Category Archives: COVID-19

“Demolishing anti-vaccine frauds in live debate”

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, Education, Health, Immunisation, Science, Social Media by

Those of you lucky enough to attend Skepticon in Melbourne early last month will remember Dave Farina presenting his talk The Birth of the Science Communicator, from the USA.

He recently joined up with Dr. Dan Wilson of Debunk The Funk to take on two full time anti-vaccine grifters, Steve Kirsch and Pierre Kory. You can check out Dave’s take on how things went by dropping in on his video explanation here. Regrettably the debate turned out a predictable mess as the audience was loaded with anti-vax trolls and the conduct of the notably loathsome Kory and Kirby, meant the full schedule of discussion points wasn’t even met.

This would be because Kory, who in August last year, lost his medical licence for promoting, and wildly profiting from pushing ivermectin during COVID, spat the dummy and walked out. Aw Gosh. Anyway, there’s Gish-galloping from the anti-vax chaps and heckling from their supporters. Dave and Dan do an excellent job handling the horrific misinformation that we’re now seeing in our post COVID-19 pandemic world. I’m not surprised things went astray, as I learnt in Australia that anti-vaxxers deserve not a molecule of oxygen.

Still, perhaps given the state of anti-science rhetoric and the steady rumble of runaway grift trains, then documenting their demonstrably deceptive tactics is a pursuit with rewards we’re yet to fully appreciate. This is an almost two hour gig which is perfect for either bingeing or letting play whilst you do the housework or head out for a walk.

You can watch the same event without Dave’s commentary, at The greatest vaccine debate in history here at Pangburn. Apologies that neither video appears to permit embedding.

Turbo Cancer: Time for this anti-vaccine myth to die

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

“Turbo cancer” does not exist. Oncologists reject the notion entirely. Aside from the ridiculous name, there is no evidence to support it. Bold claims promoting it as fact, are not merely invalid, but scientifically incompetent. Proponents offer no clear definition, other than insist DNA can be damaged by COVID-19 vaccines, leading to aggressive cancers. As the “died suddenly” trend begins to die out, “turbo cancer” is in top gear.

We’re told residual DNA in vaccines is responsible. Or, the vaccines enter the cell nucleus. Or, it’s not a vaccine – it’s gene therapy. Or, simian virus 40 (SV40) is the cancer-causing agent in mRNA vaccines. This last claim has origins reaching back to the 1950s and 1960s when discovery of SV40 present in oral polio vaccine was responsible for safety concerns and later cancer fear-mongering. Mechanisms of infection were verified as possible but rare, and allegations of a surge in cancers decades later, are unverified. SV40 was one of the first oncogenic viruses discovered. These viruses cause cancers in experimental animals and in some cases humans. However, not in this case. When it comes to COVID-19 vaccines, some mRNA preparations may contain SV40 fragments, which aren’t the same as the virus and are not carcinogenic. In fact there is no evidence of this ever having occurred. The fragments occur because part of SV40’s DNA sequence is used in the beginning of mRNA vaccine development.

  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub
  • ©️ Partnering For Vaccine Equity Resource Hub

As for so-called “turbo cancer” [Wikipedia] the term has its origins at least as far back as November 2020, according to the indefatigable Orac, who identified it in a smarmy comment to a forum post about Moderna’s request for clearance of its mRNA vaccine. By November 2022, use of the term had spiked online. It was being promoted and amplified by a number of anti-vaccine activists on social media. One such group was RFK Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD) which had emerged as a major distributer of COVID disinformation during the pandemic. In January 2023 AFP fact-checked a November 2022 Rumble video produced by CHD, featuring disgraced Canadian doctors Charles Hoffe and Stephen Malthouse. AFP reported that oncologists had informed them the claims were baseless, and added:

“There is no evidence in Canada or globally that vaccination leads to any forms of cancer or that Covid vaccines lead to rapid advancement in cancers,” British Columbia’s Ministry of Health said in a statement emailed January 11. “There is also no evidence to support Covid vaccines leading to harm to the immune system; on the contrary evidence strongly supports that Covid vaccines produce strong, effective immune responses that protect from serious illness from SARS CoV-2.”

