Category Archives: General

Dickson v Yarra Ranges: Supreme Court dismisses case brought by plaintiff linked to Sov Cits

Posted in General, Human Rights, Legal, Skeptic by

The COVID-19 pandemic created, embellished and gave impetus to a range of movements that have at their core a belief in one concept. Namely, that the pandemic itself revealed or confirmed that global conspiracies are in play, as governments and authorities ultimately seek to harm the populace.

Enter “My Place”. One of the many anti-vaccine groups to percolate from the barrage of disinformation during COVID, it was formed by Darren Bergwerf to oppose COVID vaccinations. It began to attract attention after disrupting council meetings earlier this year. Brandishing all the attributes of the freedom movement, My Place urges adherents to form council action groups with the aim of “controlling council decisions”.

Amongst councils targeted this way was Yarra Ranges Council which, in response to abusive and intimidatory behaviour from the public gallery, took council meetings online in April this year, temporarily closing the gallery. Foremost amongst My Place obsessions is the concept of 20 Minute Neighbourhoods or Smart Cities, which conspiracy theorists believe are covert plans to restrict movement, monitor activity, remove freedom of choice and launch an all-seeing digital ID. With textbook conspiracy theory thinking, My Place wrongly assumed the Monbulk Urban Design Framework (UDF) draft plans, accommodated such a nefarious scheme.

Yarra Ranges had openly encouraged community consultation on the UDF, from 16 December 2022. My Place action group members attended the 31 January 2023 council meeting causing enough disruption to temporarily stop proceedings. Council members were yelled at, called a range of names, accused of hidden motives and had their professional integrity questioned. Council then published Statement regarding misinformation on social media on its website, in which it clarified the purpose behind 20 Minute Neighbourhoods and the manner in which technology may be used. This included:

The intent is for people to be able to move about easily and freely without being burdened by excessive travel or costly transport options. It improves movement and access, rather than preventing it.

Sometimes technology can be used to understand where there is congestion on a path or road network or an intersection… [or] when a bin is full or when a drain is blocked, helping to stop litter entering waterways and flooding.

The decision to move council meetings online is permitted under security provisions in the Local Government Act 2020 [see 66 (2)(b)(c)]. Online meetings were available to the public, and at the time, Yarra Ranges mayor Cr. Jim Child stressed he would review the situation in June. In-person council meetings with registration requirements resumed on 11 July. However in a June media release, My Place contended they had been “locked out” of meetings and more so, Council had done this merely due to “perceived” threats to safety. It was a breach of the human rights of residents by Council, and “deeply insulted” by comments that the mayor had made, My Place submitted an application to the Supreme Court. Their orders are laid out below.

And so it came to pass. On 4 July 2023 the matter came before Supreme Court Justice Melissa Richards. The sole plaintiff seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent Council from adopting the proposed UDF was Darren Dickson, who represented himself and had submitted affidavits from 18 members of the Yarra Ranges community. Dickson has been described on social media as a “pseudo-law guru”, although I cannot attest to the import of this particular honorary. Justice Richards set a trial date for 3 August 2023.

Dickson sought the injunction based on a lack of community engagement, and further:

  • An extended 12 month consultation period.
  • Council to reopen the public gallery for meetings.
  • Clarification on filming from the public gallery.
  • Contended Council did not meet Local Government Act 2020 (Vic) requirements.
  • Contended Council was in breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (Vic) 2006, namely right to privacy, to freedom of expression and participation in public life.

Mr. Dickson also sought answers to two questions specific to the manner in which he perceived the implementation of 20 Minute Neighbourhoods (20MN). Namely:

  1. Whether Council’s role includes power to develop three storey accommodation for local areas.
  2. Whether Council can engage with and adopt United Nations policies.

Whilst not living in the municipality Dickson identifies as a member of the community. He works and socialises there and cares for his mother who is a Yarra Ranges resident. Dickson had attended the disruptive 11 April council meeting that led to temporary closure of the public gallery.

Lilydale resident Martin Dieleman was concerned that the UDF proposed by Council would permit 20 Minute Neighbourhoods and in turn, this would ensure increased surveillance and housing density along with restricted choice and freedom of movement. He started a petition in March this year, promoting the well debunked conspiracy theory view of 20MN and by June had over 2,000 signatures from across Victoria. Absurd claims about smart cities had by then become an increasing feature of social media, resonating with those convinced by the “freedom movement”. Dickson had bought the narrative and learned of growing attention to the Monbulk UDF from Dieleman in April this year.

Smart City disinformation poster [source]

Throughout the consultation period Council had made themselves available to discuss and clarify aspects of the UDF. Specific community engagement programmes organised by Council were provided, along with multiple interactions with individual community members. The draft UDF is discussed in the below video published on 11 February 2023.

Nathan Islip, Manager Design and Place talks about the Monbulk UDF

Edward Gisonda, counsel for Yarra Ranges Council, submitted that being part of the community does not give Darren Dickson standing to seek public law remedies regarding approval of the UDF, conduct of Council meetings and the two questions regarding 20MN. In her judgement of 199 paragraphs over 62 pages, Justice Richards found Darren Dickson did not have standing to pursue legal action. More specifically Dickson did not demonstrate that he had special interest in the UDF, or that if approved by Council, it would have a legal or practical effect on him. His interest is no different to that of any member of the public.

Her Honour wrote [para. 46]:

I accept that he is concerned about aspects of the UDF, although these concerns seem to be based on misunderstandings of the UDF’s content and effect. An intellectual or emotional concern, however strongly held, is not enough to give Mr Dickson standing to obtain public law remedies in relation to the Council’s consideration of the UDF.

Nor could Dickson demonstrate a special interest in how Council held its meetings, and he did not submit that he had difficulty accessing or viewing council meetings when held online. Dickson did submit affidavits for 11 local residents who had privacy concerns about the registration process for attending in-person meetings but Dickson himself was not one of them. Nor had he sought consent to record any council meeting.

