On Monday 22 January 2024 the unique home for all things COVID conspiracy, Café Locked Out, hosted a video titled The Launch of OpenDAEN, A free database of Adverse Events. Cutting to the chase, OpenDEAN, promoted and launched by Sharon Cousins, purported to be an easy and honest means of access to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Database of Adverse Event Notification.
Like its namesake previously debunked here, OpenVAERS, the Australian analogue of misleading information, OpenDAEN, presents decontextualised data in a manner that seeks to create the illusion COVID-19 vaccines are inherently unsafe. That “vaccine injuries” are rampant. Again like OpenVAERS it presents as conclusive fact, reports of negative health experiences observed in, or claimed by, an individual after that individual received a COVID-19 vaccine.
Like the TGA, OpenDAEN uses the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), to classify adverse reactions. It provides filtering with the European Medicines Agency, Important Medical Events list and Pfizer’s analysis of post authorisation adverse events. An additional adverse reaction of “serious” has been added to OpenDAEN. Sharon Cousins is an erstwhile insurance executive, now presenting as an “independent researcher” with a penchant for criticising COVID-19 vaccines. Sharon could not share her screen and was directing suspended NSW anaesthetist Paul Oosterhuis, the third member of this Zoom presentation, around the site.
The primary data interrogation categories on the index page of openDAEN are:
Case numbers by Year, Month and Sex
Cases by COVID-19 Vaccine Type
Case Numbers by Reaction term and Age
Case by Frequency of Batch Number
Table of case number, date, vaccine manufacturer, MedDRA reactions, Death, Serious cases and the FOI request number the batch number was confirmed by.
The index page offers the following:
Above: Slideshow: OpenDAEN website
OpenDAEN is called a “free database”. Don’t be fooled. The important elements here are reports and post vaccine, combined with the fact almost all adult Australians have had two COVID-19 vaccines, as have two thirds of 5-15 year olds. Random ill health events can and do frequently occur coincidentally with vaccination. It’s also important to realise that the TGA and health authorities encourage Australians to report these events, so that over time a greater understanding of these vaccines will emerge. OpenDAEN.info provides a description on each page footer:
OpenDAEN.Info is a non-commercial and not-for-profit website for the research, study and review of the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) DAEN (Database of Adverse Event Notifications) system in respect of COVID-19 vaccines. The primary source of data on OpenDAEN is the TGA DAEN system and their published FOIs (Freedom of Information).
Decontextualisation
When taken out of context and denied TGA cautionary disclaimers, the reports become hearsay temporally related to something somebody did. Nothing more. This is decontextualisation. But apparently, we are to assume causation exists. OpenDAEN claims to be able to offer up to date, conclusive data related to adverse events caused by COVID-19 immunisation. These adverse reactions are the subject of reports sent to the TGA DAEN. So, the data themselves have a recognisable source. But can absolute conclusions be made with any real confidence? In reality it takes time for clinically relevant events, specific to any vaccination to be investigated, identified and acted upon. Unless already understood and published on the TGA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Report (2 November 2023), the quality and quantity of adverse reaction is speculation. To make matters worse, the anti-vaccination lobby has invested an exceptional amount of time spreading disinformation via social media, and one of their primary targets has been the TGA DAEN.
The anti-vaccine lobby want every report to be an absolute reality. They want the figures, diligently and honestly provided to Australia by the TGA, to be accepted without examination as conclusive, in their misguided attempt to wipe out COVID-19 immunisation. We saw this claim time and again in the court affidavits of Peter Fam, Meryl Dorey, Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens; reports presented as if confirmation of death and injury in huge numbers. But correlation is not causation. If you haven’t clicked the link to DAEN by now, let’s see what the TGA, but not OpenDAEN, stress about the contents.
- DAEN SPLASH SCREEN DISCLAIMER –
Okay, so it confirms what I stressed above. But most crucially, you have to tick the teeny weeny little box next to I have read and understand the above, to access the TGA data. The disclaimer can’t be missed. Only willingly ignored. The importance of what this means and the restrictions the disclaimer places ipso facto, on OpenDAEN was studiously avoided during the video on 22 January. In fairness I will note that a small header on the TGA DAEN page was visible, but also ignored. It reads; Inclusion in DAEN – medicines does not mean that the adverse event has been confirmed or that it was caused by a medicine or vaccine. Clicking it – which the presenters also studiously avoided – reveals a little more about the DAEN content. Due to size restrictions of a screenshot, I’ll pop the text in a paragraph, and include some emphasis (mine):
The DAEN – medicines allows you to search adverse event reports for medicines including vaccines received by the TGA. The TGA uses adverse event reports to identify when a safety issue may be present. The DAEN – medicines does not contain all known safety information. An assessment of the safety of a medicine or vaccine cannot be made using the DAEN – medicines alone.
Talk to a health professional before starting, stopping, or changing your prescription medicines.
Anyone can report a suspected adverse event, including members of the public, health professionals and pharmaceutical companies. We encourage reporting even when it is not clear that a medicine or vaccine is the cause. Information from these reports is published in the DAEN – medicines and reflects the observations of the person who reported the event.
People who experienced an adverse event cannot be identified. Maintaining their privacy is of critical importance to the TGA.
The DAEN – medicines is a ‘living’ database that is frequently updated. Information may change if we receive more details on an existing report or if we identify duplicate reports and combine them. Updates may also occur as part of our data quality assurance activities.
In short, the TGA DAEN database is constantly growing, contains information from any member of the public, reflects the observations of that person, provides no information about the safety or lack thereof, of vaccines and does not confirm that an adverse event was caused by a vaccine. It cannot even confirm if the event has actually occurred. I might add, dear reader, given that the anti-vaccine lobby has gone out of its way to submit to the DAEN clearly impossible and even bogus reports, one must remain extra vigilant when assessing or querying these data.
Indeed, Sharon Cousins herself relayed an abuse of the TGA DAEN system at the 8:30 mark of the video. She had queried via FOI why a reported death of a 6 year old boy was no longer available on the DAEN. Sharon noted that within her FOI report FOI 4077 (“Batch numbers of COVID-19 vaccines of reported deaths”), it was revealed the initial report was submitted as a hoax. The relevant section of the report reads:
FOI 4077 also requested information about why case number 724925 no longer appears in the DAEN. This report was rejected following review of further information for the case. The information demonstrated that the report was submitted as a hoax and as such there is no identifiable patient. The report remains in the TGA’s internal database. However, it no longer is included in the DAEN as it has been rejected because it no longer met the minimum criteria for a valid adverse event report.
Sharon Cousins
Sharon also said the TGA reply included, “Normally we wouldn’t answer this”, after insinuating she has a positive relationship with them. However, that comment is clearly not there. One appreciates Sharon sharing this information, but cannot ignore that it took an FOI query of a fatality to uncover the truth. How many other adverse or serious adverse reactions were, or will be, “rejected following review of further information for the case”. Sharon was eager to reassure viewers that OpenDAEN was not misusing the TGA website, but rather making it “more user friendly”. It will be of benefit to TGA staff Sharon opined, and she had sent the site link “to the coroners”, and to State and Territory head pathologists.
Batch Numbers
Throughout, much is made of the section allowing search of batch numbers. We learn that when it comes to accessing batch numbers, the TGA, “Doesn’t have any search engines on it, is a little bit clunky and it times out”. The TGA freely provide data in CSV format on batch release assessment of COVID-19 vaccines. One of two release pathways is taken; either based on overseas certification or based on TGA laboratory assessment. The TGA explain this in detail. So, what could be wrong with smoother navigation of COVID-19 batch numbers as a function of vaccine type, reported adverse reaction and de-identified data? Usually nothing, unless one ignores TGA advice and extrapolates to conclusion, based on other available data.
At the 50:00 minute mark Sharon directs navigation through the number of cases per batch number, highlighting batch number FP1430 – COMIRNATY, (Pfizer), in section 4. OpenDAEN has accessed the batch numbers via FOI, and that’s fine. OpenDAEN reveals inordinately more adverse reactions for male and female associated with this batch number, compared to those next to it. Sharon instructed more data access and directed navigation to the batch number table. She continued:
Look at the dates! Look at all the dates! Within 24 hours of the Pfizer being released on the younger children, the five to elevens… it was all advertised, tenth of January [2022], five to eleven year olds… within 24 hours we have reported cases. Now that for me is causal proximity.
Sharon continued on, directing suspended doctor Oosterhuis to isolate reported – not confirmed – fatalities using that batch number and age group. They isolate two boys. Zeroing in on the symptoms of one boy, Sharon reads, abdominal pain, then dismisses adverse event following immunisation as “a very bland one”, then cardiac arrest. She has Paul Oosterhuis explain eosinophilia and eosinophilia myocarditis. He assumes he is explaining the findings of both of “these boys”. In fact the data reveal clearly it is only one boy. A five year old.
