By Sonia Hickey: Sydney Criminal Lawyers Blog

The organisation that has been instrumental in the response to Covid-19, including the push for universal, preliminarily-tested vaccinations by big pharmaceutical companies, has quietly published a report acknowledging the potentially adverse effects of the drugs it has campaigned for.

Acknowledgement of vaccine injuries

Earlier this year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) quietly published a paper outlining that Covid-19 vaccination can induce multiple sclerosis. 

But the paper – which has not been publicised and is difficult to find on the internet- is not intended for those who have sustained injuries as a result of taking Covid vaccines, but for medical professionals and scientists to digest and ponder over.

It’s not easy to read, nor understand, which is disappointing given the fact the organisation is meant to be there for the protection of the public.

To make sense of it, more digging is required to find professionals, such as Dr John Campbell, who have been open to discussing it, and explaining it in plainer language. 

What’s interesting about the publication, is that it seems to break the protocol that has thus far surrounded vaccine information and communication from the World Health Organisation (WHO) in that it admits that Covid-19 vaccinations have some failings. 

Since the pandemic began, WHO has been very protective of the information it has publicly released about Covid-19 vaccinations – to the point where it has been accused of engaging in censorship, which has not necessarily been in the best interests of the public. 

So why admit to vaccination failings now? At a time when the WHO is vying desperately for the position of global health authority, with its newly proposed global pandemic treaty. 

Despite the paper, which admittedly is a one off, and only addresses multiple sclerosis as being an adverse side effect of the vaccine, WHO is still very pro-Covid vaccination. 

Australia still follows the WHO’s advice 

And Australia continues to steadfastly follow WHO’s advice, with the Australian Department of Health website advocating Covid-19 vaccines for anyone 5 years or older. 

But, as we all know, vaccine injuries began to show up fairly quickly after the start of the vaccine rollout, and yet at that time, they were given limited publicity or news coverage. In some cases even branded as ‘conspiracies’.  

During the pandemic, it was almost ‘taboo’ to discuss vaccine-related injuries. And although that attitude is beginning to change, many who are now suffering a range of side effects they attribute to the Covid-19 vaccine are angry that to date vaccine injuries appear to have been identified and labelled, and acknowledged by various bodies, now including WHO, but anything that doesn’t fit this particular description or designation may therefore not be considered a vaccine injury. 

It’s this ignorance and closed-mindedness and absolute bullishness in promoting the Covid-19 vaccines as  ‘safe,’ despite the limited research available when they were introduced, that means that people who are suffering ‘weird’ symptoms and side effects are having trouble accessing compensation that is due to them. 

Vaccine injuries still largely ignored and uncompensated 

In many cases, the paltry payments will go nowhere near covering medical expenses, let alone lon- term support, particularly for people who’ve been left with debilitating neurological or physical conditions. 

This isn’t really a surprise here in Australia – our government has long placed the ‘onus of proof’ on individuals. Robodebt was perhaps the most serious example of this – it made people accountable for proving they did not accrue debts after being assumed guilty of doing so by flawed technology, which then relentlessly pursued them. 

In time Covid injury may well prove to be as damaging, if not more so if the interest in researching injuries remains strong. 

In July, swiss cardiologists released a research paper which indicated the mRNA-1273 Covid vaccine caused myocardial injury (myocarditis) in 1 out of 35 people. According to experts, this figure is about a thousand times more than the original estimates of myocardial injury.  Further, mRNA-1273 vaccine-associated myocardial injury was more frequent in women versus men. 

The Covid vaccination injury class action is now well underway. It could be argued that people should not have to resort to protracted legal action to be able to seek compensation (and there are no guarantees the case will be successful in the courts), but at least Australians have this avenue open to them. 

While the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) itself is protected from negligence claims, the class action has been filed against (at least) the Australian Government, the Department of Health and Aged Care Secretary Dr Brendan Murphy and the Deputy Secretary of Health Products Regulation Group Adjunct Professor John Skerrit (“the Respondents”). 

In other countries, for example, America, government agencies such as the FDA are protected from personal injury lawsuits. 

Protection from negligence lawsuits 

The WHO and its staff members also have the same kind of legal immunity, under the 1945 International Organisation Immunities Act. A recent lawsuit launched by three men in the US against WHO over its pandemic response failed for this reason. 

This last point is just one significant reason for Australia to be very careful prior to signing the new ‘pandemic treaty’ being proposed by the WHO. 

The treaty is promoted as a “pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”, but those who’ve looked carefully at the detail, including Senator Alex Antic, and Senator Gerard Rennick are concerned that it represents an “enormous power grab” which would, in the face of a global health crisis, allow WHO to override decisions made by the governments of its individual member countries.  

Essentially, under the agreement Australia would lose its sovereignty. And the problem with that, is that the WHO’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been embroiled in controversy, at times described as incompetent. Further, because WHO is immune to prosecution, it could well be argued that this removes any incentive or even any requirement for carefulness, because there is no accountability. 

The proposed treaty, which is in its draft stages, also includes the introduction of vaccine passports.  

Beware the new global ‘pandemic treaty’ 

The new treaty is very much “under the radar” here. And that’s worrying. Australians should be better informed, yet there is little information publicly available about how the treaty will work and the pros and cons of signing it. 

In the UK, the government is putting the country’s decision to sign the WHO agreement to a referendum – there’s nothing like that happening here, and yet the treaty could, if imposed, seriously encroach on our personal freedoms. 

If the management of Covid-19 and the impact of ‘Emergency Response’ laws taught us anything it is that governments already hold an incredible amount of power, and don’t always wield it wisely. Then, when the proverbial shite hits the fan, politicians duck for cover, blame-shift, have memory recollection problems, or hide behind indemnity and it is the general public which time and again, pays for their mistakes. 

Hindsight is always valuable, but as recent history shows, by then the damage is well and truly done.