Justice Richards wrote [para. 48]:

At its highest, Mr Dickson’s interest is a strongly held belief that the Council should conduct its meetings in a particular way. On its own, that is not enough to establish standing to obtain orders compelling the Council to conduct meetings in that way.

Justice Richards went further and considered if someone with standing would secure the legal remedies that Mr. Dickson sought. This involved examining evidence and testimony presented at trial and viewing Council performance through the lenses of the Local Government Act, the Planning Act, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 [Vic] (the Charter) and Plan Melbourne 2017-2050: Metropolitan Planning Strategy. There are some interesting aspects to the judgement.

One contention raised by the plaintiff and revisited during questioning was that the council had failed to “meaningfully engage” over the UDF, with particular emphasis on the temporary closure of public meetings. Council is bound by the Charter to ensure the right to engage with public affairs is observed. Yet this doesn’t give an individual the right to dictate terms of their involvement. Council’s community engagement with respect to the UDF, and the involvement of Nathan Islip in attempting to assuage concerns of some residents, covered 10 pages of the ruling.

Mr. Islip’s patience is evident, in that he was clearly repeating answers to the same questions from the same resident/s via email, over the phone, in person and during council meetings. He fielded questions over freedom of movement, privacy and “tracking of movements” in 20MN. At one meeting he was asked if there would be “consequences for travelling outside of our 20MN”. Addressing whether or not Council met community engagement obligations specific to the UDF, Justice Richards ruled overwhelmingly that they did [para. 70 – 125].

Justice Richards rejected six complaints raised by Mr. Dickson highlighting different means by which Council purportedly failed to provide adequate community engagement. Addressing each in turn Her Honour ultimately wrote:

Mr Dickson has not established that the Engagement Plan adopted by the Council for the UDF limited his or anyone else’s Charter right to participate in public affairs. The right does not enable any member of the public, regardless of their interest in the UDF, to dictate the terms of the Council’s engagement with the community about the UDF, or to demand immediate answers to questions about matters not contained in the UDF.

As had been clear from the My Place media release and questions raised by David Dickson during the hearing, the fact that online council meetings had been held from 26 April to 27 June 2023 was considered a breach of the Local Government Act by the plaintiff, because these meetings were not “open to the public”. However the Local Government Act is clear in this regard. Justice Richards wrote:

Mr Dickson’s complaint that the Council had closed its meetings to the public between 26 April and 27 June 2023 was misconceived. […] A council meeting is ‘open to the public’, as that term is defined in s 66(6) of the Local Government Act, if the meeting is broadcast live on the internet site of the council.

Let’s recall, dear reader, that meetings moved online in response to repeated abuse and aggressive behaviour from the public gallery. Justice Richards recounts in detail, evidence from witnesses concerning the intimidation [para. 157 – 169]. During the trial David Dickson cross examined witnesses, seemingly intent on dismissing what they had already reported as intimidating or threatening experiences. Nathan Islip had given evidence that “threatening comments” were made at the 31 January council meeting, to which police were called. Dickson asked Mr. Islip if he knew what “the definition of a threat is”. Here, Dickson is focusing on the threat of harm, seemingly unaware that intimidation in pursuit of coercion is also a threat.

Notably, Justice Richards observed [para. 165 (a)]:

There was a group of people among the large public gallery who were intent on disrupting the meeting, and who did so. They interjected frequently and loudly and did not recognise the authority of the Mayor as Chair of the meeting. Their behaviour was contrary to r 73.3 of the Governance Rules, in that they did not extend due courtesy and respect to the Council and its processes, and they did not take direction from the Chair.

With respect to filming council meetings, attendees wanting to do so must seek consent of the Chair. Pre-registration with photo ID for those who want to attend in-person meetings has not been shown by Mr. Dickson to be unlawful. It is permitted under the Local Government Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. Evidence was given by Andrew Hilson, Yarra Ranges Director of Corporate Services, that information collected is in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014. Justice Richards ruled that given prior disruption to council meetings, registration is proportionate and not an unlawful interference with the right to privacy.

This brings us to the two additional questions Dickson wanted answered regarding three storey accomodation and the adoption of UN policies. In fact they arise from a misunderstanding of the origin and scope of the UDF. There is no evidence that Council is seeking to develop three storey accomodation for local areas. Nor is there evidence that the UDF heralds adoption of UN policies. Rather, the UDF does not actually refer to 20 Minute Neighbourhoods. In the event that it did, it would in fact be Victorian Government policy and an existing part of the Yarra Ranges Planning Scheme.

More importantly however, is that David Dickson does not have standing to seek answers to these questions. Again, his interest is no different to any other member of public. Justice Richards wrote:

In short, the additional questions should not be answered because they do not relate to any legal controversy between the Council and Mr Dickson, or the Council and anyone else identified in the evidence.

Ultimately, there were no democratic principles or legislation breached by Yarra Ranges Council during UDF consultation, or as a result of temporarily changing meetings to online. Online meetings are not only available to the public but are the preferred option for many. Yarra Ranges Council posted a response to the ruling on their website here.

Darren Dickson was ordered to pay Council’s costs. If in disagreement, he has until 1 September 2023 to submit his reasons as to why a different order should be made.

One cannot ignore that as sovereign citizens, My Place supporters reject the notion that Australian courts, laws and institutions hold any valid power. Exactly how this ruling will be accepted remains to be seen. Might it be rejected outright, or woven into the complex tapestry of the parallel society My Place founder Darren Bergwerf aims to create? Sov Cits are skilled at rationalising dissonant outcomes as victory. It may be that taking a Council to the Supreme Court can be accepted as a win. Of sorts.

Either way, the theme of corrupt public authorities was also evident in the many unsuccessful cases involving anti-vaccination groups and vaccine mandate opponents, recently making their way to court. They too had “woken up” to a new reality. Many were exploited or left in debt. Established anti-vaccine pressure groups had retooled for COVID. They continue to promote themselves, and financially profit to this day.

