the health professionals were reeled in subsequently, and locked into being
supportive of this vaccine rollout.11
Another rapid response I had published in The British Medical Journal was in August in
202012, because I was very concerned that children were being lined up for Covid jabs,
when it was known that children weren't at risk of Covid...
I'd read an article in The Guardian.13 In this article they were saying that children are given
nasal spray flu vaccines to protect their grandparents, and children aren't at risk of severe
flu, but they've been given a vaccine to protect their grandparents. I mean, that's justastonishing.
This was acknowledged by Peter Openshaw, who's also from Imperial College London, sameas Neil Ferguson. This was disclosed at a Lords’ Committee that was discussing the Covid-19
vaccine development. And he was saying that, as well as giving these kids these flu vaccines,
now they were planning to jab children against Covid to protect the elderly. Astonishingadmission, and apparently the Lord's Committee didn't even seem to blink an eye at this.
Also in this BMJ rapid response, I'm saying that the children are not at risk of Covid. So,again, I'm saying, "How can it be ethical to vaccinate mass populations of children toprotect the elderly?" This is just crazy. It can't be ethical to do this.
These are medical interventions that have risks. How can we be giving these interventions
to people when they are not going to benefit from these things themselves?
I asked in this BMJ rapid response, I was sort of asking too, "What do doctors think about
this, about vaccinating children with flu vaccines and future coronavirus vaccines tosupposedly protect the elderly? How come doctors are going along with this?"Also, and again, in that same rapid response, I was mentioning how the vaccine
manufacturers were going to get protection. And there was a specific article, a Reuters
article14 that was talking about AstraZeneca. And this Ruud Dobber who was an Astra

11

See my challenge re the AHPRA Position Statement 9 March 2021: Reckless disregard for voluntary informed
consent. 31 July 2023.
12
Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly? Elizabeth Hart BMJ rapid response, 5 August 2020.
13
Covid-19 vaccine may not work for at-risk older people, say scientists. The Guardian, 24 June 2020.
14
AstraZeneca to be exempt from coronavirus vaccine liability claims in most countries. Reuters, 30 July 2020

executive, he was saying that, "This is a unique situation where we, as a company, cannot
take the risk if in four years the vaccine is showing side effects."
You think, wow, they're going to be protected, and the people are just going to have to wear
any problems with the vaccine. Now, these are supposed to be so ‘safe and effective’, why
do these things have to be protected like this? This is what we should be questioning. It's
just insane that they were given protection like this at the beginning.
Then again, same year, another BMJ rapid response that was published from me.15 And I
was making the point that our liberal democracies are being turned upside down in this
response to Covid. This rapid response was published in December 2020, so this is justaround the time of the start of the rollout in the UK, because the UK got this going at theend of 2020.
I was making the point that, in the past 11 months, 1.64 million deaths have been attributed
to Covid. Now, that's in a world of about 7.9 billion at the time, where about 56 million
deaths would be expected. So, 1.64 million deaths is nothing. And we know at the timethey were just trying to beat up the case numbers, beat up the deaths.
And this 1.64 million deaths does not justify the subsequent response around the world,
the plan to jab the entire population over and over again. It just wasn't justified. How
could they do this?
Again, we need to go back and see how was this approved? How was this discussed andapproved? Where are the minutes of the meetings?
Also around this time, or in October 2020, November 2020, the Royal Society in the UK and
the British Academy, they put out a report about the vaccine deployment. And this wasreally to target people who would dissent about the vaccines. It was looking at behaviour,
misinformation. Anybody who questions the vaccines is regarded as a vaccine denier or a
Covid denier.
But it wasn't disclosed by the Royal Society and the British Academy that they had
conflicts of interest.
And I wrote to them at the time challenging them about this16, that the Royal Society, forexample, was sponsored by AstraZeneca. It has funding from AstraZeneca and also from
GlaxoSmithKline, and they were both getting money from the government. So, these wereserious conflicts of interest, where they're putting out this report... Because this report wasalso suggesting that people who put out misinformation should be criminalised.
This is pretty grim what they were suggesting here, that to just question things... Who
decides what is misinformation? This is what we have to look at too. The Royal Society is a15

