Is Australia Being Held to Ransom Thanks to ‘Scientific Fiction’ by the Doherty Institute?
For the attention of:
Professor Jodie McVernon
Doherty Institute and Murdoch Children’s Research Institute
Dear Professor McVernon
In a press conference on 3 August 2021, you said you would like everyone ‘immunised tomorrow’
Professor McVernon, please explain how people can be ‘immunised’ with a ‘leaky vaccine’ that apparently neither prevents infection nor transmission? This flaw in the ‘vaccine solution’ to Covid-19 was recently acknowledged by Professor Andrew Pollard in the United Kingdom, who stated that reaching the herd immunity threshold with vaccination was ‘mythical’ because the vaccines are not stopping transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Professor Pollard is the Chief Investigator on the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine trials, and Chair of the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
Professor McVernon, is it ethical to use your position to promote this mass-vaccination campaign when you know the rights of the Australian people are being crushed to achieve it? A damaging vaccination apartheid is underway in our nation, polarising the ‘vaccinated’ and the ‘unvaccinated.’
Is it ethical to force these experimental products on the entire Australian population, possibly setting them up for repeated Covid-19 vaccinations for life, when it has been known since early 2020 that
Covid-19 is not a serious risk to most people?
As Elizabeth Hart questioned in her rapid response in the British Medical Journal in March 2020, is it ethical to deny people not at risk from Covid-19 the opportunity to develop natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2? Is it right to make people dependent on what is now looking like inferior vaccine-induced immunity and, by default, dependent on the vaccine industry?
According to correspondence from Minister for Health and Aged Care, Greg Hunt, ‘the primary objective of vaccinating Australians is to reduce the risk of developing serious disease if a person is infected, rather than reducing transmission of the virus.’ If this is the Morrison Government’s stated objective, why did they pay the Doherty Institute to produce a model that incorporated a strategy to purportedly reduce transmission across the population, with vaccination targets of 70-80%? Why didn’t the Government concentrate on those who may be vulnerable to serious disease instead?
The Morrison Government has stated that it does not know how long immunity from these vaccines will last. Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, has now declared that a third booster’ shot is needed. People are no longer considered ‘immune’ after two injections. Anybody can see where this is heading – the question is, who is benefitting from this strategy Professor McVernon?
Why are governments pushing to vaccinate entire populations when evidence suggest natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is robust, durable and likely superior to the immune response from vaccination?
Why is evidence that many people have pre-existing cross-immunity, from exposure to other coronaviruses, being ignored? Your modelling argues for interference with the natural immune response of most of the population – could you be setting in place the conditions for a catastrophe, by destroying natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 with this unprecedented mass-vaccination rollout?
Why are strategies for supporting a healthy immune system and the role of vitamin D being disregarded? Why isn’t early treatment being offered to protect those at risk, while allowing the young and healthy – who are not at risk of serious illness and death – to acquire natural immunity?
Were any of these factors considered in your modelling Professor McVernon?
Data from around the world now shows that these products are ineffective at preventing infection and transmission, and that vaccinated individuals may carry viral loads equivalent to unvaccinated people.[15,16] Therefore, the question must be asked as to whether this mass-vaccination campaign with these ‘leaky vaccines’ will cause more harm than good?
In her recent email to you, Elizabeth Hart pointed out the role of the Doherty Institute in the response to Covid-19, stating ‘modelling out of the Doherty Institute in 2020 and now in 2021 is responsible for keeping Australians’ free movement and association suppressed via lockdowns and restrictions, until a ‘vaccine solution’ is implemented in response to Covid-19.’
Why are the Australian people being coerced – with the aid of the Doherty Institute modelling – into submitting to what was described by Greg Hunt as the world’s ‘largest clinical trial’? Is anyone giving valid informed consent to participate in this global experiment?
Why have people across the world been held to ransom, and their fundamental rights destroyed, by works of scientific fiction – beginning with the infamous ‘Report 9’ from Professor Neil Ferguson et al at Imperial College, London, in March 2020? Professor Ferguson’s reputation for wildly overstating risk pre-dates Covid-19; yet his work continues to influence the Doherty Institute modelling that is guiding the Australian response to Covid-19, including the Morrison Government’s National Plan to transition Australia’s National Covid-19 Response.
