Moda Kitchen and Bar shelter Monica Smit’s bizarre conspiracy group

In a unique social media twist senior members of COVID conspiracy group, Reignite Democracy Australia ‘dobbed in’ the restaurant that hosted them for an illegal dinner.

What happened?

It just so happens that Victoria’s current lockdown coincided with the long planned Australia-wide Millions March Against Mandatory COVID Vaccinations organised by Health Rights Alliance. The vaccine is not mandatory. So anti-vaxxers seize on the possibility of a COVID “vaccine passport” and the health workers who may be asked to have the vaccine. Thus a perfect storm for prancing protestors was afoot. On Saturday far from any actual risk and always mere steps from the safety of her car Monica Smit was role playing political dissident/freedom fighter (more on that below). Three hours later she was sipping wine with around 15 RDA friends dining illegally at Moda Kitchen and Bar in Seddon. We know this because one of the group posted a photo with a timestamp and details*.

Fi Reilly wrote;

Moda restaurant in Seddon. Getting on with business. Great hanging out with fellow freedom fighters.

How could this happen? How could Australia’s self-appointed government-in-waiting be so careless? More so, how could our brave freedom fighters end up so safe and cosy and warm whilst the people they encourage had so successfully antagonised police only to ultimately find the inside of an ambulance? More on that dastardly disparity below also. First let’s review some points.

A march during lockdown

In Victoria the venue for the Millions March was Flagstaff Gardens. The last such march in Melbourne saw the crowd gather in the Botanic Gardens on February 20th. Back then our frenetic COVID conspiracy theorist and wannabe political saviour Monica Smit seized the opportunity to promise that she and RDA “are coming” for the jobs of government. Since that time Smit has continued to push thoroughly debunked theories about COVID-19 and to urge civil disobedience in her followers. QR codes, face masks, social distancing, vaccination, temperature readings are all attacks on rights say RDA. Laws protect those who refuse to comply states their disinformation narrative.

Meanwhile back in reality, at 11:59 pm Thursday 27 May, Victoria went into ‘circuit breaker’ restrictions following a rise in community based COVID-19 cases. Restrictions include wearing a face mask, maintaining social distancing and travelling within 5 km of home unless meeting requirements to exceed that distance. In short a lockdown. The reasons scarcely need to be repeated but nonetheless the Department of Health state regarding stay at home directions:

The purpose of these directions is to address the serious public health risk posed to the State of Victoria by the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

It’s worth noting that the organisers of the Millions March posted a cancellation, of sorts, on Facebook just before 11am;

HRA wishes to advise that the official broadcast of the MMAMCV event has been cancelled due to vital team members pulling out. This was not the outcome lead organisers wished for, but it has been taken out of their hands. […]

For those still attending the gathering, some HRA members will be there alongside you, but have had to pull out in an official manner.To all that still attend, it is your event now – rock on!

Agent Smit

Described by the Herald Sun as a “protest inciter” Smit herself was keeping well away from any protest. Exactly one hour after the ‘official’ cancellation was posted by HRA a mask-less Smit was warning of a police checkpoint at Victoria and Peel Streets Melbourne. Her real aim was for the sole purpose of being seen breaching regulations. To enjoy the attention that Monica loves so much. In a performance that’s almost as sad as it is funny, Smit offers;

And by the way, police monitoring this channel (it’s actually a Facebook Live video) I have a single friend who lives ’bout five hundred metres from Flagstaff Gardens. So I’m here as support, so you can go jump.

Yeah that’s right.

I shudder to imagine that huge police Monica-monitoring unit, a large wall screen displaying satellite data, row after row of computer monitors streaming code, and the small army of headpiece-wearing keyboard crunching surveillance experts who wince in fear when told to “go jump”. No doubt they even have a code name for her. The Bored Identity perhaps? Yes. Let’s go with that.

Having counted “three or four hundred cops”, and perhaps thinking of old spy or war movies when someone ‘reconnoitres the perimeter’, The Bored Identity tells viewers;

So, I’ve done a parameter of the park.

The Bored Identity then meets an admirer named Layla. A stranger we learn. They gush praise at each other sharing promises of fighting for their rights no less and the rights of Layla’s dog. So brave is The Bored Identity she admits on the monitored “channel” that she earlier drove past police, and then;

I yelled out the window, I said ‘Go catch some real criminals’, I go ‘Go do ya job for goodness sakes’.

Gosh!… I’ve got my single friend here – she needs my support. Actually ya know what I’m really doing?

[Whispers to the admirer who is suitably impressed. She ‘loves it’ in fact]

That’s my support for the day. All right Layla. Ga’Luck!