Continue reading →

TGA refutes DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines but anti-vaxxers double down

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Legal, Science, Social Media by

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is aware of misinformation in recent media and online reports that claim the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are contaminated with excessive levels of DNA. This is not the case.

TGA 18 October 2024

So opens the TGA report Addressing misinformation about excessive DNA in the mRNA vaccines. It is, for those of us aware of this issue, an understatement. The sheer volume and scope of misinformation, combined with relentless pressure from repeat offenders including members of the Australian parliament, more accurately suggests a campaign. A calculated campaign of misinformation designed to spread fear and intimidate the vaccine hesitant. Despite there being accepted means for discerning DNA residue in vaccines, two claims persist. Namely levels are hundreds of times greater than the accepted safe level, and that aggressive cancers will, and do, directly result.

Background

The original claim stems from a preprint paper by Kevin McKernan dated 11 April 2023. Amplitude, via the Australian anti-COVID vaccine lobby, was lent to this claim in July 2023. The legal guru behind all Australian court cases to challenge approval of COVID-19 vaccines, retired barrister Julian Gillespie, penned The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine. Falsely labelled “peer reviewed” by his anti-vaccine compatriots, it was published in the unabashedly anti-vaccine International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Gillespie also crafted the case material used by Dr. Julian Fidge, in what became known as the Fidge v Pfizer case in which Fidge was represented by Katie Ashby-Koppens of P. J. O’Brien and Associates. I summarised the unsuccessful case here, in April this year. Gillespie and Co. followed with a conspiratorial constitutional complaint against the presiding judge, Justice Helen Rofe. Then via a High Court writ they targeted Chief Justice Debra Mortimer for not accepting their complaint. Both complaints were lodged on behalf of Dr. Fidge

Around the same time, the outrage manufactured by the anti-vax lobby shifted from the claim in Fidge v Pfizer that mRNA vaccines were Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), to the claim that vast amounts of DNA were contaminating these vaccines. Julian Gillespie, who wants a COVID Royal Commission, publishes for his “good substack folk” regularly on DNA contamination. He claims to have commissioned Canadian molecular virologist Dr. David Speicher to pursue said contamination, ultimately announcing confirmation on 6 June. Speicher was not a surprise choice for Gillespie. He had published with McKernan, Jessica Rose, Maria Gutschi, and David Wiseman in Canada in October 2023, reaching the contamination conclusions Gillespie wants to hear about.

It bears stressing that Kevin McKernan’s preprints lost credibility long ago, when it became apparent the vials he tested were of unknown origin. More so, if origin is unknown then cold chain transport requirements are by default, breached. In October 2023, David Gorski referred to McKernan’s initial preprint as an “awful study” and follow up studies being “equally as bad”. Thus it is unsurprising further attempts were made to label COVID vaccines as DNA contaminated. The Global Vaccine Data Network provide an excellent refutation of what they call Plasmid-Gate. As a highly COVID-19 vaccinated nation, Australia is used in their piece as an example to debunk the claim of so-called “turbo cancers” resulting from COVID-19 vaccination. SBS recently reported that last year, biologist Phillip Buckhaults from the University of South Carolina spoke before a state panel postulating the possible consequences of DNA contamination. When his comments took flight on social media he quickly followed up on X with insistence that such a risk was “purely theoretical”. They further reported that:

Dr Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia said [DNA] fragments were “clinically and utterly harmless”.

“These DNA fragments would have to enter the cytoplasm, which is that part of the cell outside of the nucleus, and our cytoplasm hates foreign DNA,” Offit said. “It has innate immune mechanisms as well as enzymes to destroy foreign DNA.”

