Gary Bakker is a clinical psychologist with over 40 years experience. His talk at the upcoming Australian Skeptics national convention is titled, Sex, gender and identity: The politics and the science.
It can be a controversial area of which Gary notes:
Gary notes:
It has been very hard to get past the politics of issues around sex, gender, and identity while trying to apply the science to our legal and social policy decision-making. For example, it took several submissions to journals before my two articles on the topic – ‘Sex, gender, and identity: It’s complicated’ and ‘Sex, gender, and identity: Science or politics?’ – were published, both eventually in Rationale, the journal of the Rationalist Society of Australia.
Even Skeptical Inquirer “didn’t want to go there” because any moderate contribution is attacked (cancelled) by both of the vocal extremes on the issue.
When it comes to skeptical activism Sue Ieraci keeps herself, well… active.
Just recently Sue went to MindBodyWallet festival to check out what motivates some to empty their wallets for a choice of woo. This led to an article in Australian Doctor in which Sue reported on receiving advice that the kidneys should produce cloudy urine, because when they’re “open”, sediment will find its way into the urine. Proof apparently, of toxins leaving the body.
Sue also wrote about a visit to a stall managed by a chiropractic business:
They were using thermography (metal probes that were said to be measuring skin temperature on either side of the spine), which they explained could correlate with something neurological.
I described the shoulder and neck muscle spasm I can get from spending too long at my laptop, mainly using my dominant arm for the mouse.
Surprisingly, the “scan” readout showed two red bars on the other side of my body — apparently, the side without the pain was hotter!
When I asked what units of temperature were being measured or displayed, the scan operator was unable to say.
What he was able to do was offer me a follow-up appointment at the chiro clinic — at a special “discount for showgoers”!
Sue didn’t sign up. Which is just as well because I doubt she has the time. Well, actually I hope she’s working hard on her Skepticon 2023 presentation about what leads conventionally-trained doctors to turn to pseudoscience. The on top of that, Sue is an emergency medicine specialist with a long history of collaboration with Stop the AVN (legends), Friends of Science in Medicine (marvellous) and Australian Skeptics (marvellous legends) in opposing and debunking health science misinformation.
Sue is active on social media, believes in providing evidence-based discourse and likes a good argument. Sue often treads the knife edge between informing readers and getting banned by pseudoscience spruikers, including those promoting extreme diets, unscientific “therapies” and useless supplements.
Her favourite homeopathic “remedy” is “Nat.Mur” – Natrium Muriaticum or – as it is more commonly known – water that no longer contains salt. She is fascinated by the concept that a lot of nothing is stronger than not much nothing.
Sue is also going to perform at the Skepticon Saturday night dinner as a stand up comedian. If you’d like a ticket to the dinner, the convention or an online experience please visit here.
In June this year we briefly met suspended GP registrar, William Bay, thanks to his attempt to intervene in the Australian Babies Case. He has summarised his reasons for doing so here. Suffice it to say the Australian Vaccination-risks Network were not happy, making me very happy.
Fast forward to the present, and former AVN president Meryl Dorey, who has taken to feverish promotion of cooker-conspiracy theories on Substack, revealed Saturday that the same William Bay had sent her a formal Letter of Concern. It lists numerous comments about him on her Substack site, that he believes are defamatory. Billy wants the article and every comment removed, topped off with a public apology. This is the latest event since Billy, who proudly refers to himself as the Suspended Dr. William Bay, falsely declared his High Court challenge to have the Voice referendum declared unconstitutional, was a success.
This was not the first time Billy, who often proclaims he’s doing God’s work, declared victory in stark dissonance to the facts. He is soundly refuted by AAP FactCheck here. AAP provide insight into how quickly disinformation spreads between cookers. Billy’s proclamation of victory is a great example of how the uncritical acceptance of a claim can influence belief. It also underscores the power of social media, in this regard. Billy gave a performance of confidence and credibility in a Cafe Locked Out interview, citing as proof documents that actually confirmed his failure.