[Bored Identity walks off]

Uurgh! Gosh! Well, yeah. It’s gunna be interesting guys.

Clearly The Bored Identity is a highly trained operative. Masquerading as an attention seeking dimwit who provides video evidence on a self-described monitored “channel” that she is indeed in breach of stay at home restrictions is surely a clever ruse. The police based Monica-monitoring unit stood no chance.

On a more serious note police had earlier urged Victorians to respect efforts to combat the pandemic. On Saturday The Herald Sun later reported;

Victoria Police urged people to obey the current CHO directives.

“We are confident the overwhelming majority of Victorians will be doing the right thing and adhere to restrictions so we can all return to normality as soon as possible,” the force said in a statement.

“Those who choose to blatantly disregard the CHOs directions can expect to be held accountable and fined.”

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission added, “Any protest activity should comply with the public health directions in place at any given time.”

Teflon coated

It is difficult to track all movements of The Bored Identity from this point until the restaurant. There was another ‘channel’ – what you might still call a Facebook Live video – which was a laneway-based recap of the day’s protest. This was a little strange as RDA didn’t appear anywhere near the protest. For reasons unknown that video has been deleted. But fortune has smiled upon us as a screenshot with a comment survives;

This commenter writes;

So once again you have “avoided” being arrested and later posted photo’s (sic) of yourself sitting in a restaurant with others who seem to always avoid arrest Hmmm. You commenced the day by telling people where the police were gathering but didn’t make any video from the actual park. Hmm. You later made a video from a laneway afterwards, boasting the protest was a big success. If I was cynical, I would say you and your crew are in cahoots with the police – of course you COULD just be teflon coated.

These points are inescapable. I mentioned in my last post on RDA that Monica Smit is likely deceiving her followers. But rather than being in league with police I’d argue she will always have a safe way out and is highly adverse to any genuine discomfort. The strange new blend of conspiracy theory with biblical fundamentalism that she caters to is growing rapidly and is no doubt quite lucrative. Whatever the case Monica Smit her partner Morgan Jonas and other RDA members chose to spend up at Moda Kitchen and Bar in Seddon.

Restrictions that apply to restaurants (see item 16 and 19b) state;

A person who owns, controls or operates a food and drink facility in the State of Victoria may operate that facility during the restricted activity period only for the purposes of takeaway collection or delivery of pre-ordered goods.

Just cleaning

As we’ll see below media reported the owner of the restaurant denied knowledge of the diners. But again we may thank Fi Reilly;

The relevant part of this screenshot is;

And loved having lunch with everyone afterwards in Seddon. We were just finishing lunch when the business got a call the police were on the way. People who dob on business is such a low act in my mind. Let’s all continue to support these types of businesses.

Being in cahoots aside, one does wonder why the business would get a call to say police were on the way. Tends to defeat the entire purpose of dealing with an offence. Perhaps it’s really an attempt to convey a composed exit. Nonetheless these images were on Twitter by Saturday evening and not long after the text of them accompanied news reports.

The Herald Sun reported;

More than a dozen anti-vaxxers, including protest inciters MONICA SMIT and MORGAN JONAS, were photographed at Moda Kitchen and Bar in Seddon on Saturday afternoon despite statewide coronavirus restrictions which have shut restaurant doors and banned public gatherings.

The photograph, posted on encrypted communication app Telegram, was deleted on Sunday as the restaurant faced huge public backlash and threats of customer boycotts.

A Department of Justice and Community Safety spokeswoman said the incident will be investigated by the government’s coronavirus enforcement team.

“This claim has been referred to the Victorian Government’s High-Risk Industry Engagement and Enforcement Operation for investigation – and it will take action as necessary,” the spokeswoman said.

Moda Kitchen and Bar denied opening its doors to the anti-vax group, despite police confirming they were called to the Victoria St restaurant over reports of “a group not wearing masks” about 4.30pm on Saturday.

“We were closed. We went there to clean but we were closed. I don’t know what people are talking about,” the restaurant owner told the Herald Sun.

The Daily Mail UK published an almost identical piece. The restaurant’s Facebook page vanished soon after, likely going private as criticisms filled comments. The Instagram account followed today shortly after Victorians discovered its presence. Another inescapable point to this story is that the vast majority of Aussies really don’t have any respect for social saboteurs like Reignite Democracy Australia or for businesses that would happily breach regulations to accomodate them. Victorians are striving to get through a serious public health challenge. Many businesses doing the right thing are hurting. Thousands of workers and staff are losing income.

With all this talk about rights and freedom-fighting what about the rights of those doing the right thing? RDA and Co. of course have no answer.

