Australian Mandatory Vaccine Narrative Utterly Destroyed With Hard Science
Dear Professor McVernon
In a press conference on 3 August 2021, you said you would like everyone ‘immunised tomorrow’ for Covid-19.
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?[2,3]
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?[9-12]
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?