Liberal democracies being turned upside down to ‘protect health services’. Elizabeth Hart BMJ rapid
response, 18 December 2020.
16
Email Failure to disclose conflicts of interest – COVID-19 vaccine deployment report – Royal Society and
British Academy, 4 December 2020.

pretty heavy organisation, and yet they were part of this massive Covid rollout andpromoting it.
Back here in Australia, it's all happening in Australia because we've been locked in, ofcourse, in March 2020. We're sort of captured again in the prison colony. And the only
people who can really get out of here are politicians, film stars and sports stars. They canseem to get out of the country, but the rest of us are locked in.
We’re really under the control of the Chief Medical Officer.17 When this was declared as an
emergency in Australia, this was under the Biosecurity Act 2015. And this meant that theChief Medical Officer was really running the show, because the government was relying on
the advice being provided by the Chief Medical Officer and his, shall I say, henchmen in
the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. And this was keeping us all undercontrol.
The current Chief Medical Officer is Paul Kelly, and prior to that Brendan Murphy was theChief Medical Officer. And this committee, the AHPPC, was also relying on advice from other‘experts’.
So, there's a whole lot of groups there. You can see there TGA, Doherty Institute, National
Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance…
A lot of these institutes are populated by people who are also involved with the vaccine
industry. There are lots of conflicts of interest to consider here. That’s what we have tothink about with this vaccine response, that a lot of people had a lot vested into this, and weneed to go back and look at this now.
The AHPPC, they then decided to mandate Covid vaccination for health workers. Now, thiswas the thin end of the wedge. This is where this really starts.
Once you've got the health workers mandated for vaccination, it can lead to everybody
being mandated, and that's what happened.
We've got most of the population in Australia was subject to mandates in one state orform or another. There were mandates for jobs, but also businesses…other businesses, likerestaurants, sports clubs, were setting mandates. The state governments were setting verybroad mandates.
When the AHPPC did this, it really set the cat among the pigeons setting up thesemandates.
I challenged Paul Kelly about this subsequently, in October 202218, about the mandates,
because a lot of them were still in place. And I wanted to know what was the evidence17

I have now made a formal complaint/notification to AHPRA about the Chief Medical Officer Paul Kelly,
violating voluntary informed consent via recommending mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, 16 June 2023.
18
Email to Paul Kelly: Mandated Covid jabs – What is the scientific and medical justification for these mandated
medical interventions? 19 October 2022.

backing these mandates? What was the justification for this?19 And as we're finding out
here, there's no accountability in Australia. So there's no response.
This is a matter that I'm pursuing because this could be a medical indemnity issue withthese mandates.20
And now, it is becoming much more of a tricky subject to talk about, and people are runningfor cover. Former prime minister Scott Morrison, recently he was saying that he's urged thepremiers in the states here to drop the mandates, any remaining mandates. And he's sort ofsaying, "Oh, the federal government never supported mandates, other than ones thatwere for medical people." So, he's trying to offload this responsibility.
But he must be forgetting that back in August in 2020, he'd announced that he wanted
vaccination to be "as mandatory as you can possibly make it".21 He was saying, "We've got
to get to 95%," that's 95% of the population he was talking about, and that was on medical
advice apparently. He wanted the vaccination to be mandatory, so he was really behind
this. And others...
Surprisingly, just recently, I found out that Senator Gerard Rennick, who's renowned here as
being somebody who's pushed back against the Covid agenda and vaccines and what haveyou. I came across an article lately, a friend shared it with me from November 202122, andwe were astonished to read in this article that Senator Rennick had actually supported
mandates for hospital and aged care workers. In the same article, he's saying he's notgoing to have people being coerced into getting a vaccine, unless you're a hospital andaged care worker.
And yet, these people are people too. They're entitled to give informed consent to these
medical interventions. So, again, if hospital and aged care workers are mandated, this is adanger for everybody, because once that principle is accepted that you can mandate
somebody to have a medical intervention, everybody's at risk of this.
And while all this is going on, in the UK, the government in the UK, Boris Johnson
government, had mandated vaccination through the parliament. But when they tried toroll this out, there were enough people in the NHS to say, "We're walking if you do this,"and they had to back off. They had to back off in the UK.23

19

Also see my email to then health minister Greg Hunt in July 2021: The Covid emergency and scientificexperts.
20
See email thread to health minister Mark Butler: Are health practitioners covered for indemnity re the Covid
jabs?
21
Scott Morrison expects COVID-19 vaccine will be ‘as mandatory as you can possibly make it’. Neil Mitchell,
3AW, 19 August 2020.
22‘A hill I’ll die on’: Senate headache for Morrison over vaccine mandates. The Sydney Morning Herald, 19
November 2021.
23
See for example: Covid-19: Government abandons mandatory vaccination of NHS staff. The BMJ, 1 February2022.