The RDA rabbit hole

Their arrogance stems from bizarre claims like this on their Facebook page;

EXPOSING OUR MEDIA’S RECENT VENTILATOR LIE: One Day, One Victorian On a Ventilator, the Next Day, None!

Victoria’s ‘7-day snap-lockdown’ only exists because there was a need to coerce v8ccination.

General jab hesitancy and public disinterest created an urgent government need to counter-market; and thus, this lockdown serves primarily as a marketing drive for an otherwise undesirable Pharma product. There is no “outbreak,” no actual new cases, and certainly no “Indian double mutant strain.”

It was all meticulously preplanned – with every component strategically devised to ensure a successful psychological operation for public manipulation. The unusual media fixation on an “infected case” that was traced to the 3 Monkeys bar on Chapel Street, was the scheming strategists giving an ironic and knowing nod to the film 12 Monkeys (about a killer virus) – and they are laughing at us. […]

The other day, the media delighted in revisiting the idea of the true medieval horror of hooking a human up to a ventilator – intubated, and comatose, as they battle ‘a flu-like virus’ while being fleeced a small fortune for the privilege of being slowly tortured to death… well, it so happens that there are now ZERO people in Melbourne’s ICUs and not a single person on a ventilator, and not a single death since last year. […]

This lockdown is a criminal act perpetrated by a criminal government, pursuing a criminally coercive v8ccine agenda. It is a lie, founded on lies – and it shall all ultimately collapse by the sheer weight of endlessly being propped-up against the opposing gravity of truth.

Let us continue to contribute to that weight.

There’s more like this of course, including the baseless assertion that this “vaccine experiment” is punishable by death under the Nuremberg Code. Or the video of Monica Smit extolling loopholes she has found to get around QR codes. You see, families leave phones at home when going for a cafe brunch because they seek “quality time”. Monica acts as if you’re going to believe that. So they can’t be expected to use the QR code. Wink, wink. Enter dastardly plan to use alternatives to QR codes. Like, pen and paper.

Apart from promoting the DHHS reasons for not wearing a mask visitors are urged to download and print out copies of the following You Can Say No flyers to bother innocent members of the public with.

The Facebook page of our ‘future government’ is packed full of such pointless opposition to barely inconvenient aspects of life during a pandemic. Smit and Jonas seem driven by an out of proportion belief in their own importance and intelligence. All throughout is a concerning number of even more concerning prayers or proclamations relating to God, Jesus/Yeshua and the bible along with the belief that this pandemic was foretold in said bible. Pastor Paul Furlong of The Revival Church tells visitors;

God’s word says we cannot forsake the gathering of the saints, and do so even more it says as the days become more wicked and evil and the return of the Lord Jesus Christ is at hand, I believe we’re right there right now.

There is strong promotion of Peacemakers Australia. This group are like a real life manifestation of the Game of Thrones malignant religious sect the Sparrows. Complete with obsessed, testosterone fuelled thugs and verse quoting bible waving women, they too see their role foretold in Gospel and psalms. Popping up around all this are the regular crackpot COVID trouble makers from Craig Kelly to Matt Lawson.

Ultimately in the three short months since I last wrote about Monica Smit and Reignite Democracy Australia they have become at once more extreme and less in control of those they attract. They are nothing more than attention-seeking, exploitative charlatans and a problem for any democracy. Australia is a long way from anything like the storming of the U.S. Capitol on 6 January 2021 in Washington D.C. But if the belief in the right to do something like that here needs a home, it would find it amongst this awful amalgam of people.

Reignite Democracy Australia still has nothing Australia needs.

  • – Hat tip to the eagle eye who shared these screenshots.

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

The Nuremberg Code and COVID-19 vaccines

Following the development and subsequent global rollout of successful COVID-19 vaccines one particular anti-vaccine trope has been delivered with increasing gusto. Namely that the administration of these vaccines is in breach of the Nuremberg Code.

This isn’t the first time the Nuremberg Code has been used by the anti-vaccination lobby in an attempt to argue against the legality of vaccination. It is however the most widespread use of this piece of disinformation to date. It also includes the threat that health professionals will be tried as war criminals. To arrive at the conviction that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code, a triumph of non-critical reasoning is necessary. Specifically that the vaccine rollout is an ongoing experiment and that recipients have not given informed consent.

The latter is a misguided application of the first point of the Code. Global, real time scrutiny of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout means recipients are better informed when giving consent than for any other vaccine in history. Whilst the first point of the Code includes the most lengthy accompanying explanation of all ten points in the Code, it opens with the requirement:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Background

An early claim that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent can be found in a 1997 NBC interview with Barbara Loe Fisher and her related article on the NVIC website [Archive]. Loe Fisher provides five bullet points contending there is inadequate knowledge of injury, death, side effects, vaccine failure and that vaccination, “could reasonably be termed as experimental each time it is performed on a healthy individual”. The postulation at play here is that if such uncertainty exists then informed consent cannot be given. Another ambitious claim is that post-marketing surveillance of vaccines is “a de facto experiment”.

