There is no other description for this proposed legislation than medical tyranny.  Frankly it has left me speechless. 

Government wants right to detain sick people

Jill Pengelley, The Advertiser, November 20, 2009 12:01am

HEALTH authorities want the power to detain people for up to three months if they refuse testing or treatment for infectious diseases.

Read the rest of this entry »


I’ve been watching the press report on the violence in Melbourne with some interest over the past months.  There has been no subtlety in the way we were being primed for an expansion of police powers.  Violence splashed across the pages of The Herald Sun each week was guaranteed to provoke fear, outrage and a demand for solutions.  What better way to ensure public acceptance of the ‘necessary’ draconian laws to curb the violence?  Barely a heart beat later and the laws are before parliament…

Police to have power to strip-search at random

Tom Reilly, The Sunday Age, November 29, 2009

 POLICE will soon have sweeping powers to search people at random, including strip-search, even if there is no reasonable suspicion those targeted have done anything wrong.

The ”stop and search” tactic is part of a law and order crackdown set to be passed by State Parliament, despite the Government conceding that the legislation breaches the Victorian Human Rights Charter.

Legal experts have labelled the proposed laws, which will enable officers to strip-search children and the disabled, as draconian and a knee-jerk reaction to the problem of drunken violence.

Read the rest of this entry »

A  few days ago a friend informed me an in-law on her mother’s side had contracted Guillain Barre syndrome after receiving the H1N1 vaccine.  To make matters worse the patient in the hospital bed next to her had the same story.

Yet the World Health Organisation claims, “To date, fewer than ten suspected cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome have been reported in people who have received vaccine.”

With 6.6 billion people in the world, what do you think are the odds of me having a link to a fifth of the victims and two of them lying side-by-side in a single Australian hospital? 

I’m not buying it.

Let me update my personal tally:

In seven months, how many people do I know who have contracted the swine flu?  Adding a friend’s mother, it brings the total to:

  • Swine flu:  10 and 1 incorrectly diagnosed
  • Complications:  Zero
  • Hospitalizations:  Zero
  • Deaths:  Zero

In the two months since vaccination began, how many people do I know who have been vaccinated against swine flu? Four are added this month:  a co-worker and her mother and the above mentioned women, bringing the total to:

  • Vaccinated:  13
  • Complications:  6
  • Hospitalizations: 4
  • Deaths: Zero

No wonder I don’t believe the spin!

Why should you believe my story?  After all I’m just another faceless unknown from the internet adding to a growing number of unsubstantiated claims.  The simple answer is DON’T.

If there is one point I’d like to make through this blog it would be:  use your personal experience to form questions and then get out there and find answers. 

I’m simply providing information as I stumble upon it that raises questions about the integrity of the sources we’ve been conditioned to regard as credible and trustworthy.

Right now those sources are telling us it is reasonable to ask normal healthy people to risk hospitalisation or a paralysing disease in an attempt to prevent a few days in bed with the flu.  That in itself should raise even more questions.  If you haven’t started looking for answers now is the time to begin as what appears to be waiting in the wings is certainly not pretty.

An article in today’s press suggests swine flu may have escaped from a lab.  “Escaped” may be up for debate but it’s good to see something resembling the truth hitting the mainstream media.

Swine flu epidemic ‘escaped from lab’

By Angela Kamper,  The Daily Telegraph, November 28, 2009 12:00AM

THREE Australian experts are making waves in the medical community with a report suggesting swine flu may have developed because of a lab error in making vaccines.

“It could have happened in a lab where somebody became affected and then travelled with it,” virologist Dr Adrian Gibbs said yesterday.

Conjuring up a vision of Frankenstein’s fictional monster fleeing the laboratory, he added: “Things do get out of labs and this has to be explored. There needs to be more research done in this area.

“At the moment there is no way of distinguishing where swine flu has come from.”

The research, published in the Virology Journal on Tuesday, was compiled by two former researchers at the Australian National University – Dr Gibbs and programmer John S. Armstrong.