Why didn't that happen in Australia? Why didn't we have enough people here in the
medical industry to say, "No, you can't mandate vaccination for us." They just didn't do it.
And so, in the end, we ended up with these widespread mandates.
It was just awful here. And Victoria, which is renowned around the world now for what
happened here, the draconian response with Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. He
announced it, "There's going to be a vaccinated economy, and you get to participate inthat if you are vaccinated". And if you don't, you're going to be locked out. You're going to
be locked out of this economy.24 This is what they created here. They created an apartheid.
It was the most disgusting and shocking situation, that healthy people who did not wantto have these medical interventions, who would prefer to just deal with Covid bythemselves, were treated like lepers, were excluded from society.
And the health officers actually tried to cause dissent and division between people. The
Health Officer in South Australia, Nicola Spurrier, at Christmas, I think in 2021, she said shewouldn't have an unvaccinated person in her house. These health officers were absolutely
deplorable. Everything they did was the antithesis of health. They made people anxious,
they locked people down, they turned people against each other, masked people. It was themost disgusting and disgraceful response. And it's a terrible stain on Australia's history.
Here's an article about Victorian businesses were going to be facing enormous fines if they
had un-vaxxed workers.25 So, the businesses were rejecting people who weren't vaccinated,with these laws, because Daniel Andrews had said, "We are going to lock out people whoare not vaccinated." It was outrageous.
And now here we are in Australia, apparently over 65 million doses of Covid vaccines havebeen dispensed.26 Now, if those figures are reliable, we can't tell because the government
would obviously want to be beating up the idea that everybody's getting injections andgiving us a positive spin on things. But if that's true, millions of adults and children have
had these injections, and so many people, these were unnecessary medical interventions.
It's just dreadful that people have been made to have these medical interventions, they'vebeen coerced into it.
So, looking at this, the rot really set in, in 2016 or before that, 2013 to 2015. During thattime, 2013 to 2015, the Murdoch media ran a campaign for coercive vaccination of children.
It was the No Jab, No Play campaign. And the politicians took to this very well, because
they're very responsive to Murdoch. Nobody wants to upset Rupert Murdoch. So, News
Corp was running this campaign.

24

The Victorian Premier says the state is heading for a ‘vaccine economy’, here’s what that might look like. ABC
News, 6 September 2021.
25
Victorian businesses face up to $10,904 in fines over unvaxxed workers from Friday. SmartCompany, 12
October 2021.
26
As at 25 August 2023, 68,589,239 Covid-19 vaccine doses have been administered, according to government
statistics.

But people didn't know that News Corp is a corporate partner with the MurdochChildren's Research Institute, which is involved in vaccine research.27 That's a massive
conflict of interest that should have been disclosed at the time.28
Anyway, Scott Morrison, he was the social services Minister at the time in 2015, and he hada private lunch with Rupert Murdoch during that year.29 And also, during that year, Scott
Morrison raised the No Jab, No Pay Bill, which subsequently became the No Jab, No Pay
Law in 2016. So, this was now for coercive vaccination of children for parents to get tax
benefits, and subsequently, state laws with No Jab, No Play to get benefits for childcare.
Now, a lot of people obviously would support children's vaccination, but there's an awful
lot of vaccines being given to children now. And since that law was put in place, more
vaccines have been added to the schedule. And now, people have been made compliant.
So, there's no question now, there's no informed consent happening. People have justbeen lined up for the jabs, and more and more are being added to the schedule. And now,
we're seeing children being jabbed with Covid jabs. So, this set things going and we've
ended up with this 'No Jab' concept. It's No Jab, No Job now with the Covid times.
So, again, yes, Scott Morrison, we remember he said he wanted to make the vaccines as
mandatory as you can possibly make them. And who was one of his advisors? Jane Halton.
Jane Halton was on the National COVID-19 Coordination Committee. She's the chair of
CEPI, which is the front for the vaccine industry, for the pandemic industry. And of course,Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation co-founded this organisation.
And Jane Halton, in May 2020, she was saying, "Forget the No Jab, No Play for kids. It's now
No Jab, No Play for adults. And I would support that. Everybody else, as far as I'mconcerned, should actually step up and do the right thing."30
So, here's a woman with a massive conflict of interest, with the ear of Scott Morrison,demanding No Jab, No Play for adults, and supporting her CEPI and the vaccine industry.
So, again, mandated Covid vaccinations. For the health practitioners, they've got an
obligation to get voluntary informed consent. And this is where everything went wrong.
The medical profession at the time should have called this out. They should have called itout in 2016. They should have said, "We cannot do this under mandates. If the products
are good, if they're safe and effective, people will take them, but you cannot mandate
these medical interventions."