During the interview he referred to a document on his website’s legal docs page headed “Application For A Constitutional Or Other Writ”. Billy directs viewers to his site then says:
I’m looking at it on my computer right now. It’s a miracle, it’s gorgeous, it’s great. It is a stamped document by Justice Jagot of the High Court itself who has declined to rule on the constitutionality of the referendum. So with this case being dismissed from further need for analysis, in legal circles as my lawyer friends will know… if jurisdiction is not proven it is invalid.
The gorgeous and great miracle was the exact document Billy had submitted for filing. The stamp added by Justice Margaret Jagot references High Court Rule 6.07.2, which deals with the management of frivolous or vexatious applications, and includes:
I direct the Registrar to refuse to issue or file this document without the leave of a Justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue or file it.
The upper part of the stamped application is below.
Screenshot – Billy Bay’s rejected application
Of course I am not a lawyer, and neither is Billy for that matter, but he has filed documents with the High Court before this. The Notice Of Filing cover page is part of previous documents he has lodged, displayed on his website. This includes file number, title, registry, type of document; in this case Application for constitutional or other writ, filing party and date. Think of it as confirmation that legal proceedings will take place. Plainly absent from his gorgeous miracle, it also clearly states:
Notice of filing page: Important Information
Staying in theme dear reader, I submit that the evidence before you supports the contention that the Suspended Dr. William Bay did know or should have known that his application was unsuccessful, and did know or should have known that the 2023 referendum is not unconstitutional. This conduct is not unusual for Billy who frequently offers baseless beliefs as fact.
Nonetheless, what followed was an old fashioned pile-on by various “freedom fighters” who took three days and more to decide Billy was wrong. Which interestingly, although they’d never admit it, was how long it took for AAP FactCheck to publish their rebuttal. More so, the stamped rejection of Billy’s application was available on 5 September receiving comment on social media by critics of the so-called freedom movement.
Then on 8 September, long time anti-vaxxer, AVN member, self-proclaimed “journalist” and founder of The People’s Revolution, Tristan Van Rye, better known as Triccy Triddy took to Facebook. Triccy lives in that alternate universe where nefarious global conspiracies of momentous proportion are accepted as fact. His tactics deserve proper deconstruction, but for now bear in mind he is driven by base neoconservatism. There is the ever-changing enemy to fear and there is “us”, constantly threatened by the enemy. Triccy’s a true believer and whilst he’s sowing fear, disinformation and social harm, appears genuinely convinced he is doing good.
In this video Triccy does a sound job of pointing out why Billy’s claim that the referendum is unconstitutional, can only be bogus. Chatter in the cookerverse following Billy’s announcement was reinforcing his other claim, that voting is unnecessary. Triccy had spent months sewing disinformation and anxiety about voting “Yes” and understandably couldn’t allow the chance of lost votes to go unchallenged. Other seasoned curators of disinformation felt the same way and rushed to their live streams. Senator Malcolm Roberts (who himself alleged in parliament that the ballot was unconstitutional), AVN president Aneeta Hafemeister, SovCit grifter Mike Palmer, former MMA fighter and Peacemaker founder Nick Patterson and pseudolaw obsessive Derek Balogh, all had a sudden concern for the spread of misinformation.
In the wake of Triccy’s video, Billy sent him a text message. It was reposted on Telegram:
Triccy, I hearby request and direct you to take down that FB live that you just did about me because I consider it defamatory. We have WON in the High Court. I will continue to show and explain that to the people of Australia; until it’s crystal clear for everyone I encourage you to keep an open mind to things, and in the meantime, I would appreciate it to save us all the trouble if you would remove that video please. Dr William Bay
Billy also sent a Letter of Concern to Triccy in response to said defamatory video. Triccy, in a rare moment of near jocularity, burnt it in his favourite faux lounge fire-pit. Billy however, kept up his booming confidence and applied for leave to issue or file the original application. This matter was heard on 15 September and ruled the original application an abuse of process. See p. 5, para 8:
It is not necessary to consider the question of standing, here in the context of a referendum. By r 6.07.1 leave to issue or file should be refused where the document would amount to an abuse of process. The latter term encompasses proceedings which are foredoomed to fail, as the proposed proceedings are.