Further on in the article the Nuremberg Code itself is addressed and the deception immediately begins apace. Loe Fisher exploits the words of physician and ethicist Jay Katz. His work is included in Nazi Doctors and The Nuremberg Code – Human Rights in Human Experimentation. Loe Fisher selectively chose in part:

The rights of individuals to thoroughgoing self-determination and autonomy must come first. Scientific advances may be impeded, perhaps even become impossible at times, but this is a price worth paying.

As the tone indicates, this is a quote about human experimentation, not vaccination as Barbara Loe Fisher is suggesting. The article trots on to mislead readers that, “bioethicist Arthur Caplan concurred when he said”:

The Nuremberg Code explicitly rejects the moral argument that the creation of benefits for many justifies the sacrifice of the few. Every experiment, no matter how important or valuable, requires the express voluntary consent of the individual. The right of individuals to control their bodies trumps the interest of others in obtaining knowledge or benefits from them.

Jay Katz passed away in 2008. Arthur Caplan is a professor of bioethics at New York University and in June last year informed FactCheck.org that the NVIC use of his quote is “completely erroneous” and reflected “ignorance of history and ethics”. He also observed that it is:

… a gross disservice to the victims of brutal Nazi experiments to distort my words for lame anti-science that will kill people if this bilge is taken seriously.

The above quote is no doubt not lost on those familiar with the harm anti-vaccine activists ultimately achieve and the disrespect they so often reveal in doing so. It also brings to mind the reality surrounding the Nuremberg Code. It is the result of one of the Nuremberg trials that followed the Second World War. The Doctors’ Trial (USA vs Brandt) focused on 23 German doctors and administrators who performed unethical, inhumane experiments in concentration camps and 3.5 million sterilisations of German citizens.

The Nuremberg Code itself has a controversial history surrounding authorship and was largely ignored for 20 years following the Nuremberg trials. In The Nuremberg Code and the Nuremberg Trial: A Reappraisal, Jay Katz wrote that careful reading of the judgement indicates it was written:

…for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.

The vaccine ‘experiment’

This helps us appreciate the importance of, and the rationale behind, insisting that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. In the last post I covered another reason as to why the anti-vaccine lobby pushes this line. Namely to wrongly claim that hospital cover for adverse events following immunisation will be withheld by insurance companies on the basis that the vaccine is an “experimental treatment”. The trial it is alleged runs until 2023.

Helped by a widely disseminated video from the UK (here), misinformation regarding the Pfizer Phase III clinical trial is sustaining the belief that a long term “experiment” involves all vaccine recipients. This is demonstrably false. In fact the clinical study description cited in the video refers to the original participants who will be followed on a post-marketing basis until 6 April 2023. In a comprehensive 10 December 2020 article Pfizer report under Adverse Events:

Safety monitoring will continue for 2 years after administration of the second dose of vaccine.

In Australia Meryl Dorey of the Australian Vaccination-risks Network has been quite vocal about Nuremberg Code breaches. She contends the “experiment” is admitted to by the TGA, FDA and European Medicines Agency. In fact the Australian TGA provisional approval of the AstraZeneca vaccine is valid until February 2023. This is almost certainly a source of added confidence regarding the false claim of an ongoing experiment.

On 13 March 2021 during Under The Wire (Source) Dorey spoke about, “crimes against humanity as determined by the Nuremberg Code” due to COVID-19 vaccine administration and the so-called ‘vaccine passport’. At one time she challenged, “if you even believe that COVID exists”. Download the MP3 here or listen below.

Meryl Dorey followed this with a firm message warning medical professionals. MP3 here or listen below.

War crimes

During the same episode Dorey presented a flyer (below) warning “all medical practitioners” involved in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout that they will be on trial for war crimes and held accountable. These flyers continue to be letter dropped, faxed and placed on car windscreens to reach doctors and nurses.

To suggest that medical practitioners will be subject to war crimes is as baffling as it is offensive. The claim is international and again hints at a massive break down in critical thinking. Only cursory reflection is needed to realise that administering a vaccine during peacetime cannot possibly constitute a war crime regardless of the human rights issues one may think apply. The Nuremberg Code reflects not only what happened during the Second World War but also the ethical standards that existed in Germany before the war.