Not one has been, or will be, denied an opportunity to access the court system and bring their evidence, no matter how disjointed and deceptive, before a judge. Ultimately, this particular case has, like the others, reinforced the strong democracy Australia has.

Evidence for a corrupt global cartel however, remains elusive.

Skepticon 2023: Tickets on sale

Posted in General, Science, Skeptic by

The Australian Skeptics National Convention is being held in Melbourne this year, at the University of Melbourne Parkville campus. Tickets are now on sale.

Early bird discount of 5% applies to convention tickets until 31 July 2023.

The convention will be held over Saturday 2nd and Sunday 3rd December at the Ian Potter auditorium, in the Kenneth Myer building (Google maps reference). Online access is also an option. To date, international speakers include critical thinker Melanie Trecek-King and well known skeptic activist Susan Gerbic. Keep an eye on the Skepticon 2023 website or check back here for updates, as the full speaker’s schedule continues to take shape.

Skepticon is known for presenting great speakers and stimulating topics. Recent conventions have included presentations on pseudo-archaeology, research into vaping, responding to the COVID pandemic, superstition in elite sporting performance, adaptation to climate change, the Ivermectin scandal, discerning trustworthy scientific studies and escaping cults. Speakers have included Dr. Ken Harvey, Dr. Rachael Dunlop, members of the European Skeptics podcast, Brian Dunning of Skeptoid, Steven Novella, Bruce Baer Arnold and great panel discussions, to offer just a hint of what this convention brings.

The annual Skepticon dinner will be held on the Saturday night at St. Andrews Hotel, Nicholson Street Fitzroy. It’s a popular night of entertainment, dining, great conversation and the presentation of awards from Australian Skeptics Inc. One is a unique prize that inevitably draws some media comment. Namely, The Bent Spoon Award.

This exclusive title is an annual award presented to the perpetrator of the most preposterous piece of paranormal or pseudo-scientific piffle. Nominations are underway for this year’s winner. Or should that be “lucky loser”? They include, but are not limited to favourites of this author, such as Dave Oneegs, Senator Gerard Rennick and (suspended) Dr. William Bay. If you have somebody in mind or want to add your support to an existing nomination, submit your vote by email.

Last years winner was bogus-medico Maria Carmela Pau who was caught out selling fake COVID vaccination exemption certificates. Other winners include Craig Kelly, 2021, for spreading his waffle on COVID, the vaccine, alternative “cures” and various conspiracy theories. Pete Evans, 2015 for dietary nonsense, anti-fluoride and anti-vaccination piffle. Pete also won in 2020, for his colourful but useless BioCharger, and yet more prolonged anti-vaccination rhetoric. What’s that? No, no. A haircut, no matter how preposterous, is neither paranormal nor pseudoscientific.

2016 was a great year, producing the winning trifecta of Judy Wilyman, Brian Martin and the University of Wollongong. This came in the wake of a doctorate being awarded for Wilyman’s anti-vaccine thesis, void of any research design or novel data. SBS-TV, ABC programmes and producers have also won for presenting pseudoscience and alternatives to medicine in a supportive framework. Of course dear reader I cannot omit that the 2009 Bent Spoon went to Meryl Wynn Dorey and the AVN for being themselves.

Justifiably, there are merit awards given for great talent and hard work. At a time when we are surrounded by conspiracy theories, scams, pseudoscientific claims, discrimination and bigotry, the skeptic movement is motivated to recognise and reward individuals who contribute to critical thinking, scientific reasoning and who value diversity and inclusivity. This is particularly clear in the Goals of Australian Skeptics Inc.

To this end, the following awards are also presented at the Skepticon Saturday dinner. The Fred Thornett Award – known as The Fred – is given for the promotion of, and educating the public about, issues of Science and Reason. The Barry Williams Award for Skeptical Journalism, also known as The Wallaby, acknowledges journalistic work that critically analyses or exposes issues related to pseudoscience or the paranormal. Depending on the topic, individuals chosen for these awards may have faced abuse and/or intimidation as they work toward these valuable goals. This is not lost on skeptics in Australia.

Finally, Skeptic of The Year is awarded to a skeptic or someone with links to the skeptical community in recognition of effective activism or an exceptional contribution to the skeptic movement. This is not awarded annually or biannually, but rather in response to an individual’s unique contribution.

Throughout the weekend there is opportunity for stimulating discussion with like-minded individuals on topical issues relevant to Skepticism. It’s also a great time to broaden your interest in, or involvement with, the skeptical community.

I hope to see you there.

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

The Australian Babies Case: What was it? Why was it?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Australian Vaccination-risks Network, AVN, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Human Rights, Immunisation, Legal, Science, Skeptic by

In a previous post we looked at the unsuccessful attempt of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network to convince the Federal Court of Australia it had legal standing to challenge the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

They sought a writ of Mandamus to overturn provisional registration of mRNA and AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, and a Judicial Review to overturn provisional approval of Pfizer’s vaccine for 5 to 11 year olds.

The evidence was intended to demonstrate lack of safety and efficacy of the vaccines. The plaintiffs contended the vaccines should not have been provisionally approved or registered. Indeed, that they should have been cancelled or suspended because of an imminent risk of death or serious injury. Thus, the Secretary of the Department of Health had erred in his duty to “cause to be maintained” the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods.

However the evidence and legal arguments were never heard in court. The AVN had no “special interest”, and thus standing. On 8 August 2022 their appeal against this finding was found to be incompetent. A couple of months later, lengthy correspondence went out to all “donors and potential donors”. Headed AVN Legal Actions and Strategies the document opined on the issue of standing:

The way that the current case law is being applied by the Federal Court is essentially to say that nobody has sufficient standing to challenge these therapeutic ‘goods’, nor indeed the Secretary of Health.