The ten year old “fatality” has only Adverse Event Following Immunisation listed. The “very bland one”, dear reader. Then Sharon warns us “It’s a little bit distressing now, okay. The two boys both had the same batch number”. She gets Oosterhuis to zoom in and suggests, “So, screen print that people if you don’t believe us”. After zooming in on the case numbers Sharon has Oosterhuis zoom in on the batch numbers again, as if she hadn’t made that point enough times already.
Now, I am not a lawyer but I doubt the strength of Sharon’s “causal proximity” claim. There is another factor Sharon told us herself, that must be considered. As she points out, the roll out for Pfizer for 5-11 year olds was 10 January 2022. Thus, the first factor I would investigate would be the sheer number of children being vaccinated, at the time of release. Over 11 weeks, 76.6% of those 2.3 million children were vaccinated. 1,761,800 children had one dose. 1,552,500 (67.5%) had two doses. The vaccine for 5-11 year olds is one third the dose approved for children aged 12 years and over. Cold chain transport and storage is vital to the success of mass mRNA vaccination programmes.
Using OpenDAEN to interrogate vaccine batch numbers of adverse reports about 5-11 year olds, over the first two months of the rollout, we see virtually one result: FP1430. Yet what is more likely? Batch FP1430 is responsible for all adverse reaction reports? Or most 5-11 year olds vaccinated in the initial days, were dosed from batch FP1430? By the end of February other batch numbers begin to appear and gradually attract more reports. By late March, FP1430 is just another batch number. More so, there are over 500 unknown batch numbers for that age group. However, if you present your disinformation just right, some might believe in the deliberate harming of children:
– Facebook comment –
What do the TGA say?
There have been no deaths in children or adolescents determined to be linked to COVID-19 vaccination. More detail on these deaths is available in the safety report published on 15 December 2022… If we identify a new death likely to be related to vaccination, we will publish this information promptly, as we have for all other cases since the start of the vaccine roll-out. [Source – 2 November 2023]
Of the 14 deaths the TGA confirm are linked to vaccination, none are in the 5-11 year age group. Yet Sharon is convinced of her claim, has already convinced others and will convince more, simply because of bias. Her defence, I suspect, will be that she used FOI legislation to access reports on batch numbers and the TGA lacks the smooth batch number access and navigation of OpenDAEN. Yet Sharon made up her mind before she even started looking. In fact, Inclusion in the DAEN does not mean the event has been confirmed or determined as related to a vaccine, is utterly ignored when using OpenDAEN.
The reactions reported in January, are based on MedDRA. Seen clearly in the video, were cough, vomiting, pallor, lethargy, rash, injection site rash, syncope, cold sweat, decreased appetite, anxiety, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, aggravation of existing disease, excessive sweating, hives, muscle stiffness, chest discomfort. The worst on screen were seizure, appendicitis and a seperate loss of consciousness. Searching the batch number/adverse reaction table for 5-11 year olds in my own time, revealed reports of chest pain, syncope, anaphylactic reaction, paraesthesia, ECG ST segment elevation, nystagmus, pneumonia and many others. Some reports were of one reaction and others of multiple. All reports are of conditions children experience everywhere across the globe. Establishing cause or any relationship to COVID-19 vaccines is the role of health authorities.
Elsewhere on OpenDAEN we read that:
Useful search engines, graphs and tables have been developed into a helpful user-friendly database to assist study, research, review and analysis of the Australian Government publicly available data. […] We believe in sharing this information in an open and easy-to-use format (with search engines, tables and graphs etc.) and to help make it quicker for anyone wanting to source data for their own study, research and review.
The Quack Miranda
So, the team want to share information in a fast open and easy way to help with doing your own research. It sounds almost too good to be true. The Disclaimer and Disclosure tell us:
– Source: OpenDAEN –
Okay then. It is up to the user to get further professional information to confirm if the information is “of value to you”. Accuracy of the information cannot be guaranteed which places further responsibility on the user to seek advice before relying upon it. It’s information they might get wrong and as such will not be liable “for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred” by reason of relying on that information.
It is 2024 and world search and data systems can perform enormous and complex requests with astonishing speed and accuracy, yet when Australian governments roll out never before used experimental gene therapies to millions of citizens, Australians are left to report to an antiquated adverse event reporting system (DAENs) still with both feet in last century.
This amounts to a fundamental failure of Pharmacovigilance and the Australian People. Searching through DAENs remains a nightmare for researchers, where one cannot but question the motivations of the TGA and the Australian health departments who feed it Our Information. OpenDAEN greatly assists researchers and students, and data and IT experts desperately needed to review and criticise the current DAEN system which is not fit for purpose.
Hopefully OpenDAEN will motivate Australian governments to take the needed steps towards a national real-time, transparent, and easily accessible adverse event reporting system, for properly protecting the health of Australians and better facilitating valid Informed Consent. The antiquated DAEN system deprives and seemingly hides needed health data necessary for Australians to provide valid Informed Consent.
COVID vaccine injury class action fund raiser, Dr. Melissa McCann writes:
This is amazing and meticulous work by you and your team.
Strong reminders of OpenVAERS and how decontextualised data are used by anti-vaccine activists to mislead, were apparent during the video. Alluding to what is known as the Lazarus Report, after the name of the principle investigator, one commenter offers:
– Facebook comment –
Suggesting that TGA DAEN statistics are only “(10%?)” of “ACTUAL injuries and deaths”, is linked to a bogus belief of widespread underreporting to VAERS in the USA. I addressed this in a post challenging OpenVAERS, writing.
The figure of 1% comes from a report from Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc., authored by Ross Lazarus. Data examined are from 1 December 2007 to 30 September 2010. These data include all possible adverse events. Prior evaluation of the reporting rates of various events confirms that minor events are rarely reported and more serious events routinely reported. A 2014 report on surveillance of adverse events following immunisation in NSW, Australia noted that:
Only 11% of the reported adverse events were categorised as serious.
In short, most adverse events such as a sore arm, nausea, swelling, redness, headaches, vomiting and other self correcting issues are indeed underreported, but make up the vast bulk of adverse events following immunisation. Yet since the Lazarus report, anti-vaxxers love to spread tales of widespread death and terrifying injury, then solemnly add “only 1% are ever reported”.
Paul Offit is a strong supporter of VAERS which he refers to as a “hypothesis-generating mechanism”. Reports there of intussusception approximately once per 10,000 doses led to suspension of his own RotaShield vaccine which was ultimately recalled, before returning as a safe product. In fact health authorities want parents or doctors to report minor events as soon as possible. Much can be learned about self limiting reactions, and more concerning to severe reactions can be gauged by pattern changes, properly identified and suspended under section 29D of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
Perhaps the most damning page on OpenDAEN is the resources page. A curated smattering of COVID-19 vaccine pseudoscience and “vaccine injury” class actions, peppered with all the anti-COVID mandate and health advice groups, it seems designed to lead readers into a field of gaping rabbit holes. Dr. Melissa McCann’s COVID class action vaccine injuries video tops the page. The World Council for Health Spike protein detox guide is there. R.F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense Australia, The Zelenko Protocol, The Australian Medical Professionals Society, many of whom we’ve met here before, World of Wellness and the National Institute of Integrative Medicine to name a few.
Conclusion
OpenDAEN is not an exciting addition to the TGA DAEN database. It is not a positive, user-friendly addition to TGA staff or to genuine researchers and academics. It is created, managed, supported and provided by and for respectively, members of the anti-vaccine community, convinced that COVID-19 vaccines are the cause of multiple health ailments and death. No professionals were available for its launch. All invitations were ignored. It has no integrity and no academic standing. No coroners or State and Territory head pathologists will care.
Like its namesake in the USA, OpenVAERS, it is designed to allow users to gather misleading collections of coincidental report material and present this as causal COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions. To be sure, the results it produces, easy to construct as they are, will find their way onto websites, social media and court affidavits. OpenDAEN won’t enjoy the success OpenVAERS did, because now only diehards remain. During the launch of OpeanDAEN, events two years old were focused on, to craft a demonstrably bogus, yet very serious accusation against COVID-19 vaccines.
Very late on Christmas Eve 2023, Santa had just dropped me a rather special present.
I more or less knew what it was by feeling the packaging, but still fumbled hastily until it sat gleaming in my hand. There it was. A brand new COVID-19 infection.
I could hear him jingling happily into the distance, with the words “naughty” and “nice” echoing on the breeze. Then, “falsifiable hypotheses” wafted back.