Also interested in supposed DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines are Senators Malcolm Roberts, Gerard Rennick, Ralph Babet, Alex Antic and Russell Broadbent. Rennick has pushed both the GMO and DNA contamination angle for well over a year. Broadbent remains vocal in parliament to this day, has congratulated Port Hedland Council for calling for an end to COVID vaccines and has furnished Australia’s PM with material on the matter. Broadbent raised his concerns in parliament on 18 November, and I recommend watching this 5 minute video of him speaking.

Another voice to echo Julian Gillespie, is erstwhile ABC journalist Maryanne Demasi. Perhaps her contribution is best summed up in the COVID vaccine conspiracy film she narrated, The Truth – About COVID-19 shots. Erroneously labeled a documentary, it was raved about by Gillespie. And understandably so, given that it includes all his favourite vaccine conspiracies, champions the case and complaints associated with Fidge v Pfizer and lists Gillespie as a source. Demasi also has a Substack account, and has kept her subscribers up to date with DNA contamination developments. In addition Demasi claims the TGA “hides from” reports of SIDS, post vaccination, the TGA and FDA ignored DNA contamination of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, and of course that the TGA response to the claim that mRNA vaccines exhibit DNA contamination, is wrong.

Continue reading →

Vaxxed III: Unmitigated disinformation

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Media, Vaxxed by

On 23 August this year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his independent US presidential campaign in ten battleground states, choosing to endorse Donald Trump. He cited the same causes, “that persuaded me to leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent”, according to AP News. Namely, free speech the war in Ukraine and “a war on our children”.

Kennedy: Anti-vaccine activist

There is, of course, no war on American children. Nor a war on any children in developed nations, in the sense Kennedy is alluding to. In fact as the chairman of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Kennedy has himself waged a long battle against one of public health’s most important pillars; childhood immunisation. As with every anti-vaccine activist, COVID-19 presented Kennedy with an opportunity to manipulate and exploit a growing pool of misguided and misinformed individuals. Those who blame COVID-19 vaccines for virtually every illness or cause of death. Let me stress, I’m not referring to the known side effects but rather, those pushed by COVID conspiracy theorists and tireless anti-vaxxers. Ultimately, Kennedy’s profile expanded markedly, as did CHD revenue.

So comfortable with deceit, when he began his independent trot toward the White House, Kennedy insisted he was not anti-vaccine. This, despite telling a supportive crowd in December 2021, “It is criminal medical malpractice to give a child one of these vaccines”. Despite his influence in bringing about the measles tragedy in Samoa. He worked hard at the presidential pretence, even temporarily stepping down from his position as CHD Chair. Still today, the “chairman on leave” video message on every CHD website page lacks any reference to vaccines. Yet Kennedy mentions “unnecessary injuries” suffered by children, includes studies of autism and developmental disorder rates and packs in 16 snippets of autistic individuals – mostly with pronounced symptoms. Children are chronically sicker than ever before, “wandering around in a toxic soup”, Kennedy tells viewers. In search of the cause he will die with his boots on, fighting for them. Kennedy originally wrongly linked vaccines to autism in a, now removed, 2005 Rolling Stones article. This fact check piece offers an excellent deconstruction of the misconceptions used to make that link.

Vaxxed

Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense has been hard at work targeting vaccine evidence during the COVID pandemic. This includes the making of the third Vaxxed film, Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill, by CHD Films. True to the Vaxxed brand, it is a slick cornucopia of fear-mongering and falsehood. A key figure in this ghastly enterprise is interviewer and co-producer Polly Tommey, who has been involved with the first two Vaxxed films. Readers may remember Tommey was banned from Australia for three years following her antics in promoting the original Vaxxed film here in 2017. Trundling about with the (then) Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Tommey, who wrongly believes the MMR vaccine caused her son, Billy, to develop autism, told Australian audiences “doctors were murderers”. The Tommey named as producer of Vaxxed III and Vaxxed II: The people’s truth, is her other son, Tobias. The second and third Vaxxed films have been directed by Brian Burrowes. The first Vaxxed was directed by Andrew Wakefield and produced by Del Bigtree.