27

Murdoch Children’s Research Institute Partnerships: https://www.mcri.edu.au/mcri/partnerships (As at 28
August 2023.)
28
For more background see my email to then prime minister Scott Morrison in February 2021: No Jab, No
Pay/No Play – coercive coronavirus vaccination in Australia – PM Scott Morrison and the Murdoch Media.
29
Scott Morrison will almost certainly lead the Liberals. The questions is when? The Sydney Morning Herald, 4September 2015.
30
Top adviser to Scott Morrison backs ‘no jab, no play’ for all. The Australian, 18 May 2020.

Why did the health practitioners do this? Why did they cooperate with this?
And there's all these organisations, these professional organisations, the nursing
organisation, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the Royal AustralasianCollege of Physicians, the Australian Medical Association, all of these organisations havegone along with this. How could they do this? They were being conscripted as well.
They've been conscripted.
In 2021, and since, I've been writing to these organisations, challenging them about this.31
Even before the mandates were put in place, I was challenging them about they're notgetting informed consent with this push on everybody, including children, to be having
these vaccine products. How could they do this?
So, I've written quite a lot of letters on this, to them and to other groups.32 And Emma
McArthur, my colleague here in Adelaide, she's been writing letters too, and also to Scott
Morrison, challenging the fact that the pandemic plans were thrown out.33 And she was also
challenging the Doherty modelling behind this as well.34
But there's no accountability. We've an illegitimate government here. We're not getting
accountability to the people.
And I wrote similar emails to The British Medical Journal, to the former editor in chief
Fiona Godlee35, and the current editor is Kamran Abbasi.36 I'm currently sending emails tohim.
Now, this is the most significant issue for the medical profession, that people are notgiving voluntary informed consent to these medical interventions, that they've been
coerced into having them.
And these people will simply not deal with it. How can The British Medical Journal be justrefusing to deal with this issue, the biggest issue to face the medical profession? It's
absolutely shocking.
I'm asking what is the legal basis for these Covid jab mandates that have been happening
in Australia?

31

Emails on my website vaccinationispolitical.net
Ibid.
33
See Emma McArthur’s email to then prime minister Scott Morrison re pandemic planning, 16 July 2021.
34
See Emma McArthur’s email to Jodie McVernon re the Doherty modelling, 2 September 2021.
35
See emails to Fiona Godlee:
Why should people not at risk of covid-19 be pressed to have covid-19 injections? 30 May 2021.
Is it ethical to vaccinate children to protect the elderly? 14 June 2021.
36
Emails to Kamran Abbasi, see for example:
Mandated Covid jabs and health practitioners’ obligation to obtain ‘voluntary informed consent’ 19
October 2022.
Health practitioners, Covid jabs and ‘valid informed consent’ – a medical ethics disaster, 5 December
2022.
32