The Babies Case

The AVN had decided to take “an alternative course of action”. One that had been researched and prepared by retired barrister Julian Gillespie and solicitors Peter Fam of Maat’s Method and Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien and Associates. In view of the AVN’s recent outcome it was deemed wiser to approach the High Court with “The Australian Babies Case” (AuBC), and seek to “halt the provisional approval of the Moderna jab from being injected into our precious 6 month old to 5 year old infants”. The AVN would “change course” and become a co-applicant with five others.

The other applicants were:

  • Associate Professor Peter Parry
  • Dr. Julian Fidge
  • Dr. Shoba Iyer
  • Dr. Astria Lefringhausen
  • Mark Neugebauer

The first three applicants above are active members of the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society (AMPS), a Red Union group that formed with the specific aim of challenging the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, fighting COVID-19 mandates and promoting controversial treatments such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Parry is also the lead applicant challenging the State of QLD over health professional’s vaccine requirements and a key member of Doctors Against Mandates. Three months before the AuBC strategy was outlined in this document, the AVN published the full AMPS Medico-Legal Summit on its website.

The breakdown of speakers at the summit includes AVN legal consultant and primary researcher behind the AuBC Julian Gillespie, primary plaintiff Prof. Peter Parry, Senator Malcolm Roberts and Senator Gerard Rennick. We will meet Senator Rennick again, later in this post. In lobbying the SA Minister for Child Protection, plaintiff Mark Neugebauer cites AMPS correspondence from Dr. Christopher Neil, another speaker at the summit. Gillespie and Ashby-Koppens appear on AMPS Discussions From The Frontline updating legal activity |2|.

The document went on to outline the strategy behind this new approach:

In The Australian Babies Case, the legal strategy is to present five applicants before the High Court of Australia, and show the Court how each applicant is affected by the actions and inactions of the Secretary of Health, with respect to the Covid-19 drugs made available to babies and young children, and the rest of the Australian community in circumstances where, prima facie, preventable deaths, illnesses, and injuries in extraordinary numbers are associated with their use; and where most of the population does not need them; however despite the expertise and evidence possessed by the various five applicants, the current law on standing in Australia is deficient, and will not recognise any of the applicants as proper parties for suing the Secretary of Health.

Australian Babies Case legal research team

Julian Gillespie
Peter Fam
Katie Ashby-Koppens

It further outlined that the Babies Case would be seeking to have the High Court “fix the law on standing” such that the applicants would be accepted as having “special interest”. Namely, “the preservation of human life from preventable death, illness or injury”. It was claimed, albeit without evidence, these preventable outcomes were being seen now, due to “COVID-19 drugs” and that this constituted an “iatrogenic catastrophe”. That is to say, a catastrophe caused by the diagnosis and treatment of a condition.

Mark Robinson SC who represented the AVN in the initial failed case, confirmed this new approach was viable and advised that the High Court “has indicated that it wishes to revisit the law of standing in Australia”. They would be seeking:

  1. A new Special Interest regarding the preservation of human life.
  2. If successful, a court-granted injunction to halt the provisional approval of COVID-19 vaccines to babies 6 months to 5 years and children 6 to 11 years of age.
  3. If the High court recognises this new special interest for standing, that the High or Federal Court immediately hear the Judicial Review cases for both childhood age groups and the original Mandamus case for mRNA and AstraZeneca vaccines.

If successful, the AVN expected to be able to proceed with their initial cases. As “a matter of convenience” the AVN would seek to take over the running of the Judicial Review case that involved children 6 months to 5 years (the AuBC). The AVN note that they feel joining the case “operates as a de facto appeal” from the 8 August 2022 Federal Court appeal decision.

The application was filed with the High Court on 20 December 2022. The day before, a media release was published by AVN president Meryl Dorey. It provided some initial insight into the legal tactics to be employed in this quest for a new category of standing. Resurrected anti-vaccine themes from the initial Federal Court case peppered a quote attributed to Julian Gillespie (bold mine):

The High Court of Australia is now being called upon to protect our youngest from participating in an acknowledged and ongoing Phase III clinical trial, to receive experimental drugs involving unprecedented levels of reported adverse events, including deaths… for a virus also acknowledged to pose no threat to our Babies and Toddlers…

At this point it’s worth noting that, in public discourse, the Australian Babies Case legal team studiously avoid discussing the 3 August 2022 ATAGI recommendations for this age group. Namely:

ATAGI recommends COVID-19 vaccination for children aged 6 months to <5 years with severe immunocompromise, disability, and those who have complex and/or multiple health conditions which increase the risk of severe COVID-19.

More so, the legal team make much of the fact severe cases of COVID-19 are not common in this age group, and thus provisional approval of Spikevax suggests nefarious, and not clinical, motivation. Yet ATAGI clearly state:

ATAGI’s guidance takes into account:

  • The very low risk of severe COVID-19 (e.g. hospitalisation due to COVID-19) in healthy children aged 6 months to <5 years. This age group is one of the least likely age groups to require hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Among the small number who are hospitalised or who die due to COVID-19, underlying medical conditions or immunocompromise are frequently present. […]

The plaintiffs alleged Spikevax is a “genetically modified organism”. As such, Brendan Murphy, Secretary of the Department of Health had failed to comply with yet another section of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TG Act). As expected a writ of certiorari would be sought to quash provisional approval of Moderna’s Spikevax vaccine for children 6 months to 5 years. A writ of mandamus (where the court orders an official) was originally sought to have the application to approve Spikevax, reviewed under law. It was ultimately abandoned. For more specific insight we must turn to the application.

The plaintiff’s argument had two grounds, and a section headed Reasons Why Remittal Not Appropriate. Those reasons argued that the case should be heard by the High Court because that court had the power to accept the need for, and then admit for hearing, a new category of standing. Thus the High Court should not remit (send back) the case to the Federal Court. They contended that the principles for standing should be more liberal when a person can establish the subject matter involves life threatening or debilitating medical conditions and they seek to preserve human life. In short:

Where the fabric of human life might be compromised or adversely impacted, interested and involved members of the public should have a right of standing in such circumstances.