In doing some basic research for this post, I noted that Polly Tommey has changed not at all. On 6 September she used CHD’s X account to peddle the falsehood that “an experimental” oral polio vaccine is being used in Gaza. She added the sweeping claim that “the oral polio vaccine” is responsible for the poliovirus infecting “hundreds each year”. Like most persistent anti-vaccine lies there is a kernel of truth here. A prior oral polio vaccine caused disease in ~1 in 2.9 million. However, the new oral vaccine in Gaza does not contain the vaccine-derived strain responsible for past infections. More so, it is the lack of vaccination and the presence of poliovirus in human waste causing the problem. In addition, removal of the problematic weakened virus in 2016, in an attempt to prevent vaccine-derived outbreaks, resulted in greater infection rates. Citing a draft report for the World Health Organisation, AP News explain:

The polio strain in question evolved from a weakened virus that was originally part of an oral vaccine credited with preventing millions of children worldwide from being paralyzed. But that virus was removed from the vaccine in 2016 in hopes of preventing vaccine-derived outbreaks.

Public health authorities knew that decision would leave people unprotected against that particular strain, but they thought they had a plan to ward off and quickly contain any outbreaks. Instead, the move resulted in a surge of thousands of cases.

Suffice it to say, facts are anathema to CHD and Tommey. Which brings us to the quality of Vaxxed III: Authorised to Kill. As with the prior two films the main content is of people interviewed about so-called “vaccine injuries”, deaths and negative health system experiences, filmed in a Vaxxed bus driving across the USA. Like all Vaxxed buses this one was wrapped in Vaxxed brand colour and font. This time the message was Vax – UnVax: The People’s Study. The journey took nine months. All the COVID-19 anti-vaccine tropes are there. Countless testimonies of “life-altering injuries and deaths”, frightening symptoms, scans of brain tumours and pulmonary bleeds, suicidal tendencies and futile hospitalisations. Whistleblowers, medical professionals and lawyers apparently serve to legitimise what is unmitigated disinformation. Viewers are primed to accept that any response to COVID was a “fundamental violation of human rights”.

Vaxxed films are slick productions. Well edited to give the impression of government and health-authority deception, feeding viewers a misleading narrative that casts vaccines as harmful toxins pushed onto an unsuspecting public for nefarious reasons. A conspiracy to hide the truth is always present. As with all Vaxxed buses the names of the “vaccine injured” and dead are written on the outside of the bus. The dedication page for these most recent names contains over 1,350 entries, many of which list autism from MMR or “childhood vaccinations”. Apart from harm done to perception of vaccine safety and public health, individuals exploited and coaxed into a victim mindset, experience genuine pain and distress. Nothing good comes from these films.

Message on the CHD Vaxxed bus

This latest Vaxxed chapter raises a few questions for those of us in Australia who followed the antics of The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) and their much troubled journeys in their own Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth, bus. The AVN hit the road in July 2020 in their bus, sticking closely to the Vaxxed script. They clocked up seven seperate tours in two buses, as the first was irreversibly damaged in NSW flood waters. On 8 July 2020, AVN founder Meryl Dorey revealed parents “will be filmed for an up-coming Australian documentary”. Five weeks earlier president Anita Hafemeister had boldly claimed, “This will be the Australian version of Vaxxed II, I assume”. All that excitement led this humble author to speculate that the Vaxxed II bus tour would yield material for Vaxxed III. In fact the AVN was still advertising the bus, with sponsorship requests, in February this year. One can only assume that the reality of CHD dollars, Kennedy’s backing and the ambition of Polly Tommey has for now, kept content from Down Under off the big screen.