Of course! I suddenly remembered a discussion years ago, soaking our blistered feet in cured reindeer urine, when he told me anything that could be falsified was inherently “naughty”. Wrongly, I thought I had properly explained things to him.
This time, I’d sort him out. “Santa, Santa. I just KNOW we’ve had this conversation before”, I yelled in his direction.
I continued.
” Making a list, and checking it twice , gonna find out who’s naughty and nice… does not a falsifiable hypothesis make. I just… I mean, I can’t even….”.
He answered with a vague reference to falsifying anti-vaxxer claims and something even more vague about my feet needing another urine soak. Next thing an apparition-like, misty glob of reindeer, a sleigh, a fat, smelly-chap, sacks of presents and boxes of Rapid Antigen Tests was in front of me. Santa folded his arms and confidently started his defence.
I responded,
“Wait! What?! Say that again. I’ve been ‘naughty’, because I revealed falsification, and therefore I can’t enjoy Christmas this year? No, no dude, you’re attributing subjective emotional qualities to the entire notion of the falsibility hypothesis. Yeah I get it – you’re saying if I hadn’t showed things were totally false that I’d have been ‘nice’, particularly because you were checking it twice. But if I may, with respect old chap, it simply doesn’t work that way.”
He laughed, pointing at me, and asked, “Why the fud not?”
I was feeling far from well but managed.
“Well because, my long-bearded, voluminous-bellied friend. The very notion that the hypothesis can be falsified, is what lends it such robust integrity in the first place. Suggesting falsifiability is ‘naughty’ and anything not shown to be false is ‘nice’, is likely a position arrived at via a sequence of logical fallacies.
He said I was making some sense but sounding very lah-de-dah. So, I went on.
“Okay, let’s agree your position is that honesty or not ‘being false’, can be labelled very simply as ‘nice’. Cool? Righto then. And that dishonesty, or being deliberately false can be labelled as ‘naughty’. So, deliberate falsehoods coming from, ooh let’s say anti-vaxxers, are ‘naughty’. In fact they are known for providing so-called data based on fabrication, and fraud. So, let’s say ‘very naughty’.
Now, that all sounds okay, but it can’t really be tested beyond the scope of opinion. It also takes unnecessary work and lends credence to fraudsters. Better then, that the theory or hypothesis is one that can be tested and logically refute the idea being questioned, particularly if the falsification can be based on empiricism (what we see or experience).”
Santa asked if empiricism was like the Black Runes-of-Empiricism that Senator Malcolm Roberts used, to make a mockery of climate change.
“Why yes, you’ve heard of him then? A total… whoa, okay… sorry, yes, yes I did see the pontoons strapped to the sleigh. Bit sloshy up North… I can grasp that. Reality and Roberts don’t get on, Santa. Not a fan are we? No Ho, eh? Ah, well… er, no we can’t do the sword thing anymore. No, no the Blood Eagle never did take on down South. Sorry. Free speech and such. Oh? Well, um, I’d prefer to say we’ve become, “civilised” but “as sturdy as walrus diarrhoea” will do for any justified criticism in this case, old chap.”
Santa mumbled on about colourful torment to Roberts for a while, many involving objects I had never heard of, then he then gradually worked his way back to chatting about falsifying arguments and hypotheses.
I jumped in.
“So, see it’s simple really. If you can devise a method to falsify an argument that someone is proposing, then it is held to a greater standard of proof because it is possible to falsify it. Even if it has never been falsified. It just means it is possible to imagine or construct an argument to falsify it.”
I was by now feeling pretty crook and thought I might try my luck at swapping my present.
“Now Santa. Maaate, buddy, bloke. I realise we’re a long way from naughty and nice but I hope this clears things up, and clafifies the obvious error of this rather unique present you’ve dropped off. I guess this is one test I’d like to have seen falsified as it were… Nudge, nudge. Any chance you can wave the magic stocking..?
What’s that? Yes, yes, I did expose a bunch of anti-vaxxer arguments as false. They were false – fabricated in fact. In fact they were all bad. Thanks for noticing – it’s quite a long way for news to travel up North. What do you mean I’m still naughty? Er, yeah, okay… sure… But dude, I don’t CARE how many times you’re making a list, and checking it twice . Didn’t you understand a single thing we just discussed?
So, I’m what now? I’m too Skeptical? So I’m naughty because I’m too Skeptical? Oh, righty-Ho-Ho! What? Well, yes I’ve had a few COVID vaccines. Oh, I see that’s what this is. But I never said they were 100% protective; that’s an anti-vax logical fallacy. Gawd, Santa! Vaccines do reduce symptoms though. What? Well, er pretty sh*t actually. I’m running a temp of 39 C. But tomorrow I won’t be.”
Incredible! Santa seemed to be warming up to Gish gallop. Time to wrap this up.
“Anyway bloke. It’s getting late. Shouldn’t you be flying toward the West by now? Time zones and all that. You’re what?! You’re not flying!? Oh?
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 Strategiesthe 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 Frontlineupdating 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 GillespiePeter FamKatie 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:
A new Special Interest regarding the preservation of human life.
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.
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.
Legal Arguments
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.
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:
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 usedon 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.
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 programmeConspiracy 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 the7 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.
It is rather well known that The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN) sought, through legal action in March 2022, to stop the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia.
It is also well understood that the substance of their case, as presented by affidavit, was dismissed in the Federal Court by Justice Melissa Perry, because the AVN (the Applicant) failed to demonstrate it had legal standing to continue proceedings against the Secretary of the Department of Health, Dr. Brendan Murphy (the Respondent). Essentially, because the COVID-19 vaccination programme affects the public, the AVN must demonstrate they have “special interest” beyond that of any ordinary member of the public. Indeed where the public at large is concerned it is highly likely that the respondent will challenge the applicant’s claim to standing, as happened here. More so, the quality of evidence received significant comment from Justice Perry throughout the ruling. AVN founder Meryl Dorey continues to describe this evidence as “devastating”.
Those familiar with the AVN, and Meryl Dorey, were not surprised to note that aspects of the ruling clearly stressed that claims made by Dorey relating to past political influence and current status of the AVN, along with purported harms caused by vaccines, were not evidentiary in nature, but merely the belief or opinion of Meryl Dorey herself. This same group of observers were equally unsurprised to see that a Notice of Appeal against the ruling and of the order to pay costs, followed on 22 June 2022.
Predictably, the appeal grounds began by arguing Justice Perry erred in applying Section 136 of The Evidence Act 1995, to those opinionated claims made in Dorey’s evidence. Section 136 limits use of evidence that may be “unfairly prejudicial”, or “misleading and confusing”. Particularly, the appeal contended Perry had given insufficient weight to Dorey’s opinion that the AVN was “the peak vaccines organisation in Australia”. Where “standing” was explicitly mentioned in the appeal notice, it is clear that Dorey again felt the AVN should be taken more seriously.
On 24 August 2022, the appeal was found to be incompetent, leave to appeal was refused and all costs were awarded against the AVN. Nonetheless the quest for standing continued. On 21 December 2022, Meryl Dorey penned a media release. It announced that a group of medical experts had filed a case in the High Court of Australia against Brendan Murphy. It alleges mRNA vaccines are “genetically modified organisms”, used in “an acknowledged” Phase III clinical trial and that COVID-19 poses no threat to babies and toddlers. Essentially the strategy was to convince the High Court “to acknowledge that [the medical experts] interest in preserving human life should allow them legal standing”, to challenge the extension of provisional approval for the Moderna Spikevax vaccine for children 6 months to 6 years. It also contended that belief does not disqualify a person from having standing.
As we will see below, this tactic is a revamp of one of the AVN’s initial cases heard by Justice Perry; the Mandamus case. On 16 March this year the High Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Sydney Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. It has become known as The Babies Case and is listed on the website of participating solicitors, Maat’s Method, as The Australian Babies Case. There are six plaintiffs in total. In addition to the four professional plaintiffs are the Australian Vaccination-risks Network and Mr. Mark Neugebauer. Neugebauer was an applicant alongside the AVN in the original case. Update; The Australian Babies Case was discontinued on 12 April 2023.
Now, I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. Yet the manner in which the AVN advanced their initial case is worth reviewing. I would like to explore evidentiary claims made by Meryl Dorey and her solicitor in the context that they brought nothing novel to the case. Seperate from the legal determinations are very clear indications that the AVN presents itself as something it is not. A cursory look into claims made, reveal a history of deception and disinformation. Any win for the AVN has proven a loss for public health. An April 2014 Public Health Warning from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission reinforces the role of the AVN in misleading the public about vaccines and vaccination schedules.