Nuremberg Code and ‘No Jab No Pay’

Use of the Nuremberg Code as an argument against vaccination legislation was honed in Australia in response to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill in 2015. The legislation ensures a childcare benefit, rebate and a tax benefit supplement will be withheld from parents of children under 20 years of age who are not fully immunised. This legislative amendment followed community concern in response to “conscientious objection” to immunisation.

Submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs arguing against the Bill focussed often on the argument that informed consent would be denied. There are a number of examples and the following are indicative. Submission 511 offers further insight into the first point of the Nuremberg Code. Namely that consent should be:

…without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.

And:

By refusing welfare payments to family’s (sic), this is a clear form of financial duress and coercion (and also over-reaching by Government). Some families rely on welfare payments to enable or assist them to provide for their family. To deny access to welfare payments is coercion of parents to subject their children to a medical procedure. 

Submission 508 also refers to the first point of the Nuremberg Code and suggests that the Australian Immunisation Handbook, in its section on consent, reflects a hitherto unknown aspect of the Code. The author notes:

The Australian Immunisation Handbook reflects the Nuremberg Code is requiring valid consent as a pre-cursor to vaccination.

Another submission combined the My Will command with reference to the Nuremberg Code, the Australian constitution, the Immunisation Handbook and the 2005 Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6, Section 1. Despite the use of so many references to rights and ethics (Submission 511 also cited the AMA code of ethics and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights) the submissions highlight a common flaw. No Jab No Pay is an incentive. Indeed to see it as active coercion and ignore the harm caused by vaccine preventable diseases is uniquely selfish.

As a testament to how the anti-vaccine lobby manage to keep alive the notion that vaccines constitute grave abuses of human rights we can see that Article 6 of the UDBHR has also been trotted out today for COVID-19 vaccines. A striking LTE in the Elko Daily alluded to the Pfizer clinicaltrials.gov information, the Nuremberg Code and the UDBHR. Article 6, section 1 states:

Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be expressed and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

Despite the vocal insistence of an experiment being run without consent the main antagonists of the anti-vaccination lobby are aware this is a false claim. Enter the inane insistence that the COVID-19 vaccine is set to be mandatory in developed nations. The AVN still push the tired line that Scott Morrison aims to make it “as mandatory as possible”, despite his very clear walk back of that unfortunate statement. The next “march against mandatory vaccination” is set for 29 May 2021.

Nuremberg Code Today

As for the Nuremberg Code itself an adequate critique is beyond the scope of this post. Nonetheless, whilst it does reflect important ethical standards it is likely not legally enforceable. It has not been adopted by any government and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more readily recognised. Of major importance in this regard is the CIA post 9/11 experimental torture programme that utilised unwilling human subjects. Critiques of the Code raise justifiable concerns from its acceptance of animal experimentation to the arguably ridiculous item five which states:

No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

Today the recognised standard for medical ethics is the World Medical Association’s Helsinki Declaration. It may be considered superior to the Nuremberg Code for one simple reason. That of regular revision. It has been amended seven times since June 1964. The most recent occasion was in October 2013.

Conclusion

The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is in breach of the Nuremberg Code is the most recent manifestation of an anti-vaccine deception that is probably over 25 years old. It is a falsehood that relies on calculated disinformation. Namely that vaccine recipients are denied informed consent and that the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experiment. Social media has aided the dissemination of this claim and a genuine COVID-19 vaccine Phase III trial document is being misrepresented as confirmation of a global trial.

The Nuremberg Code was written at the time of the Nuremberg War Crime trials. As such, baseless threats that medical practitioners will be tried as war criminals are being circulated. The Nuremberg Code clearly refers to experimentation on human subjects and says nothing about vaccination. Submissions to state and federal parliament in Australia opposing the No Jab No Pay/Play Bill 2015 unsuccessfully tested the veracity of the Nuremberg Code in this respect.

As an ethical statement and historical document the Nuremberg Code is sullied by anti-vaccine disinformation. The claims are absurd, serving no purpose other than disruption of sound public health policy. The most recent incarnation targetting COVID-19 vaccines is rightly viewed as a conspiracy theory.


References

Nuremberg Code

Nuremberg Code – Experimentation not vaccines

AMA Code of ethics for doctors

Staff administering COVID vaccines are not war criminals

Do vaccinations violate human rights under the Nuremberg Code?

WMA Declaration of Helsinki

Nuremberg Betrayed: Human Experimentation & the CIA Torture Program

Last Update: 2 May 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

COVID-19 vaccination: an uninsurable experimental medical procedure?

The COVID-19 vaccine is in fact an experimental medical procedure and because of this insurance companies have made void any claims relating to this “vaccine”.