Whilst I don’t accept the argument for a new category of standing in this manner, I do agree that the law is frequently lacking. In fact, it’s about here I suspect a number of Australian vaccine proponents, Skeptics and opponents of the anti-vaccination lobby may feel a dash of Deja Vu.

In 2010, following complaints from the public about misleading AVN advice, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission published a “damning report”. The AVN successfully appealed the ruling because whilst the HCCC had jurisdiction, the complaints lacked evidence that anyone had acted on AVN advice. The appeal outcome led to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 in NSW Parliament, allowing the HCCC to act on the likelihood of harm. A follow up inquiry was launched and a second, more in depth Public Warning against the AVN was published in 2014.

Let’s return to the present. The plaintiffs also argue that there are “important questions about the lawfulness of Commonwealth officials to make provisional determinations” that impact wellbeing. They allege there is no real jurisprudence about this in the context of the TG Act. Yet in reality, the standard of evidence required to make these determinations is high and the TG Act is comprehensively designed to minimise risk. Indeed failure to make provisional determinations may risk the wellbeing of the nation.

Ground One of the plaintiff’s argument again takes us to the TG Act. Specifically Section 22D(1), which provides that the Secretary must decide to make or refuse to make a determination, when a valid application has been made. In this case the application was for Spikevax (elasomeran), which the Secretary provisionally approved for children 6 months to 5 years, on 19 July 2022. The plaintiffs argue that s 22D(1) “is subject to an implied restraint”, that the decision will be legally reasonable. They submitted:

Legal reasonableness, or an absence of legal unreasonableness, is an essential element in the lawfulness of decision-making.

Referring to “the decision” to provisionally approve Spikevax for the ages under discussion, the application is dismissive of evidence used. It cites the TGA document Australian Public Assessment Report for Spikevax, 19 July 2022. Yet the Submission overview and risk/benefit assessment, accommodates no less than half of the 31 pages. This was updated on 8 November 2022; 42 days prior to filing of the plaintiff’s application, and contains 8 subsections covering 55 of the document’s 69 pages. Subsections include, but are not limited to, Quality, Risk management plan, Risk-benefit analysis, Additional clinical data and Second risk-benefit analysis.

The plaintiffs further argued that the Secretary’s decision that Regulation 10L(1)(a) of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (TG Regs) was met, is legally unreasonable. That particular regulation states under Provisional Determinations:

(1) For the purposes of subsection 22D(2) of the Act, the criteria are all of the following: 

    (a) an indication of the medicine is the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition;

In other words it was legally unreasonable to accept that the vaccine ever contributed to the prevention of serious illness brought on by COVID-19 in children 6 months to 5 years. This argument is a repeat of the AVN tactic seeking Judicial Review in the initial Federal Court Children Decision case, where they also targeted s 22D of the Act.

At the time I wrote:

This was cited because the AVN also sought an order quashing any determination made by the Secretary pursuant to section 22D, that an indication of the vaccine:

“[W]as the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of a life-threatening or seriously debilitating condition for children aged 5 to 11 years of age.”

The plaintiffs continue to argue their case for “legal unreasonable decision-making” by again turning to the TG Act. They argue the Secretary has failed to satisfy requirements in s 25(1)(d)(i). Section 25 deals with evaluation of therapeutic goods, and the cited subsection provides:

(d) for an application for provisional registration of a medicine: 

      (i) whether, based on preliminary clinical data, the safety and efficacy of the medicine for the purposes for which it is to be used have been satisfactorily established.

Put more simply, the plaintiffs contend that when the Secretary was evaluating Spikevax, the data he used did not “satisfactorily establish” its safety and efficacy. This, they allege, amounts to legal unreasonable decision-making.

Genetically Modified Organism

Ground two of the plaintiff’s argument stated that the Secretary failed to comply with s 30C(2) of the TG Act. Section 30C provides for Consultation with the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The cited subsection reads:

Subject to subsection (5), the Secretary must give written notice to the Gene Technology Regulator: 

      (a) stating that the application has been made; and 

      (b) requesting the Gene Technology Regulator to give advice about the application.

The affidavit continued:

It appears that there has been non-compliance with a statutory condition in the TG Act. […] The plaintiffs contend that non-compliance with the statutory obligation mandated by s 30C(2) leads to the invalidity of the registration decision that followed.

Could it be that the Secretary did not have to notify the OGTR? As fate would have it we are assisted here by questions from Senator Gerard Rennick. On 16 February 2023 during a Community Affairs Legislation Committee Estimates hearing, Rennick questioned our current gene technology regulator, Dr. Raj Bhula, about s 30C of the TG Act, asking if the Secretary had written to the OGTR in regards to mRNA vaccines.

You can read the full exchange on Rennick’s website, or watch the video of it below. However, I’ll cut to the responses that matter with respect to the AuBC. Does the Secretary have to notify the OGTR?

Dr Bhula : No, because the mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR.

Senator RENNICK: Did they write to you and actually ask you that question?

Dr Bhula : No, because they’re not required to be regulated through the OGTR.

Senator RENNICK: But how would they know, because you’re the expert? And, by the way, gene technology involves both replication and transcription.

Dr Bhula : Yes.

Senator RENNICK: Which is what the mRNA vaccine does.

Dr Bhula : But the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not involve any step of genetic modification—

Senator RENNICK: They produce proteins.

Dr Bhula : or a GMO—

CHAIR: Senator Rennick, would you allow Dr Bhula to finish her answers.

Dr Bhula : which meant that that didn’t require regulatory oversight by the OGTR.

An unambiguous answer. Interestingly, this wasn’t published on Rennick’s website at the time of the exchange. It was published 20 March 2023, which was four days after the High Court decided not to hear the AuBC. A coincidence? Unlikely, dear reader. As mentioned above, Senator Rennick, the AuBC plaintiffs, key legal researcher for the case and the AMPS are linked by their COVID-19 ideology and related lobbyist activity.