As noted in the ruling of Justice Perry, standing must be established before proceeding to determine the merits of their case. On 24 February 2022 the AVN sought to join with another applicant, Mr. Mark Neugebauer via an interlocutory application filed twenty three days after their initial affidavit, and just six days after the Secretary filed a notice of objection to competency. It was via that notice that the Secretary contended that the AVN lacked standing.
By seeking to join with Neugebauer (whose affidavit was filed that same day), the AVN thought they might have an ace up the sleeve, so to speak, with respect to standing. In paragraph [7] of the ruling, Justice Perry summed it up well:
AVN contended that, whatever the position with respect to its standing to institute the proceeding, Mr Neugebauer separately had standing… […] In this way, AVN and Mr Neugebauer sought to “cure” the lack of jurisdiction in the event that the Court upheld the notice of objection to competency.
It’s a long way to certiorari
As discussed above, the March 2022 proceedings involved more than one case. The Mandamus case targeted provisional registration of the initial three COVID-19 vaccines available to the Australian public, referred to throughout the ruling as the Three Vaccines. The ultimate aim was to secure a writ of mandamus by which the court would order the Secretary to reverse provisional registration of COVID-19 vaccines. The second case was a Judicial Review case and sought to target the provisional approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty (tozinameran) vaccine permitting use among children 5 to 11 years from 10 January 2022. That approval is referred to throughout the ruling as the Children Decision. The AVN regarded the Children Decision as void, or basically illegal. The AVN and Mark Neugebauer sought certiorari to quash the Children Decision. A writ of certiorari has the power to set aside a decision made contrary to the law.
In his affidavit [p.20], solicitor Peter Fam refers to a 5 January 2022 letter he wrote to Brendan Murphy regarding the Children Decision. He informed Murphy of various errors and told him that his client regarded the decision as void.
I alerted Dr Murphy that if he did not commence the reconsideration process within 14 days of the date of my letter that my client would seek judicial review remedies in the nature of mandamus, certiorari and urgent interlocutory injunctive relief (and/or other orders including an order for costs) from the Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Division of the Federal Court of Australia.
As part of the government, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is responsible for the registration of vaccines. However, the Secretary of the Department of Health has certain powers and obligations laid out in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (TG Act). The applicants sought to trigger some of these specific responsibilities.
The sections and subsections of the TG Act the AVN highlighted in the mandamus case are 9A(1), 29D, 30(1)(a) and 30(2)(a). The aim was to have the court order the Secretary to “exercise his statutory powers and duties” as listed under these sections, and therefore “suspend or cancel the provisional approval already given” to the Three Vaccines. Section 29D and subsections 30(1)(a) and 30(2)(a) speak to the level of harm that the AVN expected the court to accept COVID-19 vaccines cause, and how to respond. 29D deals with suspension of registration or listing. It reads: “(1) The Secretary may by written notice given to a person… suspend the registration or listing of the goods if:”
(a) the Secretary is satisfied that:
(i) there is a potential risk of death, serious illness or serious injury if the therapeutic goods continue to be included in the Register; and
(ii) it is likely that the person will, within the period of the suspension, be able to take the action necessary to ensure that the therapeutic goods would not cause a potential risk of death, serious illness or serious injury if the therapeutic goods were to continue to be included in the Register;
The advice overlaps with reference to section 30 and the subsections highlighted by the AVN. That section deals with cancellation of registration or listing if:
(a) it appears to the Secretary that failure to cancel the registration or listing would create an imminent risk of death, serious illness or serious injury; […]
(2) it appears to the Secretary that the quality, safety or efficacy of the goods is unacceptable.
There are numerous problems with AVN evidence, including that it is peppered with well known anti-vaccination tropes, which will be examined below. Most significantly however, is that reported adverse events from the TGA Database of Adverse Event Notification, and not proven adverse events from the TGA website, were submitted. Important explanations about the difference available on that, and other sites the applicants sourced data from, were ignored. It’s also clear from the selected sections of the TG Act above that the scale of threat posed by COVID-19 itself has been ignored. One must wonder at the “potential risk of death, serious illness or serious injury” Australians would face if the vaccines were removed from provisional registration. Now, let’s address section 9A(1).
Section 9A(1) reflects a rather administrative duty:
The Secretary is to cause to be maintained a register, to be known as the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, for the purpose of compiling information in relation to, and providing for evaluation of, therapeutic goods for use in humans.
Well, the AVN were of the mind that the Secretary:
[H]as failed to reasonably obtain, monitor, consider, assess, evaluate and balance data which was or should have been before [the Secretary] about the [Three] Vaccines [46].
They went further to suggest he should have by that time acted to suspend or cancel the provisional registration of the vaccines, because they pose an imminent risk of death or serious injury. As such the Secretary had breached his duty to “to cause to be maintained” the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG).
Via the Judicial Review case the AVN sought an order quashing the provisional approval by the Secretary, of the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine for 5-11 year olds. The section of the TG Act that the AVN cited was 22D. This section deals with provisional determinations. 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.
Put simply, they did not accept the determination that COVID-19 vaccination could prevent serious symptoms in 5-11 year olds. Over a number of paragraphs, they outline on page 5 of this submission that their issue is with the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic good (the vaccine). Again they reinforce that the Secretary must “cause to be maintained” the ARTG. This also had me pondering the anti-vaccine mantra that children aren’t made ill by SARS-CoV-2 infection. In any event, with the court not accepting they were a “person aggrieved”, both the AVN and Neugebauer did not have standing to seek certiorari to quash the Children Decision [75].
Evidence
AVN evidence was significantly biased toward anti-vaccination rhetoric, false claims and database misrepresentation. There is a large amount of evidence and it is unrealistic to cite every error and irrelevance contained therein. Of eleven affidavits and supplementary affidavits listed on the AVN website, nine are still available. Also available is their submission in response to the Secretary’s notice of objection to competency. Perhaps most surprising with respect to anti-vaccination bias was Meryl Dorey’s affidavit. It contained nothing relevant to Australia’s COVID-19 vaccination programme. Rather, it opens with a subjective hearsay synopsis of Dorey’s purported experience with her son’s supposed reaction to three different vaccines, and similar accounts from other AVN members. Regrettably, the debunked link between MMR and autism is immediately reinforced.
In fact the term “autism” arises twenty-three times throughout the affidavit with the MMR vaccine unceasingly blamed. This is because a great deal of space is given over to AVN-specific material and a 2013 “report” by one Trevor Wilson. Its title is A Profile of the Australian Vaccination Network 2012. Twenty references to “autism” are within this report (pp.34-77). It also contains survey results including random statements blaming vaccines for developmental problems, including ADHD, asthma, dyslexia, chronic fatigue and many more (see p.55). There is praise for Dr. Andrew Wakefield, criticism of the medical profession and praise for Meryl Dorey. Her role in what she told the court is “the peak vaccines organisation in Australia”, is clear. On page 61 we read:
Meryl Dorey spoke to my university naturopathy class about the risks and the lack of scientific evidence to support vaccination. I was devastated. I had never questioned vaccination before and I was very disappointed in myself.
I didn’t know all vaccines were bad, just thought the MMR was. […] I joined the AVN… went to an AVN seminar which is what finally swayed my partner – the rest is history.
Justice Perry agreed to admit Dorey’s evidence only if subject to section 136 of the Evidence Act [19]. Perry’s criticism of specific claims from Dorey is itself lengthy. Yet there are some that demand airing here. As has become widely known Dorey made a number of statements that sought to elevate the importance of the AVN and of herself. For example, Dorey claimed the AVN lobbied federal parliament and was successful in bringing about a conscientious objectors clause amendment to the Child Care Payment Bill 1997. Perry states [20]:
That evidence is objectionable for a number of reasons, including that it is inadmissible opinion evidence and an inadmissible conclusory statement. […] The opinions and conclusory statements otherwise objected to… are received only as statements of Ms Dorey’s belief, in line with my ruling.
For a number of reasons, this strikes me as one of the most crucial aspects of the ruling. It should set the tone for understanding that conclusory statements, and statements of Meryl Dorey’s belief are fraught with misdirection. A review of the facts relating to the AVN’s 1997 lobbying, reveals a campaign of anti-vaccine disinformation designed to motivate rash, emotive decision making, suited not to benefit public health but rather the aims of Meryl Dorey and the AVN. Parts of the Senate Hansard, including debate surrounding amendments to the Bill, read like a riot of anti-vaccination propaganda. Former Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown (a General Practitioner), was furnished with information from the AVN and convinced of its merits. On page 8726 he quotes from “reports from three parents”. He wrongly tells the Senate that vaccines:
Contain many toxic ingredients including formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing substance. There is no safe level in vaccines.