This is an assault, when you stab someone with a needle. There was a legal guy here, I justpicked this up in an article37, he's making this point. But he's saying, "It seems that if ahealth direction is mandatory, that that overrides the consent." Well, I'm challenging that.
Who says that a health direction can override consent?
This is what we've got to get to the bottom of. How did these mandates happen?
They were put in place by state governments and then Uncle Tom Cobley and all got
involved in this, in setting mandates, sports clubs, all sorts of groups were setting thesemandates. We have to go back now. We have to see how did this happen? How could thishappen? And again, how could the medical profession allow it to happen?
This is The Australian Immunisation Handbook. And in that handbook it says38,"For consent to be legally valid, it must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue
pressure, coercion or manipulation. It can only be given after the potential risks andbenefits of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person."Now, Emma... we were wondering about this. We were wondering about the informed
consent. And we'd seen it announced in July ‘2139, that the Morrison government had
announced that health practitioners were going to have special indemnity to protect themfor giving the Covid injections, because there was concern at the time about the
AstraZeneca vaccine. You remember with the blood clots and what have you? So, this wasannounced that they were going to have this protection.
But we were wondering about this. And so, Emma wrote a letter to the health minister at
the time, who was Greg Hunt, and she wrote this really well-crafted paragraph, saying,"To what extent is the Commonwealth COVID-19 vaccine claims scheme going to provide
insurance and indemnity for the civil and criminal liability that would arise where battery
and clinical negligence occur due to a failure to obtain valid informed consent?"And she got a response from the government40, and it turned out, oh, actually after all,they're not going to have specific indemnity. There's a vaccine claims scheme for people
who are injured who want to claim, but specifically for practitioners, they don't have thisspecific indemnity. So, this means that people could still go after them for not getting
informed consent.
So, it is very interesting seeing what could happen here. And this letter also confirms that,37

Should you vaccinate your staff? Australian Institute of Company Directors, 5 August 2021.
The Australian Immunisation Handbook – Valid consent.
39
COVID-19 indemnity scheme to protect health professionals and patients. Media release, Department of
Health and Aged Care, 2 July 2021.
40
Letter received from Department of Health, 21 December 2021.
38

"Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual
consent procedures for other vaccinations".
That is a solid gold sentence. Because nobody's given voluntary informed consent to thesevaccinations, nobody's been properly informed about these vaccinations and probably formost other vaccinations.
This has now really set the cat amongst the pigeons again with this sentence. And then,we had a change of government. The Morrison government was kicked out, and then we've
got the Albanese government.
I followed up on this now. I followed up with the current health minister, Mark Butler, andI just want clarification on this. Let's just check this again. Is this right, that they don't haveindemnity? And they confirmed that they don't have this indemnity.
Here's the letter I received from the government.41 And in that letter it says, "Your letter
seeks clarification on whether the government has established a medical indemnity
scheme for health professionals administering COVID-19 vaccines." That was following
these media releases that came out in 2021. And Nigel Murray, who's signing off on thisletter, he says,"I can advise that rather than putting in place a medical indemnity scheme for healthprofessionals, the former government established a no-fault scheme which commenced
operations on 13 December 2021."
So, they have not got specific indemnity.
And again, this letter confirms,"Informed consent should be obtained for every COVID-19 vaccination, as per usual
consent procedures for other vaccinations", and that is not happening.
I followed up with Mark Butler.42 I'm saying,"Looks like the health practitioners were misled by the former Morrison government. It
looks like they were lied to, actually."
And I'm saying that,"These health practitioners need to be warned. They're inserting a needle. This could bebattery. They need to be warned that they're not protected by this medical indemnity
scheme after all."41

Letter received from Department of Health and Aged Care, 17 November 2022.
See email thread to health minister Mark Butler: Are health practitioners covered for indemnity re the Covid
jabs?
42