Gerard Rennick questions Dr. Raj Bhula, Office of Gene Technology Regulator

For the purposes of the AuBC affidavit, I acknowledge the confusion surrounding mRNA vaccines and GM technology. The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine using a genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus, is a clear example of GM technology. The OGTR Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for that vaccine is here. Years earlier the OGTR published a similar plan for a GM Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine. The TGA acknowledges both examples as GMO medicines.

Technology applied to extract, multiply and distill the mRNA used in vaccines to instruct our cells to produce the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 is different to the genetic modification of an adenovirus or a live influenza virus. Dr. Bhula describes it as not involving “any step of genetic modification or a GMO”.

Nonetheless, the Australian National Gene Technology Scheme lists mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, including Spikevax, as GMOs used as medicines. An Open Access Government article states, “mRNA and viral vector vaccines are derived using techniques of genetic modification (GM)”. The Alliance For Science distinguishes between the two. “This one really is genetically engineered”, it says of the adenovirus vaccine, after discussing mRNA vaccines.

We must accept Dr. Bhula’s position that mRNA vaccines are not required to be regulated through the OGTR. For the sake of the AuBC affidavit, s 30C(2) of the TG Act does not then apply, and the provisional registration of the mRNA vaccine Spikevax, is valid.

Case Remitted to Federal Court

The plaintiffs did not appear before the High Court. On 16 March 2023, Justice Stephen Gageler remitted the case to the Federal Court of NSW, as per the following order. A summary page is below.

No weight was given to the legal arguments raised, although it was noted there were “supporting affidavits totalling more than 2,000 pages”. What’s important is Justice Gageler’s observation that the Secretary had submitted that the proceedings should be remitted to the Federal Court which would have jurisdiction, under Section 39B(1) or (1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act. That section follows parliamentary action in 1997, to transform the Federal Court into one with more general jurisdiction (see p.9), including jurisdiction over any matter, “arising under any laws made by the Parliament [excluding criminal implications]”.

Justice Gageler observed:

I am satisfied that this matter is one “arising under” the TG Act for purposes of s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act, and that the Federal Court has jurisdiction over its subject-matter and the parties on that basis.

Justice Gageler reflected on the plaintiff’s claim that the High Court was the only appropriate Court to decide on a new category of standing due to “special interest” arising when “the fabric of human life might be compromised or adversely impacted”. He stressed that the power to remit is discretionary “to be exercised after due consideration of all the circumstances of the case”. Justice Gageler cited another case as instructive, in that the power of the remitter is designed to ensure the High Court is not diverted from its principle functions by matters that “could properly be brought in an Australian trial court”. After offering his assessment of the significant scale of the case, Gageler concludes:

Having regard to these considerations, significant case management and fact finding are likely to be required to conduct a hearing of the kind contemplated by the application. Undertaking that task would unduly divert the Court from its principal functions.

“We are Discontinuing the Australian Babies Case”

The plaintiffs did not return to the Federal Court. On 12 April 2023, instructing solicitor Peter Fam of Maat’s Method published an article, and a longer explanatory video, in which he labels the vaccines “a poison”. In view of their 2022 failures with the Federal Court, further chances were poor. Even if successful, there may be repeated appeals lasting over a year. They did not have the money or time. “People are being injured and dying every day”, from COVID-19 vaccines, Fam said without evidence.

Fam added; “Too much money has been used on facetious exploits and actions… things that haven’t been thought out in terms of strategy… people aren’t working together… doing things that are contradictory to each other… I have to take some responsibility… we lost the AVN case… a lot of money had been donated to that case”.

However:

All is not lost. This is a pivot; not a retreat, and there are other matters we have been working on simultaneously with this one, with better prospects of success than this case would have in the Federal Court. Those efforts will be formally launched within weeks, and you will hear more about them soon.

Dr. William Bay

A final mention must go to suspended GP registrar, William Bay. Bay has become a favourite amongst “cooker” watchers since he chose an AMA conference to film himself yelling anti-vaccine conspiracies, and call Chief Medical Officer, Paul Kelly “a liar”. A client of Peter Fam, Bay was asked to join the AuBC as a plaintiff. Shortly after he wanted to swap his position as plaintiff with the parent of a vaccine-injured child, believing this gave the team a greater chance at success. Fam and Gillespie disagreed. Nor could such a client be found.

Later, he filed for leave to intervene in the case as he objected to the nature of the special interest standing. He argued that if granted, the existence of standing granted via special interest in “the preservation of human life from preventable death, illness or injury”, could be used to justify COVID-19 vaccination for children. You can read Julian Gillespie’s “urgent” letter to supporters on this matter here.

Understandably, Bay further argues that such special interest standing may then be used to interfere in the application of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship in areas unrelated to COVID-19 vaccination (see video 56:45). Gillespie argues, quite rightly, that the request for standing applies to administrative and not private law. What Gillespie omits though, is any appreciation of how administrative changes impact private citizens.

Conclusion

The Australian Babies Case sought to convince the High Court to accept that medically qualified applicants had “special interest” preventing “death, illness or injury”, in babies and small children. Success would lead to a new category of standing, and this would permit the AVN to return to the Federal Court to pursue this case and its original 2022 Federal Court case, AVN v Secretary, Dept. Health.

Case evidence involved a revamping of prior legal tactics. The Therapeutic Goods Act was exploited by the plaintiffs to demonstrate regulatory failures on the part of the Secretary of the Department of Health. These failures, they again argue, justify overturning the registration or approval of COVID-19 vaccines. Driving this action was a suite of fallacious claims and misrepresented statistics.

The plaintiffs are members of and/or closely associated with the AMPS, a well organised union of medical and allied health professionals, working actively to undermine confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Members of the legal team in this case are strident anti-vaccine activists, closely associated with AMPS, and outspoken anti-vaccine politicians.