The rubella and chicken pox vaccines are cultured on the cell lines of aborted foetuses.
Vaccines contain many bacteria and viruses other than the ones which they are supposed to immunise against.
The polio vaccine was contaminated with 40 known monkey viruses—one of which, SV-40, is thought to cause cancer and has also been linked with the development of AIDS.
Polio, measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox vaccines can infect the person vaccinated as well as contacts, with the diseases the wild viruses cause.
Vaccines don’t guarantee protection.
The USA pays a fortune in compensation (see what this actually means).
Readers may remember Tasmanian Catholic conservative independent senator, Brian Harradine. Responsible for the veto on the importation of RU486 and the banning of Australian foreign aid being used to fund family planning that involved abortion, his reaction to hearing the false claim about aborted foetal cells was predictable. On page 8729 of the Senate Hansard, Harradine states that before he decided how to vote he wanted to know if the NHMRC sought to recommend compulsory vaccination for chicken pox, because referring to the AVN information, he needed to know if production using aborted foetus cell lines was employed in each state and territory in Australia. Harradine felt it was important for informed consent and as a reason for conscientious objection.
The human diploid cells used in vaccine production are descendant cells and at no time formed part of a foetus. Their use in vaccine production is supported by the Vatican. Nor do any vaccines contain aborted foetal cells. Yet understandably, this wasn’t common knowledge in parliament and Harradine awaited expert advice. He held the balance of power in the Senate and would never abandon his moral high ground with respect to any matter related to abortion. Fortunately he was given appropriate information about the cell lines used (see p. 8792). Nonetheless, the lesson is that anti-vaccine disinformation curated by the AVN influenced one of Australia’s most powerful senators at the time of voting on vaccine-related legislation.
The impact that the AVN had on Bob Brown was clear. He claimed the AVN side of the story was the opposite to “the so-called intelligent people”, contended there “are serious arguments against vaccination” and argued that it was “not valid to say an intelligent parent or responsible person is going to have their child vaccinated”. He was fooled by the AVN’s use of the base rate fallacy with regard to the pertussis vaccine. Advocating for the notion that GP reports of natural immunity should justify foregoing immunisation, he said (p. 8734):
I put it that that natural immunity is much more likely to be protective of the child than the much failed record of artificial immunity coming from vaccination.
The amendments were included in the Act and are best represented here. In July 2013 Bob Brown publicly distanced himself from the AVN in an open letter. In it he wrote:
I do not support AVN’s campaign against public vaccination. […] It is true that in the 1990s I endorsed the right of true conscientious objectors against compulsory vaccination. However, my view then, as now, was that vaccination is in the interests of public health and should be promoted.
The Daily Telegraph reported this was likely related to a campaign by the Greens “to eliminate any suggestion they sympathise with the AVN”. And:
Last month, Greens senator and health spokesman Richard Di Natale introduced a motion calling on the AVN to disband and cease its campaign against vaccines. The motion passed unanimously.
“The claims made by the AVN, and particularly by their founder, Ms Meryl Dorey, beggar belief,” Dr Di Natale declared to the Senate.
“Despite being corrected numerous times by health professionals, scientists and so on, they continue to propagate outright myths about vaccines and their safety.”
Meryl Dorey responded by writing a blog post falsely accusing Di Natalie of supporting compulsory vaccination, and using that allegation as a basis for seeking donations. A 2020 content analysis of that blog analyses persuasive cues employed by the AVN.
On 2 November 2015 the second AVN lobbying attempt had zero impact. Then, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee was hearing submissions on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab No Pay) Bill 2015. Immunisation rates had fallen as antivaxxers exploited the conscientious objection clause. The AVN submission is here. As apparent in the Hansard on page 2, the hearing began as expected when notorious anti-vaccine researcher Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic presented for the AVN. Shortly after, Dorey presented her account of her son’s adverse reaction. She then referred to her 1997 experience with Bob Brown, casting him as a supporter, in complete dissonance to his public rejection of the AVN two years earlier. She then likened the current Greens party to George Orwell’s Animal Farm and criticised Senator Richard Di Natale. Shortly after, Di Natale himself was introduced by phone. The hearing quickly descended into farce when AVN members attacked him for asking why they misrepresent themselves.
You can listen to the exchange by using the player to the left, download this mp3 file, or even read along with the full exchange. The angry men are Greg Beattie and Brett Smith. In stark contrast is the evidence presented by Stop The Australian (Anti-) Vaccination Network (SAVN). From pp. 9-11 three members discuss implications of the Bill, reveal flaws in the AVN expert evidence from Dr. Tomljenovic, financial irregularities of the AVN and the real dangers posed by anti-vaccination lobbyists. Still, the AVN had to have the last word and nine days later submitted this disjointed right of reply which in no way advanced their argument against the proposed amendment.
The point to this diversion is to reinforce that the AVN and Meryl Dorey’s frequent claims of lobbyist activity is peacock terminology for calculated deception and meddling in the process of public health legislation. In 1997 it was made clear that rates of vaccination were insufficient and the AVN interfered. In 2015 it was again made clear rates of vaccination were insufficient and again the AVN interfered. Meryl Dorey refused to answer Di Natale when he asked:
I have asked a specific question. I am keen to get an answer. It is actually quite a serious issue because a ruling has been made and I am concerned that this organisation is representing itself in a capacity in which they are not able to do so. I think it is important that we understand the rationale for them representing themselves as a group, which they are not entitled to do. That is where I would like to start.
Richard Di Natale’s observation that the AVN falsely represents itself, has more relevance to the Federal Court case. In attempting to establish standing the AVN argued it had similar objectives to the TG Act. Clause 43 of the AVN constitution outlines the objectives [p. 29], [26]. They submitted [p. 7]:
The objectives of the AVN are consistent with the objectives of the TG Act in that both sets of objectives are concerned with among other things the safety and efficacy of the [Three] Vaccines used in Australia.
The AVN has currently about 2000 members and it is recognised as the peak national association concerned with providing information which evaluates the balance between safety and efficacy of vaccines in Australia.
The AVN also argued that the Australian public expects such a group will exist. Justice Perry deals with these and other claims of importance put forward by the AVN in a splendid paragraph [89]:
However, the evidence rises no higher than to establish that it is Ms Dorey’s view that AVN is the peak vaccines organisation in Australia. There is no evidence, for example, that AVN is regarded as such by government, whether acknowledged in funding from government sources or otherwise […]. Nor is there any evidence that AVN is regarded as a peak body by recognised or established peak organisations or in the public eye. Moreover, there is no evidence that AVN is a body representing the views of persons recognised as experts in the field of immunology and vaccines. To the contrary, membership is open to any natural person who supports AVN’s objectives and whose application has been approved by the committee (see above at [24]). Further, the evidence that the Australian community expects that there will be a body such as AVN to concern itself with issues such as those raised in the present case does not rise above the status of bare assertion by Ms Dorey.
Justice Perry’s words are reinforced by this audio grab from Dorey’s vodcast last month [mp3]. Dorey labels the COVID-19 vaccine “an experimental gene modification injection” and blames it for deaths in children following meningitis, streptococcus and influenza infections. “Healthy children do not die from these things”, Dorey falsely declares. The AVN advise against all childhood vaccination.
How Meryl Dorey views herself and the AVN, manifest in the ultimatum and demands sent to Health Minister Greg Hunt in June 2021. This approach was repeated in correspondence to the Secretary. In court, Mr. Robinson SC, for the AVN, referred to these as “letters of demand” [13]. On page 1 of their submission, the AVN refer to the respondent receiving an “alarming number of reports of deaths and adverse events”, due to COVID-19 vaccines.
Despite the fact these are coincidental events, this is ignored and they again argue that because the Secretary has failed to cancel the provisional registrations of the vaccines, he has also failed in his duty to “cause to be maintained the ARTG”.
In court the Secretary objected to the evidence with “an extensive list of objections”. The bulk of which observed:
[T]he evidence was conclusory in nature, inadmissible opinion evidence, and/or hearsay in nature if the evidence was being adduced to prove the truth of the representations asserted.
In other words; opinions of the AVN aren’t fact, so should not justify legal action. The Secretary accepted the evidence could be admitted if subject to section 136 of the Evidence Act, within this scope [15]:
Evidence of deponent’s understanding or belief only.
Where evidence is based on previous representation(s) made by others, it is not admitted to prove the truth of those representations.
Where evidence contains opinion, it is not admitted to prove the existence of facts about which the opinion was expressed.