The experimental trial in Australia runs until 2023 and thus it is only available due to an emergency use clause. Insurance companies are linking adverse reactions and deaths to this trial. As companies won’t pay out for injury and death due to experimental treatment it follows that such events following COVID-19 vaccination are not covered by hospital or life insurance.

Not a word of the above is true. Yet this notion is circulating on social media in the usual and predictable places. Despite it being demonstrably false and something one can refute for themselves in a few minutes, it is a notion with active supporters. Many others go further and contend that consent has not been given to be part of this experiment. Thus a breach of the Nuremberg Code is happening right before us.

Ethically relevant but not legally enforceable the Nuremberg Code remains semantically powerful. As such it is regrettably abused by anti-vaccine activists who have for years peddled the false claim that vaccines are not tested for safety and efficacy. It just so happens that global scrutiny of the development of COVID-19 vaccines also provided firm evidence of Phase III trials. This again refutes the anti-vaccine position and I touched on this last September. Yet as antivaccinationists are apt to do the facts have been twisted into falsehoods to support ongoing attacks on the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and to boost claims of further breaches of the Nuremberg Code.

Now, whilst this post isn’t focusing on Meryl Dorey and the Australian Vaccination-risks Network, it just so happens that she can assist us. On March 13th during an error-packed Under The Wire, Dorey presented a detailed performance outlining the absurdities that constitute the Nuremberg Code fallacy specific to COVID-19 immunisation. You may download the MP3 here, or listen below.

All of the points above popped up today in a thread on a COVID freedom fighter’s Facebook page. Elle Salzone is a feverishly active defender of anti-science beliefs. Elle moves from business to business, scheme to scheme and presently pushes ClearPHONE. Salzone and buddies sell the phone, claiming it provides the privacy necessary for today’s freedom fighters. How reliable a service it provides is uncertain. Elle fights with and also films police over her refusal to wear masks or remain in quarantine when necessary. But that’s okay if you decide to be a Sovereign Citizen. Elle is anti-COVID related responsibility. You can peruse her page for details on these pursuits.

Today one of her posts [Update: quietly deleted on 8 April] was screenshot by a tireless defender of reason, and thus came to my attention. It turned out to be an obvious forgery from this Allianz Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and could be promptly demonstrated as such. The slideshow below is of the Allianz forgery and the two original parts of the document that were used in making it.

Salzone posts the forgery and states;

THIS IS EXTREMELY CONCERNING!!!! 😱

Imagine getting the experimental shot thinking you’re protecting your health, then getting seriously injured and having no private health cover to help you and not being to sue because all vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified…

All to maybe protect you for a virus with a 99% Survival rate..

You literally can’t make this shit up..

“You literally can’t make this shit up”. In fact you can and in this case someone literally did. A quick search yielded the document in question. Even before presenting the original, un-cropped and pre-defaced, pages the text itself was screaming forgery. Insurance companies do not tend to torment font in that fashion. Apart from the caps lock, no policy section is referenced. Then there is the sneer at “vaccine” and the impossible consent self-infliction. Ouch! Finally at risk of boring you there’s that nagging bit about posting this most important development in the glossary.

Suffice it to say the above points were mentioned and a discussion took place.

Verified by multiple sources eh? The original source was “easily found” (comment now deleted) but Elle couldn’t find it. So screenshots of the original source were provided along with a link.

This resulted in an admission that it was posted in the knowledge it was a fake. Apparently however the information it conveyed is not only true but would be confirmed by Allianz if I checked;

For the record this forgery consists of four different screenshots from the original document pasted in a sequence that creates a misleading ‘preamble’ aiming to justify the bogus claims made beneath in added red font. The added text further presents existing terms from the Allianz PDS to construct a fraudulent disclosure statement. A significant amount of time and forethought has gone into this. It is a calculated work of disinformation that has succeeded in misleading vulnerable recipients of its message. The preparation date of the current Allianz Life Plan PDS is 5 march 2021. The date in the forgery is 31 July 2020, suggesting it could have been in circulation for some time.

Perhaps the most important aspect to look at is the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are part of an experimental “medical procedure”. This is frequently peddled by anti-vaccine activists and was also pushed by Meryl Dorey in the audio above. It is linked to other claims that the vaccine is not actually a vaccine. One contention is that mRNA vaccines are DNA modifying agents. Another is that viral vector vaccines [CDC] are completely experimental and also alter DNA. Despite available data on the molecular action, development, safety and efficacy of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines, antivaccinationists ignore this in favour of a conspiracy theory.