Polly Tommey and CHD are pushing to fill theatres in the US for an 18 September screening. A host of graphics are offered to assist fans to spread the word on social media. All contain the image of a driverless bus emerging from the mist in the dead of night. The film is being advertised with an unabashed call for donations. Or if you’d like to be an associate, co-‘ or executive producer with a minimum donation of $10,000, that privilege is a mere phone call away. No doubt Vaxxed III will make a profit for Kennedy’s CHD.

Of more concern, is that acceptance of COVID vaccine misinformation has grown in developed nations under the labour of anti-vaccine activists. The USA is currently experiencing a growth in the belief of COVID vaccine falsehoods and this film, along with the discussion that follows, may well worsen that trend in the US and elsewhere. Australian anti-vaxxers will have to wait for an online release.

Polly Tommey and Co discuss pre-release debunking of Vaxxed III

Fidge v Pfizer: The constitutional complaint

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccine, Health, Immunisation, Legal, Science by

In the last post I ran through the finding by Justice Helen Rofe in the case of Fidge v Pfizer. This was the third case brought by individuals and legal representatives with strong anti-vaccination links; both ideological and active. The applicant, Dr. Julian Fidge was found to lack standing. The case was dismissed.

As I previously began to discuss, within a day of the ruling, a follower of Julian Gillespie prompted him to do some digging into Justice Helen Rofe’s career as a barrister. You see, dear reader, as a barrister Helen Rofe had represented Pfizer in cases of intellectual property and patent law between 2003 and 2006. To the antivax mindset, this was proof of corruption because she did not reveal this prior to hearing the case. As a perceived “conflict of interest” existed, Rofe should have recused herself or allowed parties to request her recusal, they argued.

Now again, I am not a lawyer and I cannot qualify the importance of the duty of disclosure in this instance. But my thoughts on this development are straightforward. Is there any evidence Justice Rofe could not have acted impartially, or did not act impartially? Or rather, did her experience make her an ideal choice to hear the case. In 1988 Helen Rofe completed a Bachelor of Science with a major in genetics. Justice Rofe states on LinkedIn:

Prior to being appointed to the Federal Court I was a commercial barrister and Queen’s Counsel specialising in science and technology related matters.

Constitutional Complaint

On 22 March 2024, PJ O’Brien and Associates filed a constitutional complaint against Justice Rofe citing not only her prior work as a barrister but also “affiliations and extended family”. According to the media release (below) Justice Rofe “concealed her connections to Pfizer and the pharmaceutical industry”.

Constitutional Complaint Media Release

I should point out that contact for the complaint, Katie Ashby-Koppens, is on the steering committee for the World Council for Health (WCH). The WCH is renowned for promoting misinformation linking COVID-19 vaccines with death. Wikipedia describes the group:

The World Council for Health is a pseudo-medical organisation dedicated to spreading misinformation to discourage COVID-19 vaccination, and promoting fake COVID-19 treatments.

The organization’s online appearance is that of a mainstream health organization. It appears to have been formed in September 2021 and its published leadership contains people which an Australian Associated Press fact check described as “figures who have promoted unfounded conspiracy theories”.

Now, better equiped to understand motivation, let us examine the complaint.

The accusations in the complaint are impressive to say the least. They require substantial “reasonable assumptions”, both numerous and convoluted. This reasoning begins by pointing out that Justice Rofe has majored in genetics, and the Fidge case involved genetics, genetically modified organisms and allegations that mRNA vaccines are GMOs. Also, we’re reminded that Justice Rofe held prior membership of the Bolton Clarke Human Research and Ethics Committee. Her cousin Sir Andrew Grimwade supported research there with grant monies from the Felton Trust. He was a member of the Felton Bequest for 50 years, and served 19 years as chairman of the bequests committee. He was a guest at the ceremony to welcome Justice Rofe to the federal court. Rofe “enjoyed a good relationship with Sir Andrew” sharing his “interest in science and scientific research”.