The restrictions placed on AVN evidence were most fortunate. Dorey’s affidavit is curated to present a misleading image of the AVN as an organisation offering something positive to public health, when the opposite is true. It brings to mind examples of aggressive anti-vaccine rhetoric, and studiously avoids Meryl Dorey’s role in promoting conspiracy theories about the pandemic and vaccine injuries.
It should have no place in a court of law. The legal fraternity in Australia could learn from the media in Australia. The latter, after being exploited and misled by Dorey (pictured), now refuse to engage with her. Unless of course they are anti-vaccine.
Leaving Dorey aside, there were also notable problems with the supporting affidavits of solicitor Peter Fam. His initial affidavit includes fifty-five references. These include titles of a number of papers cited by the applicant (the AVN) in correspondence to the Department of Health, Greg Hunt and Dr. Brendan Murphy, along with other scientific papers and references to correspondence. Some are papers that may question the safety or necessity of COVID-19 vaccines, but none present evidence that isn’t already addressed by health authorities; such as waning immunity or cardiac inflammation. Certain articles are immediately recognisable by those who combat anti-vaccination disinformation and rhetoric, either by author, content or associated institutions. For example on page 15, Fam cites Electronic Support for Public Health-Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), by Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. This is also widely known as the Lazarus report, after the name of the principle investigator. I discuss its use by antivaxxers exploiting VAERS here under VAERS Underreporting.
Use of this report is an example of decontextualisation. Raw VAERS data which are themselves decontextualised, are presented with the aim of convincing one’s audience that vaccine induced fatalities are high. A snippet from the Lazarus report is then cited: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”. That most adverse reactions are minor, transient irritations such as itch, rash, swelling and redness at injection site, along with headaches, arm pain, nausea, vomiting or fever, is omitted. This 2014 report notes only 11% of reported reactions are serious. More so, the data accessed by Lazarus et al, from December 2007 to September 2010, are unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed in the USA, persons vaccinated against COVID-19 are given literature on how to report side effects and encouraged to do so. The V-Safe program follows up with text messages asking about any symptoms or changes to health.
On page 10 is listed a May 2021 paper, by Jessica Rose that also focuses on VAERS data and is published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. This publication is run by the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). IPAK in turn is operated by well known anti-vaccination activist James Lyons-Weiler. In February 2019, the AVN donated $5,000 USD to Lyons-Weiler to help fund a study of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated children. The resulting 2020 paper was heavily criticised for methodological flaws and ultimately retracted from publication.
James Lyons-Weiler speaks of Australian vaccine conspiracy theorist and AVN supporter Judy Wilyman, in glowing terms, claiming she, “has done a great service to humanity” and “deserves a table at the head of academia”. He was also the reviewing editor of a November 2020 paper Wilyman had published in the IPAK journal. Misapplication of the Precautionary Principle has Misplaced the Burden of Proof of Vaccine Safety, rehashes a number of dubious claims Wilyman made in her original thesis, and further alleges vaccines are unsafe because “governments” have not applied the precautionary principle. Peter Fam includes statements from the Jessica Rose paper that contend people should be warned of serious unconfirmed adverse events before being vaccinated as this is proper application of the precautionary principle. This is a popular anti-vaccination sentiment because the precautionary principle is supposed to be applied where scientific knowledge is absent.
It’s not surprising we find these references to the precautionary principle. As noted by Justice Perry [33], Meryl Dorey’s initial letter to Minister Greg Hunt, included this very belief, via their:
…demand, based on the precautionary principle, that the current mRNA and viral vector vaccination experimental trial be immediately halted until independent scientific safety and efficacy evaluations can be unequivocally established.
The next paper cited by Fam suggests there was insufficient animal testing prior to clinical testing of COVID-19 vaccines. This is incorrect. Other papers cited, advance the fact children and young people have a lower death rate from COVID-19 than older people and thus, do not need vaccinating. On pp. 13-14 Fam quotes from a withdrawn paper, observing that “the journal does not state why the paper was withdrawn”. Yet a visit to the paper’s URL provides clear access to the journals withdrawal policy which lists reasons such as errors or “infringements of professional ethical codes”. Fam makes reference to the UK Yellow Card reporting system and comments made by Dr. Tess Lawrie in May 2021 are quoted. Regarding Lawrie, the BBC reported in part in October 2021:
Dr Tess Lawrie – a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy and childbirth – founded the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (Bird) Group.
She has called for a pause to the Covid-19 vaccination programme and has made unsubstantiated claims implying the Covid vaccine had led to a large number of deaths based on a common misreading of safety data.
The UK Yellow Card passive reporting system collates data in the same way as the US VAERS system. Raw data have not been assessed. A summary of Yellow Card reporting was updated on 8 March 2023 on the government website:
For all COVID-19 vaccines, the overwhelming majority of reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue (tiredness), nausea (feeling sick), fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these happen shortly after the vaccination and are not associated with more serious or lasting illness.
Peter Fam’s affidavit includes Genuine Steps and Scientific Papers referred to within on p.15. This opens with an account of Dorey’s letters to Greg Hunt. The first was 24 May 2021 and it received a response on 8 June 2021. Both Peter Fam and Meryl Dorey felt the concerns went unaddressed. Next was an 18 June 2021 letter to Greg Hunt which you can read here. This outlined Dorey’s demand for the government to “immediately cease its obviously harmful and deadly campaign using experimental COVID injections on unsuspecting men, women and now, children”. Hunt was given seven days to respond or face legal action. A day before the 25 June 2021 deadline, Dorey devoted about three minutes at the end of a Facebook live video to priming her viewers. Download the mp3 here, or hit the play button below.
Three hundred had died from “the jab”, viewers were told, and “tyranny and communism had descended on Australia”. I’ve written about this before, unconvinced it was different to the 2016 misappropriation of donations. As it turned out, it was another five months before solicitors were sighted and genuine terms and conditions were drafted. Nonetheless, Hunt did not reply. Next was the 26 November 2021 correspondence to Dr. Brendan Murphy, which referenced “unprecedented levels of death and permanent injuries occurring following the administration”, of COVID-19 vaccines. Again a response within seven days was demanded.
If you’re trying to recall that stage of the pandemic, I can help. Two months earlier we had learnt that less than two percent of people admitted to intensive care in NSW at the beginning of the most recent outbreak were fully vaccinated. Two weeks earlier, ninety-two percent of those in ICU in Victoria were not fully vaccinated. It was the same in the USA and the UK. There were indeed “unprecedented levels of death and permanent injuries”, but not from vaccination. Unsurprisingly, Brendan Murphy did not reply. On 16 December 2021 as the unvaccinated continued to die, the AVN sent another letter insisting:
[That] the provisional approvals ought to be suspended or cancelled on the non-exhaustive basis that there is information and evidence that each of the Registrations have caused historically unprecedented adverse events including deaths, illnesses and injuries… and that insufficient weight has been placed on that information.
Dr. Murphy was given until Christmas Eve to respond before the applicant would seek the court’s intervention. Yes, they wanted Brendan Murphy to spend his last exhausted week before Christmas, removing access to the vaccines that were irrefutably saving lives across Australia and the developed world. Mr. Fam included nineteen “scientific papers” presented by the AVN in his affidavit including seventeen cited within the final letter to Brendan Murphy. They include peer reviewed letters, preprints and peer reviewed papers. On examination these do not scientifically support cessation of the vaccination programme. As with papers cited by Peter Fam himself, there was undue focus on waning immunity, the impact of variants of concern, that vaccination does not guarantee prevention of transmission, natural immunity, breakthrough infection and reports of vaccine-induced myocarditis and pericarditis in adults and children.
Regrettably, included was the heavily criticised October 2020 feature in the British Medical Journal by vaccine critic Peter Doshi. That article created uncertainty around clinical trials, by arguing they weren’t designed to determine if vaccines would reduce hospital and ICU admissions, or death. At the time it was the most cited article by anti-vaccine groups. Also cited was a preprint that today remains unpublished. It discusses “clinically trained reviewers” who found inconclusive VAERS data, were supposedly conclusive after all. Lead author Scott McLachlan, entertains a number of COVID conspiracy theories. He has alleged COVID-19 is a scam, linked Bill Gates to eugenics and is a member of the vaccine-critical group HART.
Also cited was, Increases in Covid-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States, by Subramanian and Kumar. Five days before Dorey wrote her final letter, these findings were shown by Andreas Backhaus, to be significantly limited. Another paper involved postmortem evaluations which “possibly” linked deaths to COVID-19 vaccines. Another preprint analyses reinfection with variants of concern, and found those vaccinated were more susceptible than those with natural immunity. This paper is now published, but with disease and death possible side effects of infection, natural immunity is not a realistic alternative to vaccination.