I don't think they've been warned about this. They're not being told.
But the government's sort of covering itself here. Here's this fact sheet that the government
put out, probably when these issues were being raised.43 And it's letting the healthpractitioners know that you have to get consent. If somebody turns up in front of you,they're there under a mandate. So, they're in this awkward position, they've got a mandate,they're going to the health practitioner, but they're telling the health practitioner, "I don't
really want to have this jab."Now, when that happens, the health practitioner should say, "I can't do this. I can't
vaccinate you." But that hasn't been happening. They have been vaccinating people
anyway, even if they've got people in front of them crying and upset and don't want tohave the jabs, they've been going ahead and jabbing them anyway.
Again, what is going to happen in future when people realize what's gone on, that they
haven't given proper informed consent?
This brings me to the case of Rogers versus Whitaker, where we want to look at this.
Rogers versus Whitaker, this is the case that underpins informed consent in Australia. And
in this case, Marie Whitaker, she was a patient, she had an existing eye condition, and so
she went to an expert. She went to a specific ophthalmic surgeon. So, this was a one-on-one
consultation between a patient and a medical professional with a specific expertise.
So, compare that to what's happening with the Covid jab rollout, where we've got millions
of people are being pressured, coerced and manipulated, and even mandated to have a
medical intervention, that may be of no benefit to them.
These people aren't ‘patients’. They're being compelled to just front up at a vaccination
clinic, and to be injected with a medical product, by a practitioner who's unlikely to havespecific expertise in Covid-19 or in Covid-19 vaccine products. This is just such a contrast,
what's happening here.
Mass populations of people should not be being coerced to have medical interventions,and certainly not being mandated to have them.
So, I've raised this issue with both the health minister, Mark Butler, challenging him about
this, and also with Paul Kelly, the chief medical officer, saying, "You cannot have millions ofpeople being pressured to have these medical interventions. This is just flouting informed
consent. It's just not happening at all."And so, I'm asking, what expertise do these people have? The people who are mainly doingthese interventions are nurses, doctors, paramedics, pharmacists, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander health practitioners. What expertise do they have to be giving this medical
intervention?

43

Handling consent refusal by people presenting for vaccination. (As accessed 25 August 2023.)

And I'm wondering about this. So, let's have a look at these medical interventions. There's apaper here which provides the mechanism of action. And here we have the Pfizer vaccine.
Now, there's a lot of dense text for you to look at. This is how these Pfizer vaccines areworking apparently. And I'm looking at this sort of stuff, blah, blah, blah, injected
intramuscularly into the human body and once attached the host cells, inserts its mRNA intocytoplasm in such a way to reach the ribosomes, blah, blah, blah. I haven't got a clue what
any of that stuff means. And I would suggest that the health practitioners giving these
injections haven't got a clue either, they're not experts in this stuff.
And the AstraZeneca vaccine as well. Here we've got a modified chimpanzee DNA
adenovirus. Excuse me, I don't want that, thank you very much. If this is a thing that's not a
problem for most people, Covid, why on earth would you want something like thisinjected into you? It's mad.
So, it's an experiment. The former health minister, Greg Hunt, he admitted this. He
admitted this in an interview with David Speers.44 "The world is engaged in the largest
clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever."And nobody has given informed consent to be part of this trial. People are being told thatthese things are ‘safe and effective’.
They're saying that they're being fully approved, that's been a lie. Brendan Murphy, who
was the former chief medical officer, and is the health secretary, who's now just announced
he's resigning. He said in February '21 that these things were fully approved. He lied.
Because they weren't fully approved, they were provisionally approved.45
But this is the sort of misinformation that has been spread around to people, they've beenlied to.
And here we have AHPRA, this is the regulator of the health professionals, healthpractitioners. And this organisation laid it out in March 2021. It was telling these healthpractitioners that this response: "Vaccination is a crucial part of the response to the
COVID-19 pandemic". That the health practitioners have got a vital role in this program, andthey're going to educate the public about "the importance and safety of the COVID-19
vaccines to ensure high participation rates".
And this AHPRA, they want the practitioners themselves to have these vaccines, have themthemselves, and they want them to lead in the community.46
This is the pressure that's been put on the health practitioners. That: "You're part of this.
You are running this. We're relying on you. The pressure is on."44

Greg Hunt interview with David Speers. ABC, 21 February 2021.
See my email to Brendan Murphy: COVID-19 vaccines are NOT fully approved by the TGA.
46
See my challenge re the AHPRA Position Statement 9 March 2021: Reckless disregard for voluntary informed
consent. 31 July 2023.
45