Dr Jean Downie, once the head of HIV research at Westmead Hospital, was also involved.

The article claimed the swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus that appeared in Mexico in April has at least three parent genes which originated in the US, Europe and Asia.

“The three parents of the virus may have been assembled in one place by natural means, such as by migrating birds, however the consistent link with pig viruses suggests that human activity was involved,” the research found.

Within two days of them publishing their findings there were more than 16,000 downloads of the article.

“What we wanted to do was instigate debate about this again because we still don’t know the source of this virus,” Dr Gibbs said.

The research suggested more tests be done on laboratories “which share and propagate a range of swine influenza viruses”.

It said that if the virus was generated by laboratory activity it would explain why it had “escaped surveillance for over a decade”.

Dr Gibbs said it was not the first time lab errors had been made, with evidence foot and mouth disease in England had been born out of a lab mistake and circumstantial evidence that Spanish influenza in 1918 and Asian influenza in 1957 reappeared decades later because of mistakes.

“Measures to restore confidence include establishing an international framework co-ordinating surveillance, research and commercial work with this virus and a registry of all influenza isolates held for research and vaccine production,” the report concluded.

Link to original study

Dr Gibbs first made this claim back in May this year.

More background information 

Three Labs Researching How to Make Swine Flu More Lethal, Reports Nature

WHO-Linked Scientists Mixing Swine And Bird Flu To Create Deadly Virus

The vaccine in question is just one of many on the market for swine flu but you’ll find very similar comments on all of the package inserts.  Make sure you read the relevant insert before making your decision about the vaccine.


It’s not an isolated case.  The connections and vested interest in pharmaceuticals is widespread: in the media, government, science, advisory and regulatory bodies, academia…even consumer advocacy groups.  When you start finding the connections and joining the dots you stop trusting the spin. 



An article in The Age (7/11/09) states the Swiss Society of Homeopathic Physicians recommends pregnant women should not take two of the swine flu vaccines licensed for use in Switzerland.

The World Health Organisation recommends Focetria and Pandemrix swine flu vaccines for pregnant women and they have been approved by the European Medicines Agency.

Yet the relevant product information documents from European Medicines Agency clearly state”
“There is currently no data available on the use of Pandemrix in pregnancy”
“There is currently no data available on the use of Focetria in pregnancy

Meaning neither vaccine has been tested on pregnant women.

They then qualify this statement, implying the vaccines are safe, “Data from pregnant women vaccinated with different inactivated non-adjuvanted seasonal seasonal vaccines do not suggest malformations or fetal or neonatal toxicity”

However neither of the vaccines in question is non-adjuvanted. Both clearly list adjuvants (including the highly controversial squalene) in their ingredients:

AS03 adjuvant composed of:
squalene (10.69 milligrams)
DL-α-tocopherol (11.86 milligrams)
polysorbate 80 (4.86 milligrams)

Adjuvant MF59C.1 containing:
squalene 9.75 milligrams
polysorbate 80 1.175 milligrams
sorbitan trioleate 1.175 milligrams
Despite this fact the EMA documents states, “The use of Pandemrix may be considered during pregnancy if this is thought to be necessary, taking into account official recommendations.”

So why has the WHO, the offical body making the recommendations, chosen to recommend an untested, adjuvanted vaccine for pregnant women?

WHO claims infected pregnant women are 10 times more likely to require hospitalization in intensive care units than infected persons in the general population, and 7% to 10% of hospitalized cases are women in their second or third trimester of pregnancy.

I tried to find data to support this claim.  It may indeed be correct but if so data is not readily available from their site. All I could find was the general hospitalization rates from the CDC, who have already been accused of inflating data.

To support the recommendation of the vaccines for pregnant women WHO quite definitely states, “The benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.”  This is an outrageous statement given no comparative vaccine has been tested on pregnant women and therefore no data is available with which to evaluate the risks!*

So what are the risks for pregnant women?

Read the rest of this entry »