A number of the papers dealt with the reality that vaccination did not absolutely prevent transmission, and that as vaccination rates rise so does the number of COVID-19 cases in vaccinated persons. Due to the base rate fallacy, this can create the illusion that vaccines are ineffective; the same tactic used on Bob Brown twenty-five years earlier. This is especially pertinent to Australia with a high rate of COVID-19 vaccination. Within the findings of some papers were recommendations for mask wearing and concerns about the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions. This is inconsistent, given that Meryl Dorey contends the pandemic is a scam and advocates rejection of all precautions. It is pointless to continue with explanations. In the main, the research reflects issues that Australian health authorities are well aware of. Alone or together, these papers don’t present cause to overturn a non-mandatory vaccination programme.
One supplementary affidavit consisted of seventy-seven pages from the TGA’s DAEN, listing 382 reports of adverse events in children aged 5-11 years, who had received the Pfizer vaccine between 10 – 31 January 2022. Again, it must be stressed these are suspected, and not confirmed, adverse events. The TGA make this plain with an information box at the top of search results. In a six point prelude explaining his review of DAEN Peter Fam fails to report the unreliability of these data. As such the affidavit contains decontextualised information and would mislead the court.
It’s impossible to visit the DAEN page and not understand this. Below is a screenshot of the advice visitors view before accessing the database itself.
DAEN Information splash screen on TGA website
Another lengthy supplementary affidavit of Peter Fam includes a full copy of Cumulative Analyses of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports, for the BioNTech Pfizer vaccine (BNT162b2) prepared by Worldwide Safety, Pfizer. Dated 28 February 2021, it is a comprehensive, confidential proprietary document, listing adverse reactions from around the world. It is indeed the sort of document the TGA rely upon. The Summary and Conclusion read:
Review of the available data for this cumulative PM experience, confirms a favorable benefit: risk balance for BNT162b2.
Pfizer will continue routine pharmacovigilance activities on behalf of BioNTech according to the Pharmacovigilance Agreement in place, in order to assure patient safety and will inform the Agency if an evaluation of the safety data yields significant new information for BNT162b2.
The same affidavit includes a 28 November 2021 WHO report on Omicron which was designated a variant of concern two days earlier. Discussing severity of Omicron, the report includes:
All variants of COVID-19, including the Delta variant that is dominant worldwide, can cause severe disease or death, in particular for the most vulnerable people, and thus prevention is always key.
Under “Effectiveness of vaccines” the authors conclude:
Vaccines remain critical to reducing severe disease and death, including against the dominant circulating variant, Delta. Current vaccines remain effective against severe disease and death.
This affidavit provides detailed insight into the monitoring of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and the seriousness with which variants of concern are regarded by world health authorities. Since that time Pfizer has modified vaccine production to accomodate SARS-CoV-2 mutations. Ultimately, this affidavit supports the fact that vaccination remains an important preventative option.
Another affidavit is an expert report from one Lisa Mitchell. Dated 29 June 2022, it appears to be an updated version of her January affidavit, likely in preparation for the appeal. Lisa has impressive qualifications with a CV and career to match. Describing herself as an “expert” she is also a qualified statistician. Yet Mitchell has no medical, epidemiological or pharmacovigilance training. This becomes clear as she presents page after page of raw DAEN data without qualifying the unreliability of such data. On page 14 complete with bar graph, is a synopsis comparing non-COVID-19 vaccine to COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction reports. Respectively they are 1 per 10,000 doses and 23 per 10,000 doses as at 31 January 2022. Indeed by 5 June 2022 the rate has slightly fallen to 21.87 reports per 10,000 doses.
Despite the fact her graph clearly states “Adverse Events reported per 10,000 doses”, Ms. Mitchell states in paragraph; “the likelihood of someone having an adverse event as the result of a Covid-19 vaccine was 23 Adverse Events per 10,000 doses”. And:
Using the TGA’s more up to date data, the likelihood now of someone having an adverse event as the result of a Covid-19 vaccine as at 5 June 2022 is 21.87 Adverse Events per 10,000 doses. This 20 times worse than Non-covid (sic) times…
However, this is incorrect. These data do not show an increase in adverse events, rather an increase in reporting of adverse events. An increase in reporting of this magnitude is to be expected when the entire adult population is being vaccinated. I’ve already established that the bulk of established adverse events are minor, so the reports that may eventually be established as genuine adverse events are unlikely to be of serious events.
I do not know Lisa Mitchell and cannot comment on her motivation. I can however conclude that her report is fraught with decontextualisation in the tradition of OpenVAERS. It has the potential to misinform and dissuade people from vaccination. It should not be presented as evidence in a court of law.
No Standing
Matters relied on by the AVN in support of its case for standing [86]
In order to have a case heard by a court one must demonstrate that one has a right to be heard and that the court has legal jurisdiction to make a decision. In this case it was up to the applicants to prove to the court they had a legal right, called standing, to have the court order the Secretary of the Department of Health to stop the COVID-19 vaccination programme. Under federal law this is a complicated business.
The AVN argued it had standing under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903, and were also a “persons aggrieved” under section 5(1) and section 7(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR). Looking at the ten points relied on by the AVN in pursuit of standing, a general theme is clear. Namely, the AVN regards itself as a pre-eminent arbitrator of vaccine policy with respect to public health and that information it presents should be taken as fact and acted upon as they instruct.
The Secretary begged to differ. As Justice Perry observed [6]:
However, by a notice of objection to competency filed on 18 February 2022 the Secretary contended that AVN lacked standing to seek the relief sought in the Mandamus Case and Judicial Review Case and that there was therefore no “matter” in the constitutional sense. The Secretary also contended that AVN was not a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of ss 5 and 7 of the ADJR Act, and that the proceedings were therefore not competent insofar as those provisions were relied upon to engage the jurisdiction of the Court.
As outlined in paragraph eight above, the AVN sought leave to join with Mark Neugebauer, who separately argued he had standing and was a “person aggrieved” under the ADJR Act. Given the volume of evidence filed by the AVN and the potential cost to the Secretary in refuting this at trial, Justice Perry agreed with the Secretary that it was appropriate to determine standing before trial. She ruled that neither individually nor cumulatively did the matters relied on (screenshot above) demonstrate that the AVN had special interest above an ordinary member of the public. The AVN had itself stressed that its objectives involved informing the public about vaccine safety, choice and alternative views. Thus, as will come as no surprise to AVN observers, it is axiomatic that the AVN is not concerned with enforcing the TG Act.
More so, Justice Perry observed registration of the three COVID-19 vaccines under the TG Act does not mandate their administration. Nor would there be deprivation of choice about taking the vaccine. Where vaccine mandates did occur, they were the result of workplace policies or enactment of legislation, and not an automatic outcome of registration of the Three Vaccines under the TG Act [91]. Nothing about the registration of vaccines impacts on the ability of the AVN to pursue their objectives. Indeed this author would note that the registration of the Three Vaccines has enabled unprecedented expansion of the organisation, both in the real world and online, increased financial profit and accelerated pursuit of their objectives. Thus, when one reads that “the AVN has suffered psychological and emotional harm and injury due to or in connection with the Three Vaccines”, seperate from adverse events, one remains dubious. Citing Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health [ruling], Perry observed:
[T]he fact that a body such as AVN may, in the exercise of free speech, seek to influence public opinion and government views in pursuit of its objects, does not translate into a right of standing to pursue proceedings in a court of law.
Nonetheless, the claim that Meryl Dorey and members of the AVN suffered psychological and emotional harm and injury because of the Three Vaccines, and children of members suffered adverse effects from other vaccines was accepted by Justice Perry. She accepted that Dorey is emotionally impacted by harm caused to her son by vaccines. However, no expert or supporting evidence was presented to confirm the claims of harm and injury. As such the claims were inadmissible evidence and hearsay and accepted only as subject to section 136 of the Evidence Act. They have the same weight as Ms. Dorey’s personal beliefs and do not constitute “special interest”. Even if it could be established that an individual member had suffered harm and acquired standing, this does not by extension give the AVN standing[95].
Justice Perry rejected the AVN’s claim that its “objectives are consistent with the objectives of the TG Act”, and that this supports their claim to standing. In defining the role of the TG Act with respect to safety, efficacy, quality and availability of therapeutic goods, she observed, “central to which is the conduct by experts in the field”. Fortunately the AVN’s claim that it lobbies governments and writes submissions to parliamentary committees, in conjunction with the demands sent to Dr. Brendan Murphy did not strengthen its case for standing. As noted above, actual submissions are rare. In reality the bulk of AVN-directed lobbying is in the form of retributory mass emailing campaigns directed at those who dare disagree.