Viral vector vaccines are well understood due to decades of research and do not alter DNA. mRNA vaccines are also well understood and are incapable of altering DNA. The claim that COVID-19 vaccination is an experiment is often presented with the contention that the experiment will go on until 2023. Like all persistent falsehoods this has an element of fact to it. The reality is that in Australia both Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines have provisional approval from the TGA. The approval is valid for two years and the AstraZeneca vaccine will require review in February 2023. On 16 February 2021 the TGA stated;

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted provisional approval to AstraZeneca Pty Ltd for its COVID-19 vaccine, making it the second COVID-19 vaccine to receive regulatory approval in Australia.

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca is provisionally approved and included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) for the active immunisation of individuals 18 years and older for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. […]

Provisional approval of this vaccine is valid for two years and means it can now be legally supplied in Australia. The approval is subject to certain strict conditions, such as the requirement for AstraZeneca to continue providing information to the TGA on longer term efficacy and safety from ongoing clinical trials and post-market assessment.

Reading the final paragraph above we can see also how the claim that data is still being collected for the experimental trial is peddled around with such confidence. Yet post-market assessment is a vital part to better understand all drugs and vaccines. There’s no trial, no experiment. It’s worth noting this fallacy is at times linked to another false claim. That of emergency use provision for the vaccine. This was a contention made by one Clive Palmer, deconstructed handsomely here by ABC corona check. Palmer has not alleged the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is an experimental medical procedure. Although he has pushed fear over the absence of one, three and five year safety data.

When it comes to hospital cover, insurance companies will not cover treatments for which no Medicare Benefits are payable. This includes cosmetic surgery, experimental treatments or experimental pharmaceuticals. Medicare will cover certain clinical research studies. For insurers if the device, trial or treatment is not recognised by Medicare or the Medical Services Advisory Committee it will be excluded from standard hospital cover. Still, there is insurance and indemnity available for clinical trials. This helps us understand why the term being used to misrepresent the COVID-19 vaccine is “experimental”.

Allianz also have a strong supportive position on the COVID-19 vaccine and like Bupa offer a comprehensive series of answers to possible questions. In a May 2020 article Allianz cover in depth the importance of research in developing a COVID-19 vaccine and the role of insurance for subjects in clinical trials. This is not what we would expect from a company that would deny insurance cover for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccine. Thus the claim by Salzone that refusal to cover is “verified by multiple sources”, in conjunction with the initial and consequent screenshot, appears to be disinformation. Insurance companies across Australia cover illnesses requiring hospitalisation following vaccination.

This leaves the obsession with claiming a 99% recovery rate as some type of stamp of insignificance. It is a rather tired trope having emerged about a year ago. This may also be linked to the frankly appalling claim that people die “with COVID, not of COVID”. Thus fatalities are incorrectly labelled an overestimation. Given this is pushed often by those who falsely insist vaccines kill and injure on a large scale it reflects a rather bizarre lack of compassion. As pointed out by USA Today the COVID-19 fatality rate is ten times that of influenza. More so it may be a serious diagnosis depending on age and health. To this we must add the emerging problems of ‘long haul’ symptoms perhaps in as many as 32% of those who have recovered from COVID-19.

In an interesting twist it was another wannabe COVID conspiracy-freedom-fighter who provided confirmation from Bupa that adverse reactions requiring hospitalisation are covered if their policy covers the treatment provided. It’s a bit of a story so another slide show is needed.

In the first image we see Bupa’s reply to anti-vaccine activist and COVID conspiracy theorist Matt Lawson, on social media. It outlines quite clearly that treatment covered by policy is available for adverse reactions post COVID-19 vaccination. In the next we see Lawson has engaged in a chat with ‘Cheryl’ from Bupa and presented this to Bupa on Instagram to challenge the prior response. The last screenshot was uploaded by Elle Salzone in the thread we’re discussing as another example of an insurance company denying cover to injury or reaction after COVID-19 vaccination.

Yet viewed in context we can see that during the chat Lawson supplied his policy number (image 3). So ‘Cheryl’ was answering in a specific sense, relative to his policy. This is absolutely in line with the claim made by Bupa in image 1 and also with feedback I’ve received from Bupa Australia. Still, image 2 reveals Lawson’s ill-informed, provocative reaction. The theme of acting with aggressive predetermined agendas is ingrained in the new age COVID conspiracy theorists. Matt Lawson reveals his conspiracy theory thinking when he writes;

Do you cover injuries caused by the convid19 experimental biological injection or not?

This comprehensive article reveals Bupa’s support for the COVID-19 vaccine and is in line with the position of global health authorities. There is no suggestion Bupa view the vaccine as experimental. Quite the opposite.