Despite the label of “Babies Case”, this was all about giving the AVN a second chance for legal standing to have their case demanding an end to all COVID vaccines, heard in the Federal Court. Had standing been granted via a special interest as described above, it could be used to target all vaccines and help Meryl Dorey advance her life-long claim that “no vaccine is safe”.

According to the instructing solicitor of the AVN, further action should be expected soon.

Related material

Safety of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Among Young Children in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

Julian Gillespie and AVN fact checked

Julian Gillespie: AMPS Discussions from the frontline (Federal Court case)

Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens: AMPS Discussions from the frontline (Babies Case)

Peter Fam at COVID Inquiry 2.0 with Malcolm Roberts and Graig Kelly

Peter Fam on The Australian Babies Case

Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens discuss the AVN cases on Zerotime (32:10 mark)

A short grab on Twitter:

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Last update: 11 July 2023

Dr. Rima Laibow, “the great culling” and colloidal silver

Posted in Alternative "medicine" scams, Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, General, Immunisation, Legal, Scam, Skeptic, Social Media by

The COVID pandemic gave voice to a number of conspiracy theories that sought to offer an explanation about what was “really” happening. Some of the more bizarre, and yet persistent, conspiracies involve an inexplicable plan of global depopulation. Or as it is often labelled, “culling”.

A decade before the pandemic, anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists had accused Bill Gates of using vaccines in his own quest to depopulate the planet. That was an intentional distortion of a TED talk Gates had given in which he notes that improved public health correlated with decreased population growth. Over time it became a particularly robust piece of misinformation, commonly spread with the unfounded claim that vaccines cause infertility. Claims of vaccine induced depopulation and infertility found new ground during the pandemic. As the pandemic continued a host of conspiracy theories about vaccines were entertained by antivaxxers in a bizarre ebb and flow fashion modulated by social media.

Another identity associated with the depopulation conspiracy theory to be dusted off during the pandemic was psychiatrist, Dr. Rima Laibow. Rima was referenced on social media in 2021, January 2022 and most recently in March 2023. Laibow’s attraction was due to her appearance on the 2009 programme Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura. Motivated by H1N1 (“Swineflu”), anti-vaccine conspiracy theory rhetoric, Laibow claimed during an interview that the World Health Organisation had been working since 1974 to orchestrate global depopulation. She claimed the WHO assessed the world overpopulated by 90% and was using vaccines to create “permanent sterility”. That the population had grown from 4 billion to just under 7 billion from 1974 to 2009 was seemingly lost on her.

April 2023 Instagram post from a now deleted account

Her 2009 appearance with Jesse Ventura was being shared on social media along with commentary suggesting that Laibow had “nailed it” and foreseen both mandatory vaccination and “the great culling“. In the histrionics of conspiracy theory echo chambers this was proof that the WHO was using COVID-19 vaccines to create permanent sterility, and that Laibow had “cautioned us against COVID-19”. It must be stressed that mandatory vaccination either for H1N1 or COVID-19 never eventuated. There has been ample controversy regarding vaccine mandates in certain workplaces during the COVID-19 pandemic, but in no way have Laibow’s claims been realised.

On 26 April 2022 Health Feedback published a fact check of another of Laibow’s accusations in the video. Namely, the claim that squalene in vaccines caused autoimmune disease and Gulf War Syndrome. Unsurprisingly, the verdict was “inaccurate”. Laibow warned of the horror vaccines would unleash, telling Jesse Ventura, “What that means is a genocidal holocaust. Men and women will sicken and die and those who survive will be infertile”. The YouTube video below contains the circulating clip of Rima Laibow, edited to educate the viewer as to Laibow’s relationship with science, the truth and legislation.

Dr. Rima Laibow

Selling Colloidal Silver

During her interview Laibow dramatically remains on the edge of a tarmac lest she need to suddenly escape from the USA to avoid “compulsory vaccination” for H1N1. She did not feel safe living in the USA and tells Ventura she was leaving as soon as the interview was over. However, it appears she managed to overcome her fear to work as “medical director” and trustee of the company, Natural Solutions Foundation, with a website hosted at drrimatruthreports.com. By 2014 Rima Laibow was selling a “cure” for Ebola. The “cure” was 10 PPM Nano Silver, which was in fact colloidal silver, and packaged as “Dr. Rima Recommends Nano Silver”. In September 2014 the US Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission labelled the company “scammers”. A warning letter to the company informed Laibow and a co-trustee that they were in breach of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

The correspondence includes examples of strikingly inaccurate claims made on the Natural Solutions Foundation website in which nano silver is described as “safe and non toxic… able to kill every pathogen worldwide against which it has been tested”. Health authorities were of course hiding the truth of this cure and the absence of “declassified research” supporting colloidal silver was proof it is effective. Packaged with a CBD organic chocolate bar, nano silver constituted part of a “protection pack”. Other claims included:

Conventional Antibiotics won’t do much against genetically engineered or resistant organisms… But safe, gentle and effective nano silver kills disease organisms in a different way… This is powerful natural protection you need for yourself ad [sic] your family. Choose the Personal Protection Pack or the Family Protection Pack…

It kills only the organisms that cause disease… similar to the lamps in hospitals that kill deadly germs… and also interferes with the metabolism of the disease organisms in such a way that they cannot become resistant to it. 

Laibow responded by altering claims made on the company website. The scheme was heavily criticised on the 7 On Your Side TV programme “Don’t Get Taken By Ebola Scams”, in which Laibow reportedly argued the scam label was “ridiculous”. Ebola scams were common in the USA at the time, taking the form of bogus charities and cures. Ebola cases and deaths had occurred on US soil and scam artists were taking advantage of fear and uncertainty.

By 2020 of course, the pandemic was upon us. Did Rima Laibow actually turn to reminding us that she had warned of the WHO depopulation-by-sterilisation using vaccines? Did she flee the US in fear of mandatory vaccination? Well no, because Natural Solutions Foundation immediately got to work selling the very same Nano Silver concoction as a treatment for COVID-19. At the same time COVID conspiracy theories were peddled via the long standing Dr. Rima Truth Reports, and went as far as calling face masks “mind control devices”.

