Mandated BS-19 Vazzination and News Corp Australia – Michael Miller, Executive Chairman
For the attention of:
Mr Michael Miller
Executive Chairman Australasia
News Corp Australia
Mr Miller, News Corp Australia is publishing a non-stop torrent of biased articles promoting the ‘vaccine solution’ to COVID-19 in its tabloids and The Australian etc, with little or nothing in the way of critical analysis of this unprecedented global vaccination rollout, and no disclosure of News Corp Australia’s conflicts of interest.
News Corp Australia is controlling the narrative, denigrating people who question the COVID-19 vaccine rollout as ‘anti-vaxxers’, and censoring the comments of dissenting subscribers like me on publications such as The Australian. How many other Australians are similarly shut out of the conversation on important topics such as taxpayer-funded coercive COVID-19 vaccination?
You have personally called upon Australia’s business leaders and owners to champion the COVID-19 vaccination rollout, and for state and national leaders to commit to jab targets, in your open letter reported in The Australian. Companies such as BHP Minerals Australia, Qantas, insurance company AAMI, Nine Entertainment, Coles and Woolworths, etc, have taken it upon themselves to interfere with the health decisions of millions of Australians by pressuring people to have the fast-tracked COVID-19 injections, about which so much remains unknown.
Mr Miller, how many of these business leaders and owners, and News Corp Australia publication readers, know that News Corp Australia has a significant conflict of interest in promoting the rollout of COVID-19 vaccine products? Is the ‘Murdoch media beast’ serving its own best interests with its interference in taxpayer-funded COVID-19 vaccination policy?
News Corp Australia is a corporate partner with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, which is involved in vaccine research and development, including COVID-19 vaccine research with the Doherty Institute. The modelling out of the Doherty Institute put Australia into lockdown last year, and Doherty modelling continues to restrict the free movement and association of Australians until a 70/80% vaccination target is reached, as discussed by Emma McArthur in her email to Jodie McVernon challenging the Doherty modelling. The Doherty modelling was influenced by the controversial modelling of Neil Ferguson et al from Imperial College London, that recommended ‘suppression’ of the virus (aka lockdown) “until a vaccine becomes available…” In their Report 9, Ferguson et al admit it is “not at all certain that suppression will succeed long term; no public health intervention with such disruptive effects on society has been previously attempted for such a long duration of time. How populations and societies will respond remains unclear”.
In Australia, the Morrison Government has used the Ferguson influenced Doherty modelling to disrupt Australian society, and to crush the rights and freedoms of the Australian people over the past 19 months, with the opportunity for natural immunity being deliberately suppressed. Scott Morrison took the decision to close Australia off from the rest of the world – did he plan to deny Australians the opportunity to develop broad-based natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and instead endeavour to make the entire population dependent upon lucrative COVID-19 injections for life?
I questioned the ethics of impeding the spread of natural immunity in my BMJ rapid response published in March 2020, see: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2. This unprecedented plan to vaccinate mass populations in the midst of a pandemic is unfolding into a disastrous situation, particularly the interference with the development of natural immunity. In this regard, see recent discussion with Geert Vanden Bossche and Robert Malone, and my email to Andrew Read in January this year: If Covid-19 vaccines don’t prevent transmission, can they facilitate the evolution of more virulent variants?
Australians across age groups and health status are now being coerced to submit to fast-tracked experimental COVID-19 injections. The Sydney Morning Herald reports News Corp has mandated COVID-19
vaccines for its printing workers, and that those who were unvaccinated by 19 September may have to take leave.
On what basis is News Corp insisting employees submit to COVID-19 injections, without being allowed to consider their own health status, without coercion?
The World Health Organisation acknowledges “Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment”. John Ioannidis et al report that “People <65 years old have very small risks of COVID-19 death even in pandemic epicenters and deaths for people <65 years without underlying conditions are remarkably uncommon.
Strategies focusing on protecting high-risk individuals should be considered in managing the pandemic”. (My emphasis.)