The AVN submitted they were pursuing the mandamus case to test the validity of the decisions. If it was accepted that the AVN had standing, then any member of the public with the same grievance would also have standing. Thus the AVN’s legal position doesn’t extend beyond an ordinary member of the public. Ultimately, the same ruling was made for the mandamus case which sought to overturn provisional registration of all COVID-19 vaccines and the judicial review case which sought to overturn provisional approval of Pfizer’s vaccine for 5-11 year olds. Both cases were designed to use the Therapeutic Goods Act to compel the Secretary to act. To support its contention that it was a “person aggrieved” the AVN relied upon the same factors as it did to establish standing. Perry goes into detail as to why the applicants aren’t “persons aggrieved” for the purposes of the ADJR Act. There is no real point to examine that discussion. Unable to demonstrate grievance, or that they would be adversely affected, the AVN is not a “person aggrieved”.
Justice Perry ruled the following for each case:
a) the Application is not competent in so far as it is made under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) as the applicant is not a “person aggrieved” for the purposes of s 5 of the ADJR Act;
b) in so far as the Application is made under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (Judiciary Act), the applicant does not have standing to challenge the TGA Decision; and
c) by reason of the ground identified in paragraph (b) above, the Application does not involve a real justiciable controversy as to some immediate right, duty or liability between the applicant and the respondent such as to constitute a “matter” in respect of which the Court has jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with Chapter III of the Constitution.
Mark Neugebauer
In examining the affidavits submitted by Mark Neugebauer, one notes his personal circumstances would have been better served if he had challenged his specific grievances in South Australian courts. Unsurprisingly the court ruled he does not have standing. In order to join as a second applicant (the joinder applicant) Neugebauer needed to demonstrate a special interest, which he was unable to do. Neugebauer sought relief through the mandamus case because in refusing to be vaccinated in accordance with the Emergency Management Act 2004 (SA), he had lost his job as a disability support worker. He also sought relief via the judicial review case. Mark Neugebauer is a foster parent and the Department of Child Protection (DCP) have legal guardianship over his foster child. In April 2017 a DCP supervisor signed consent for the foster child “to be provided with any vaccinations required” [133].
Since early 2021 when the Pfizer vaccine was provisionally approved, Neugebauer had “regularly corresponded” with the DCP to stress that he did “not wish my foster child to receive such a vaccine, even if provisionally approved for his age group.” On 14 February 2022 Mr. Neugebauer was informed the DCP’s position was that all eligible children should receive the vaccine, and he was to make an appointment. The following day he replied:
1. My wife and I do not support our foster child receiving the provisionally approved Pfizer vaccine; and
2. That as a foster parent, I am a mandated notifier at law, and that I am required by law to notify the DCP if I suspect on reasonable grounds that a child or young person is, or may be, at risk of harm, and that I believed that the DCP’s intention to vaccinate my foster child puts [the child] at risk of harm.
In correspondence with a social worker organising his foster child’s vaccination appointment, it is mentioned that Mr. Neugebauer had requested holding off until the Moderna vaccine is approved for 5-11 year olds [p.56]. However, this doesn’t fit with Neugebauer’s position in rejecting vaccination for himself [pp. 24-37], which highlight anti-vaccination avoidance tactics of the time. Nor does it resonate with the strategy of the Babies Case in which Neugebauer is a plaintiff. Evidence prepared in that December 2022 affidavit contends that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are“genetically modified organisms” [para. 48], and the plaintiffs interest is in “preserving human life”.
In dismissing Neugebauer’s right to standing Justice Perry made some salient observations. Seeking to overturn registration of the three COVID-19 vaccines as a means to rectify termination of his employment, is incompetent. The applicants argued that had the registration been cancelled the Order to be vaccinated, “would have ceased to have been effective and Mr Neugebauer would today remain employed in the disability sector” [127]. The fact is that regardless of the Secretary’s hoped for actions in suspending or cancelling registration of COVID-19 vaccines, these decisions only operate prospectively. This can’t change the fact that when his employment was terminated, the vaccines were registered and Neugebauer had not complied with a valid order from his employer on the direction of the SA government. Thus he was not a “person aggrieved” with respect to the mandamus case. Indeed, as he argued via his own affidavits that his very complaint was termination of employment.
Similarly, in seeking to join the judicial review case the applicants submitted that because he is a foster parent, Neugebauer’s personal interests are adversely affected by the Children Decision and determinations under section 22D of the TG Act. The genuine care, love and family life afforded his foster child are not in question, nor is the fact that Neugebauer holds genuine fears for his foster child’s safety. Yet evidence submitted was enveloped in anti-vaccination sentiment and as it is subject to the limitations of section 136 of the Evidence Act, the subjective opinions he held could not be accepted as “expert evidence establishing the truth of these opinions” [136]. Neugebauer contended he had standing to seek certiorari to quash the provisional approval of vaccines for children because he himself was suffering distress, “by the looming risk of his [foster child] experiencing an adverse event” [139], and was thus a “person aggrieved”. Yet the reason his foster child had to be vaccinated was due to the DCP decision in accordance with State law. Neugebauer did not seek to challenge the validity of that decision.
Mark Neugebauer continues to lobby strongly against COVID-19 vaccines for children. He recently referred to the above court case on Twitter:
Question for the general public seeing the Australian courts won't look at overwhelming evidence of vaccine harm due to a law called standing.
If someone is a mandated notifier and has cared for a child since they were born and want's to protect that child, and every child in…
— Mark Neugebauer ✝️ Ephesians 6:12 ✝️ (@MarkNeugebaue13) March 26, 2023
Funding and legal teams
Funding for the case was was via donations raised on the US Christian crowdfunding website GiveSendGo and the lobbying of AVN members by newsletter, website and social media. The legal team consisted of solicitor Mr. Peter Fam of Maat’s Method, Barrister; Mr. Jeremy L Harrison of Wentworth Chambers, Senior Counsel; Mr. Mark Robinson of Maurice Byers Chambers and consultant; former barrister, Julian Gillespie.
Solicitor for the appeal was Mr. Peter John O’Brien of PJ O’Brien & Associates. Funding for the appeal continued on GiveSendGo which is still functioning. It today reveals a current total of $650,179. There was also lobbying of AVN members via newsletter (30/06/2022), and social media.
Funding of $82,222 for the December 2022 Babies Case was via a separate GiveSendGo donation site (now pausedunpublished) and direct lobbying of donors. The legal team includes Mr. Peter Fam of Maat’s Method, Katie Ashby-Koppens; solicitor, Mr. Mark Robinson S.C. and Dr. Jason Donnelly of Latham Chambers.
Conclusion
In January 2022 the Australian Vaccination-risks Network sought to overturn provisional approval and registration of COVID-19 vaccines in Australia by seeking legal recourse against the Secretary of the Department of Health in the Federal court. The AVN were deemed unable to establish legal standing to bring the case to trial. Ten detailed matters submitted by the AVN and its founder Meryl Dorey as evidence to support standing were rejected by the presiding judge. As subjective opinions and “belief”, they did not establish “special interest”. Examination and deconstruction of evidence submitted via affidavit reveals no justification for legal action as proposed. Rather, it reveals a concise reflection of AVN anti-vaccine propaganda. Supporting affidavits offered decontextualised information and as such were misleading documents.
The AVN rejected the findings of the federal court and appealed. The appeal placed great emphasis on beliefs, opinions and judgements of Meryl Dorey and was ultimately found to be incompetent. In continuance of its pursuit for standing the AVN joined with five other plaintiffs in the filing of an application for writ with the High Court of Australia. Focusing on the provisional approval of a COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months to six years, it argues that grounds for “special interest” are debatable and that “belief” does not disqualify one from standing. They wanted the High Court to “fix the law on standing” and establish a new category of standing that would recognise that these applicants, “seek to preserve human life”. On 16 March 2023 the High Court ordered the matter return to the Federal court.
This article is lengthy and has examined the real life activity behind some of the claims made by the AVN within and around the federal court case. But it still falls short. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Meryl Dorey has adopted a convoluted suite of COVID-19 conspiracy theories and aggressively promoted her AVN persona as an anti-medicine crusader. She contends the pandemic is a scam, that SARS-CoV-2 does’t exist, and believes one cannot be infected with a virus unless injected with it. She urged her online followers to discard face masks, ignore social distancing and hand washing and to join large lockdown protests as infections surged. Dorey profits from the donations of anxious and vulnerable supporters.
Meryl Dorey and the AVN can never be trusted to contribute to the welfare of the community. Legitimising their conduct in any court of law would only lend strength to a warped ideology. They should be regarded as disingenuous witnesses in all law courts of Australia.
Making a list, 
and checking it twice 
, gonna find out 
Losing In The Lucky Country 