Sir Andrew was the great-grandson of Frederick Shepherd Grimwade who, “founded the Grimwade family pharmaceutical industry fortune in Australia”. The complaint goes on to state, Sir Andrew also “served as the honorary President of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI) for 14 years before retiring in 1992″ and had been on the Board since 1963. He “appears” to “have maintained a close relationship with WEHI right up until his death”, purportedly evidenced by a public guestbook obituary from WEHI.

As Australia’s leading biomedical research institute, the WEHI “may have” received billions of dollars from Australian governments. The WEHI have received $30 million from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna have received six times that from the same Foundation, which has also promoted COVID-19 products. It’s “also reasonable to assume the WEHI supports all of the efforts of Mr Gates and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in respect of their support of the COVID-19 products of Pfizer and Moderna.” WEHI received $13.5 million in Australian government funding for “COVID related projects”.

In mere paragraphs we’ve leapt from the failure of Justice Rofe to reveal that she had represented Pfizer some 18 to 21 years ago, to the apparent significance of her cousin’s commitment to scientific research and the involvement of the premier anti-vax enemy, Bill Gates. The complaint continues, targeting the Australian and Victorian governments’ partnership with Moderna. “It is reasonable to assume that the WEHI stands to possibly receive significant monies” from this partnership. The Victorian government has given $600,000 to WEHI as part of mRNA Victoria. “It is entirely reasonable, in light of enduring family ties and her Honour’s own scientific background and interests”, that Justice Rofe has “long been aware of the sources of funding… and the public statements in support of mRNA technologies” made by state and Commonwealth ministers and the Prime Minister.

The complaint rolls on in alleging that affiliations “reaching back four decades for her Honour personally, and over a century when extended family interests of great significance are factored in”, in fact mean a reasonable observer would accept J Rofe holds “Big Pharmaceutical interests, both domestic and international”. More so, Justice Rofe has “meaningfully and significantly assisted to protect, grow, and further establish in Australia [the interests of Pfizer]”. It is further alleged extended family ties nefariously influenced Justice Rofe’s decision-making to favour funding for WEHI, mRNA technology and “further significant sums of research monies” for both, as they’re supported by The Australian PM. Finally we reach paragraphs 42 and 43:

A reasonable observer can conclude from the above that it was more likely than not her Honour would seek to see the science and technology promoted by Pfizer and Moderna, and Australian governments, that stand to significantly benefit medical research institutes like the WEHI, survive and flourish in Australia.

Judicial proceedings of the type brought by Dr Fidge would, if successful, strike a damning blow against all the above interests, and much more.

The complaint continues with Case Implications, outlining what they believe would happen if Fidge had won the case. It not only reads like an anti-vaxxer day dream, yet reveals in black and white, the unabashed sabotage of vaccine public health initiatives and related vendettas, that this group deems justified. Australia would see injunctions and “serious criminal charges” for Pfizer and Moderna. Initiation of investigations into the “operations, processes and personnel of the OGTR, Department of Health and Aged Care” and (of course), “In particular the former Secretary of Health, Brendan Murphy due to his being responsible for provisional approval [of COVID-19 vaccines]”. In addition would be initiation of an examination to determine if the absence of GMO licences led to failure to provide proper informed consent, and medical negligence implications.

There would also be potential civil liability in the Commonwealth government for failing to enforce GMO licensing, and civil liability for Pfizer and Moderna for failing to undertake GMO licensing. The complaint also refers to “possible confirmation” of injuries and deaths caused by genetically modified properties of mRNA vaccines. Yet there is no body of work identifying such adverse outcomes. It is a misinformed notion linked to the same suite of decades old research, mRNA-critical pre-print papers, animal studies, SARS-CoV-2 infection studies and related articles that buoy this anti-vaccine belief. I’m not criticising the research, but strenuously reject the invented link to “injuries and deaths” fabricated by the anti-vaccine lobby.