The letter mentioned in Lawson’s Instagram chat with Bupa Australia is circulating in social media within Australia. Within the Elle Salzone’s Facebook thread the image was uploaded twice, in support of the Allianz forgery. One commenter stated, “Another example shared of a void policy”. The second observed, “I think Bupa were one of the first…”. The image is below.

The text is as follows;

23 March 2021

Dear [redacted]

Thank you for speaking to me.

I confirm that side effects arising from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered under our exclusion for: Complications from excluded or restricted conditions/treatment and experimental treatment exclusion.

If you are injured whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself, cover would be available towards the injury.

I hope this information is helpful. If there is anything else we can help you with, please call our team on the above helpline number.

Yours sincerely

[signature]

Even if genuine, this letter has no impact on Australians. Peering at the Bupa letterhead we can confirm it is from Bupa Place in Salford Quays, Manchester U.K. Anti-vaccination activists will contend that the first paragraph confirms that side effects and complications from the COVID-19 vaccine are excluded from cover because it is an experimental treatment. The second paragraph conveys that insurance cover is available if one is injured, “whilst doing COVID-19 swab yourself”. In the U.K. home test kits are available.

Australians can also dismiss this as here it is illegal to advertise testing kits for serious infectious diseases. The TGA have a very clear warning to consumers and advertisers on their website. Thus there is no reason for Bupa to even consider such cover in Australia and Bupa members can disregard the letter and its claims.

Still, anti-vaccine claims are global in their reach, as is social media. If we take a cautious and in depth look into the origins of this letter there are different possible conclusions. It is a poorly written fake or a badly written follow up with a customer. Neither confirm the claim of an uninsurable experimental vaccine.

Bupa U.K. explain excluded and restricted cover in this Bupa Membership Guide [Archived]. This document provides a likely source for the information that the author presents with notably poor grammar. The opening paragraph is difficult to grasp. It may be that English is not the author’s first language.

With respect to the terminology used in the letter, on page 35 of the U.K. Bupa Membership Guide we find;

Exclusion 7 Complications from excluded conditions, treatment and experimental treatment

We do not pay any treatment costs, including any increased treatment costs, you incur because of complications caused by a disease, illness, injury or treatment for which cover has been excluded or restricted from your membership. […]

We do not pay any treatment costs you incur because of any complications arising or resulting from experimental treatment that you receive or for any subsequent treatment you may need as a result of you undergoing any experimental treatment.

On page 38 we find under Exclusion 16 Experimental Drugs and Treatment, this paragraph;

Please also see ‘Complications from excluded conditions/treatment and experimental treatment’ […]

There we have it. The text could have been copied and pasted in an extremely poor customer follow up, and that’s it above. Or copied and cobbled together in a dodgy forgery. The antivaccinationist lie of an uninsurable experimental vaccine is quite vocal on social media in the U.K. Yet under the glare of fact it is a demonstrably pointless effort.

In the U.K. COVID-19 vaccine side effects are covered under the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme, established in 1979. This provides no-fault compensation for Adverse Events Following Immunisation. It is possible that offering cover is not an option for insurance companies. Either way, side effects are not covered by Bupa U.K. So it may well be that treatment of complications is classified as restricted and/or excluded regarding hospital cover.

The most important point here is that the COVID-19 vaccine is not an experimental treatment. Yet this letter is being pushed in Australian anti-vaccine circles to contend insurance companies are of the view it is experimental. Whilst a bogus claim, the overall forgery scam is reinforcing that claim in COVID conspiracy circles.

Bupa Australia are aware of this letter and have taken the chance to assure those who ask (such as the argumentative Matt Lawson) that cover is certainly available. When I raised this specific issue I was informed by Bupa Australia;

Private health care in the UK and Australia can vary greatly. But rest assured that our members will be covered for any hospital admission following an adverse reaction to the COVID vaccine, as long as the service is included in their cover, and any waits have been served.

Ultimately all the anti-vaccine points put forward by Elle Salzone and others on her Facebook page are demonstrably false. A search for insurance cover and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events yields results from around the world, not just Australia. For example cover for AEFI after the COVID-19 vaccine is available in Singapore whilst there’s a WHO compensation fund for people in developing nations suffering side effects. In general, insurance companies are involved in many areas specific to the COVID-19 vaccines, including in China where they are looking to cover adverse reactions.

Sadly some Facebook visitors to Elle Salzone’s page, who take her word on trust, are absolutely convinced of the dark side as this reply to me, packed with five pieces of misinformation, confirms. [Note – this is not from Salzone but a vulnerable visitor].

Sigh. Still all hope is not lost. As the well-known phrase from the X Files reminds us:

The truth is out there.


Last update: 8 April 2021

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