Ultimately, the FDA filed a suit on 13 November 2020 that alleged Natural Solutions Foundation, and its trustees Rima Laibow and Ralph Fucetola, had “sold and distributed a nano silver product that the defendants claim will cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent COVID-19.” It further alleged that they had sold misbranded drugs, as labelling for use was insufficient. As such they had violated the FDCA, and on 28 December 2021 were ordered by a District court to stop distributing the colloidal silver. This was the same product used in breach of the same Act as in 2014, albeit now in exploitation of COVID-19.

‘Dr. Rima Recommends’ nano silver label

Fortunately, this time the outcome was more enduring. The defendants agreed to settle the suit and be bound by a Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction [PDF]. The court entered an order that enjoins the defendants from violating the FDCA. They were ordered to recall all nano silver products sold from 22 January 2020 to 27 December 2021, and destroy any such products in their possession. Before distribution of any drugs in future they must notify the FDA in advance, comply with remedial measures and permit an FDA inspection of their facility and procedures. On 8 March 2023 the FDA published an urgent product recall from the company for the nano silver product, issued as part of the consent decree.

These days Dr. Rima Laibow and Ralph Fucetola of Natural Solutions appear on Open Source Truth [archive] and present a weekly podcast titled The Unmasked Crusaders. The Natural Solutions Foundation website is unchanged from a decade ago and the Dr. Rima Truth Reports continue. They do not, thankfully, sell colloidal silver.

The anti-vaccine, anti-mask, anti-science rhetoric however, is undiminished.

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Ivermectin now a quack cure-all

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Scam, Science, Skeptic, Social Media by

During the second and third years of the COVID pandemic, skeptics began to hear more and more of an anti-parasitic drug that had been used frequently for animals and less so for humans.

Ivermectin has been approved by health authorities to treat humans with strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis (river blindness): conditions that are caused by parasitic worms. Also there are topical ivermectin preparations used to manage skin conditions such as rosacea and external parasites such as head lice. Used as prescribed it is quite safe and has improved the lives of countless individuals in developing nations. Yet we weren’t hearing about ivermectin used in this manner. Thanks to disinformation and irresponsible repetition of dubious claims, ivermectin was being promoted as a means to combat COVID-19.

The anti-vaccination movement embraced ivermectin because it resonated with the “my body, my choice” mantra. Right leaning media identities promoted it in much the same illogical way as they had hydroxychloroquine. It had been used safely for decades, they argued, and thus was clearly a sound choice to combat COVID-19 symptoms. Yet hydroxychloroquine, had a pharmaceutical history as an anti-malarial and an agent to manage symptoms of arthritis and autoimmune disease, not in treating COVID-19. Ivermectin similarly, had no clinically proven background in the treatment of COVID-19. The clinical trials had simply not been done.

For skeptics, the issue was and is quite simple. Look toward reputable sources. Seriously examine the arguments in favour of ivermectin. Review the strength of research being cited. Place the issue in context. Keep an eye out for ideology. Check the profiles and backgrounds of key players, and so on. In short: Seek the evidence.

Initially there was the 3 April 2020 media release from Monash University. The Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute announced a paper published in the peer reviewed journal Antiviral Research. The title, The FDA-approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in vitro, was tantalising. An informative piece published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 October 2021 cites experienced drug developer Dr. Craig Rayner referring to the impact of the announcement:

“It was incredibly hyped,” Dr Rayner said. “I knew it was going to start a fire.” […]

“It’s not the best thing for Australia to become known for in terms of its contribution to the pandemic,” Dr Rayner said. “But that’s what it is, unfortunately. It has promoted vaccine hesitancy and people are dying because they’re taking a veterinary medicine that has not been proven.”

For those looking to grab the ivermectin ball and run with it, the media release was peppered with big names, other nasty diseases and potentially exciting findings. It has since been modified to include an FDA warning and offer clear disclaimers about ivermectin’s effectiveness. What mattered to those who would go on to push ivermectin as a safe cure for COVID-19, came from just a few paragraphs:

A collaborative study led by the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) with the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity (Doherty Institute), a joint venture of the University of Melbourne and Royal Melbourne Hospital, has shown that an anti-parasitic drug already available around the world kills the virus within 48 hours.

The Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute’s Dr Kylie Wagstaff, who led the study, said the scientists showed that the drug, Ivermectin, stopped the SARS-CoV-2 virus growing in cell culture within 48 hours. 

“We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,” Dr Wagstaff said.

Ivermectin is an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug that has also been shown to be effective in vitro against a broad range of viruses including HIV, Dengue, Influenza and Zika virus. 

Dr Wagstaff cautioned that the tests conducted in the study were in vitro and that trials needed to be carried out in people.

For those of us even broadly familiar with how drugs are brought to market, it was that final line above that mattered. Early lab results do not equate to clinical trials. Indeed shortly after the announcement, effort and funding across the globe was directed to clinical trials of ivermectin. Yet it would take almost eighteen months before enough studies were done, presenting enough evidence to show that ivermectin does not hold promise as a treatment for COVID-19. Over 2021, the number of news articles heavily critical of the “dubious” apparent “miracle cure” rose steadily such as here, here and here. The BBC published a powerful article on the “false science” backing ivermectin. Flawed data, fake evidence and poorly designed and written research was common.

Australia watched on as Malcolm Roberts, George Christensen, Craig Kelly and Clive Palmer promoted (and still promote) ivermectin. In the absence of evidence ivermectin could not be prescribed for COVID-19. This led to proponents sourcing and ingesting veterinary-grade ivermectin. It soon became clear from social media that many were taking excessive doses very often. On 21 August 2021 the FDA tweeted, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” That tweet links to accurate FDA information on the dangers of using ivermectin.

Finish reading “Ivermectin now a quack cure-all” at the Victorian Skeptics website…