Over the past 19 months 4.7 million deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 globally., so around 95 million deaths would be expected over 19 months. Seen in this context, 4.7 million deaths, most likely in elderly people with comorbidities, is not a great number, and even this figure is highly questionable in regards to deaths ‘of’ covid, or ‘with’ covid. Retrospective critical analysis is now required to investigate these figures, and the basis of this so-called ‘pandemic’.
Mr Miller, are you aware the COVID-19 injections:
- apparently do not prevent infection nor transmission;
only claim to reduce hospitalisations and deaths, which is not relevant to most people as most are not at serious risk of COVID-19;
- have unknown duration of ‘immunity’ – the Australian Government Department of Health website admits: “It is not yet known how long the protection of the COVID-19 vaccine will last. We will know more
through ongoing research…” (See copy attached.) In other words the people having these injections are guinea pigs, and it’s likely most don’t realise they are participating in a global experiment;
- manufacturers and doctors have been protected from liability;
- future consequences of repeated covid injections throughout life are unknown; etc.
Why are people of all ages and health status being deliberately alarmed about COVID-19, including via News Corp and other media? People in the vulnerable groups have been offered COVID-19 injections – why are people outside these vulnerable groups, e.g. perhaps many of News Corp’s employees, being pressured to submit to what could be lifelong COVID injections, against a disease which isn’t a serious risk for most people? Why is there apparently great reluctance to acknowledge treatments (e.g. Ivermectin) and preventatives (e.g. vitamin D) for COVID-19? It’s an extraordinary situation we’re in after 19 months. The situation is particularly serious for young people, who are being set up for a lifetime of COVID injections, despite the fact they are not at risk from COVID-19. It seems the plan is to steal young people’s, and others’, natural immunity.
There is much that is unknown about the COVID-19 injections. It’s appalling that Australians are being coerced to submit to these medical interventions, and denied the right to properly consider the risks and benefits in their personal circumstances. We are now faced with ‘vaccine passports’, and a ‘vaccination apartheid’ is looming within our nation, aided and abetted by seriously conflicted News Corp Australia.
Mr Miller, the Australian Immunisation Handbook notes:
“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 and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person”.
I’ve raised this matter with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), as there is clearly a conflict with the Morrison and State Governments’ aggressive COVID-19 injection rollout, and health practitioners’ ethical responsibility to obtain informed consent before this medical intervention, see my emails:
- Is it ethical to insist on covid-19 injections for health staff? 7July 2021
- Is it ethical to inject mass populations with covid injections? Questioning the ethics evaluation process for covid vaccine clinical trials 5 July 2021.
- Is it ethical for doctors to inject children with covid-19 injections? 15 June 2021.
Coercive covid-19 injections in Australia – email to the Medical Board of Australia, AHPRA, RACGP, RACP, AMA 8 June 2021.
Amanda Watson, the National Complaints Manager of AHPRA, has now confirmed that:
“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. There is more information about informed consent in each National Board’s Code of Conduct or equivalent.
I confirm that practitioners’ obligations to provide accurate information and advice about COVID-19 vaccination based on up to date and reputable sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines also apply when obtaining informed consent for COVID-19 vaccination.”
News Corp’s mandating of COVID-19 vaccination for its printing staff is clearly interfering with their right to make a “voluntary decision about health care that is made with knowledge and understanding of the benefits and risks involved”. It appears News Corp is denying its employees their right to ‘informed consent’, without coercion.
Mr Miller, you are also using your position at News Corp Australia to urge other employers to pressure their staff to have COVID-19 vaccination, via your open letter.
You have very significantly crossed the line by seeking to interfere in the personal health decisions of Australians, coercing them to submit to COVID-19 injections.
Who will be liable if these COVID-19 injections, that have been aggressively pressed upon Australians, cause problems, including their interference with the development of natural immunity?
I request you reconsider your position in this matter, and the position of deeply conflicted News Corp Australia.
Independent person investigating the over-use of vaccine products and conflicts of interest in vaccination policy