Another implication of a Fidge victory, is vaccine hesitancy due to a loss of trust in Australian health authorities. Yes, they’re serious. However, vaccine hesitancy is in fact due to constant misinformation spread about vaccines, by groups such as this. Then on p. 13 we read the implication under 44 J:

The necessity to initiate many forms of clinical studies to assess the real world damage, disease, or fatal outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, and any observed medium-to-long term disease and adverse reproductive health outcomes associated with the GMO products of Pfizer and Moderna, for those Australian citizens who were not informed they were receiving GMOs.

Astonishing. The complainants apparently believe an entire body of clinical research would evolve following a Fidge victory. One may ask, quite rightly, as to why such research into this vaccine induced disaster is not already underway. The answer being of course, that the “damage, disease and fatal outcomes” do not exist.

We then read that the complaints provided list is not exhaustive and that the implications suggested, pose severe and long lasting reputational damage and financial consequences “for all Australian political parties and their lead members in power throughout the COVID period”. Particularly for those introducing Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

They finalise the implications by contending that these, or other implications not even listed, may have served to motivate Justice Helen Rofe to dismiss the case brought by Julian Fidge. The complaint then moves onto Judicial Conduct, and examines the Guide To Judicial Conduct with respect to J Rofe’s “failure to discharge her duty of disclosure concerning her prior dealings with Pfizer.” The complaint submits in paragraph 48:

As detailed under the section above…, her Honour Justice Rofe had significant prior dealings with Pfizer when a barrister, and through her science learnings and the interests of her extended family, significant professional and personal interest in seeing the continued success of those institutions her extended family and science colleagues had been involved with, and perhaps continue to be involved with.

The remainder of the complaint utilises the Guide to Judicial Conduct and the various summations of active bias that the complainants allege motivated J Rofe’s decision-making, in an attempt to argue she is in breach of sections of the Guide. Focusing on the principle of Impartiality and sections such as Personal Relationships, the complaint references seven “slightly different positions [reinforcing] the same common-sense view”:

Where there is a prior relationship with a party, the judicial duty is to disqualify oneself or disclose the relationship before all the parties. If in doubt about disqualification, disclose the relationship before all the parties and invite submissions.

Again, impartiality should be determined by “a fair-minded lay observer who might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not [be impartial]”. Whilst perception of bias and conflict of interest sufficient for disqualification from a case “is to be judged by the perception of a reasonable well-informed observer”. Parties should be informed by the judge of facts which might give rise to perceptions of bias, but the judge must decide on the appropriateness to sit on a case.

Conclusion

For this author, looking through the complaint is like reading any text peppered with the red flags of anti-vaccine beliefs combined with an entrenched distrust of medical, legal and government authority. I can see nothing wrong with the legal team of Julian Fidge raising concerns over Justice Rofe’s failure to disclose her past history representing Pfizer. I don’t believe there’s much substance to it but respect their right to raise concerns. However, the constitutional complaint itself relies on typical anti-vax tropes such as distrusting J Rofe’s respect for science and research, and her affiliations with individuals or organisations linked to vaccine technology and/or its funding. Indeed the complaint made a number of connections that whilst exhaustive, are difficult to respect, much less accept. To argue that J Rofe acted with corrupt intent, primarily to avoid the dawn of the post Fidge-victory era as the complaint described it, is simply fantastic.

I can only conclude by wishing Justice Helen Rofe all the very best.

Professional Conduct Rules for Lawyers

As a footnote, it’s worth pausing to consider that lawyers and solicitors are also subject to professional conduct rules. Katie Ashby-Koppens and Peter O’Brien & Associates must keep in mind their duty to the court and the administration of justice.

Lacking professional distance from your client (or their cause) risks distracting you from this duty, which is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty. Your objectivity, your independence and your forensic judgement – on which the court relies – may be reduced.

The duty to avoid any compromise to integrity and professional independence:

Your integrity and trustworthiness are fundamental to your reputation as a lawyer and to your relationships with clients and other parties in the justice system. When a lawyer fails to act with integrity because their professional boundaries are compromised, the integrity of the justice system as a whole is undermined.

Wise words.