Why are governments continuing to follow these models in the face of evidence that clearly demonstrates why we should not use guesswork as the main driver for public health policy? As you said yourself in your press conference, these models contain ‘thought experiments’, they are ‘scenarios not predictions’ and ‘deliberately quite artificial’.
Professor McVernon, modelling, such as your work with the Doherty Institute, has been used around the world to promote damaging suppression strategies with a ‘vaccine solution’ as the only way out.
This was done without addressing the obvious catastrophic harm these policies would cause, as admitted by Ferguson’s team at Imperial College, who stated:
‘We do not consider the ethical or economic implications of either strategy here [mitigation or suppression], except to note that there is no easy policy decision to be made. Suppression, while successful to date in China and South Korea, carries with it enormous social and economic costs which may themselves have significant impact on health and well-being in the short and longer-term.’(Emphasis added)
They conclude with the following:
‘However, we emphasise that is [sic] 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.’ (Emphasis added)
Professor McVernon, after 18 months, the damage being caused by these suppression policies is clear. This might be a ‘thought experiment’ to you, but to millions of Australians – and citizens around the
world – fiction has become fact. These ‘simulations’ are a harsh reality that have resulted in the widespread suspension of civil and political rights and enabled the biggest power shift, in the relationship between government and citizens, in living memory. These policies are destroying the lives and livelihoods of everyday people – with those already experiencing socioeconomic hardship suffering the most of all. This is a disgrace.
In my recent letter to the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, I highlight the most egregious aspect of the response to Covid-19 – the collateral damage being caused to the
lives and futures of our children and young people. As a former social worker and trauma counsellor, and as a mother, I am disgusted by the blatant disregard for our children’s wellbeing inherent in Covid-19 policies.
Professor McVernon, in your press conference you point out that you are also a parent, and a former paediatrician. You suggest it is important to ‘immunise’ children ‘to maintain their education.’ Are we now living in a society where a child’s right to education is dependent on their participation in medical experimentation? Why are schools closed when evidence from overseas shows there is no need to close them to protect those who are at risk Is it right to support this abuse of children’s rights as recognised under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?
Is it ethical to allow the children of Australia to be turned into human guinea pigs and injected with these experimental medical products, when they are at little risk from Covid-19? Studies from around the world have shown that a child’s risk of death from Covid-19 is miniscule, including a study from England showing that 25 children died with Covid-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. This was in a population of over 12 million children, with millions of cases of Covid-19. Most of these children also had underlying health issues.
In the face of this data, how can it be justifiable to vaccinate Australian children and young people for Covid-19?
Is it ethical to deny children and young people a robust and durable natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2? Is it ethical to subject them to the unknown risks of novel vaccine technology and potentially a lifetime of Covid injections? Have you modelled how many children may be harmed or die because of this mass-vaccination strategy Professor McVernon? What number of injuries and deaths in children is the Morrison Government willing to accept to achieve its goal of vaccinating the whole country?
I am astounded that any mother would knowingly subject children to these risks. Why would a mother persist with such a narrative when there is insufficient evidence to show that these products are safe, and there are unanswered questions about the unusually high number of adverse events and deaths after Covid-19 vaccination?
Professor McVernon, in your press conference you stated that the Doherty modelling team has been ‘working with the Australian Government on pandemic preparedness and response for 15 years.’ In that case, you must know that Australia has a pandemic plan called the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (AHMPPI)? You must also know that Australia, along withmost other countries, discarded years of pandemic planning when faced with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020.
I recently asked Mr Morrison why he abandoned the AHMPPI to pursue this authoritarian suppression strategy with a ‘vaccine solution’ as the only way out – see attached letter. Doherty modelling has driven this strategy from the outset. Mr Morrison has yet to answer this question.
Professor McVernon, do you know why many recommendations in the AHMPPI were discarded and replaced with lockdowns, border closures, forced PCR testing, digital surveillance, mandatory quarantine and coercive mass-vaccination?
Why were long-standing principles of public health and fundamental human rights thrown out in the response to Covid-19?
Professor McVernon, do you know who exactly is benefitting from this vaccine solution because it seems clear that it is not the Australian people?
I request your response to the matters raised in this email.