But the health practitioners were in an impossible situation, because on the one hand,
they're supposed to be getting informed consent, but they’re constrained fromquestioning the information that supports the vaccination. If they question this, they
could be at risk of being struck off.
And Malcolm Roberts, he's a senator here, he raised this in a Senate Estimates meeting,and he questioned AHPRA's CEO, Martin Fletcher.
Malcolm Roberts, he actually quoted from a letter that I had received from AHPRA in
September '2147 when I was lobbying to get responses on informed consent, I received
this letter. So, he's saying, so in this letter from AHPRA, it says: "When providing care inperson or sharing information online, registered health practitioners have a professional
obligation to only share information that is evidence-based, in line with the best available
health advice, and is consistent with public health campaigns, such as the COVID-19
vaccination policy."
But Malcolm Roberts is saying, ‘what if a doctor doesn't believe that the campaign is good
advice or good procedure?' He's saying that, AHPRA is "forcing them to adopt it against
their will or lose their job."
And the March statement, that I've been mentioning, it says that [Malcolm Roberts
paraphrasing] "There's no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional healthpractice, and any promotion of anti-vaccination claims, including on social media, andadvertising may be subject to regulatory action".
This is a warning to the health practitioners. You question things, and you could be out,
that's what they're saying.
But Malcolm Roberts is saying, he's repeating what's required for informed consent. That
it's got to be voluntary and without pressure or manipulation, and that you've got to be
told about the vaccine.
And most importantly, what's been escaped, is that people have to be told about thedisease, and that the disease isn't a risk for most people.
Here again, here's that letter that I received from AHPRA.48 I received this in 2021.
In this letter to me, they've said,"Practitioners have an obligation to obtain informed consent for treatment, including
vaccination. Informed consent is a person's voluntary decision about health care that is
made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved."

47
48

Letter received from AHPRA, dated 20 September 2021.
Ibid.

AHPRA have admitted this in this letter, but at the same time, they are threatening healthpractitioners who question vaccination.
Malcolm Roberts was saying, "It seems to me that AHPRA is encouraging doctors to breakwhat the High Court is saying is settled law."
And Fletcher is sort of like saying... He's trying to get away from this, saying, ‘This may be anissue, but that there's always an opportunity that a practitioner set forth how they believe
they've met the requirements of the code of conduct.’
But in reality, this isn't happening. Most doctors now are under threat. They're too scared
to question things because they could get struck off. And that's the problem that we've got
in Australia now, that doctors have not really questioned this at all. And doctors
questioning this are very, very rare indeed.
But there's a guy called William Bay. He's a suspended... ‘The suspended Dr. William Bay’.
And he's going after AHPRA, he's got an application in the Supreme Court, challenging
AHPRA.
And in this application, he's saying,"The position statement from AHPRA made me consider resigning from my GP registrar
role because I found it morally untenable that I should be prevented from giving all theinformation I knew to be relevant to a patient when advising them on the merits ofreceiving a Covid-19 vaccine."
He kept working at the time. Subsequently, he's been suspended. He refused to have thevaccines himself. And then, he went and challenged. He went out in public, to an AMA
conference, barged into this AMA conference. It was so brave of him to do this. And hechallenged Paul Kelly. The chief medical officer was at this conference. Challenged him forlying to the public.
But people like William Bay, doctors like William Bay are so rare, because most doctors
have gone along with this.
So, now we're waiting to see what happens with this case with William Bay challenging
AHPRA. Because, on what authority is AHPRA controlling these doctors and healthpractitioners? This is what we've got to look into.
And a relatively new doctor's organisation, the Australian Medical Professionals' Society,they put out a letter,49 warning health practitioners that they might not have protection,
medical indemnity.

49

The Australian Medical Professionals’ Society letter warning medical professionals about the medical
indemnity issue, dated 11 January 2023.

They’re citing the letter that I got from the Australian government50, saying that they
haven't got indemnity. And they've also included a link to the AHPRA letter 51 that I
received as well.
This has gone out to medical professionals.
And this letter has been noted internationally. Andrew Bridgen in the UK, he's picked up
this letter, he put it on his Twitter feed, acknowledging this. And also, in the US, they'renoting doctors down under may be responsible for Covid vax injuries. So, it's gotten
international attention.
So, that's it. That's my presentation. I hope it was of interest. And that's just a bit ofbackground on me. And just thanking my friend, Emma McArthur, who's worked on this aswell, and with her advice. And that's a picture of us at a protest, when we were out in thestreets campaigning against the lockdowns and mandates, and what have you. And there
are other people who also gave me some help with this presentation too. So, thank you forthat. Thank you for listening.

50
51

Letter received from Department of Health and Aged Care, 17 November 2022.
Letter received from AHPRA, dated 20 September 2021.