Ah, foredoomed to failure, dear reader. A weighty yoke for our suspended doctor to bear. By 19 September, Billy had apologised to Triccy and withdrawn “proceedings”. Triccy was not amused, and announced an end to any further cooperation with Billy. He also took issue with a claim Billy made about employment restrictions imposed by AHPRA. We’ll get to that. First, we don’t want to forget that when Billy was gearing up to sue Triccy for defamation, someone else got their bad ass boots on. In fact there was bad assin’ and chin juttin’ aplenty from our Meryl, all with the hope of provoking Billy.
He was easy to provoke and Meryl went in hard. In a piece titled Distinguishing truth from bullsh*t 101, Meryl hit him where it hurt. It began with humour, as Australia’s most pernicious antivax liar laid out the section heading; Unity is vital – but truth is paramount. Oh, how we laughed! But next came mockery with; Billy Bay’s High Court “Victory”. Ah, the sting of those quotation marks. Then Not the first time Billy has done this, opened the way to a recounting of the failure of the Australian Babies Case. But ultimately came the totally bad ass; Will Billy Bay now come after me for telling the truth about his actions?
Having got the desired reaction, Meryl posted an article, referring to him only as “Bully” as she outlined the specifics of Billy’s letter of concern. The subheading; I don’t take well to threats, can only be described as (need I say it?) totally bad ass, and the article swiftly dispenses with any notion that Meryl is concerned. Within, she refers to a comment reply she wrote in response to Billy’s comment requesting her to “stop attacking” him. She raises the same issue Triccy Triddy had done regarding Billy’s claim on Voice of Freedom that AHPRA had prevented him from working in “any job at all”.
This is another jolly example of that area between remote possibility and reality that Billy exploits. Just as he continued to claim victory in the High Court because he had filed for leave to have his (already rejected) application accepted, there is a submission Billy refers to in the hope of convincing his followers. Simply put it is material submitted in reply from Billy to AHPRA, The Medical Board of Australia and QLD State, in the wake of his suspension. It happens to include:
So, he sought an injunction to prevent AHPRA and the Board from further enforcement of their “compliance letter” so that he can work in positions that don’t “require current registration with AHPRA as a condition of employment”. Neither AHPRA nor the Board have the power to enforce conditions outside their purview. Billy has always been free to work in areas where registration with AHPRA is not required.
Prior to this Billy had submitted an Application for Review of the findings of AHPRA and the Board. On page 7 is a request for an injunction to limit enforcement of the “compliance letter”, so that Billy could work in health care roles seperate from those of a GP Registrar.
The “compliance letter” is clear in that Billy is prohibited from working in health care. All health care, and only health care. In fact, the same document includes a November 2022 affidavit from Billy Bay which presents a clear summary of that letter on page 4, item 15:
The evidence that AHPRA ever sought to prevent Billy working “at all” doesn’t exist. Yet Billy chose to zero in on one part of a much larger, failed application to the Supreme Court. From 27:20 to 28:45 in the interview with Carl Lieberman, Billy talks about what he then thought were defamatory comments from Triccy Triddy. It was “a matter of life and death” for him because if his followers don’t trust him, donations would dry up and this was his only income. You can grab the mp3 file here or listen below. The important part is:
Billy: I even filed an application in the Supreme Court to let me work in any job at all and I lost that one…
Carl: Is that any job in health or any job at all?
Billy: At all, at all Sir… at all! It’s an outrage. It’s a disgrace and a disgust and the people of Australia need to know that, to see how unlawful this AHPRA agency is that they think they can regulate me that much. If they can do that to me they can do that to you.
Carl’s face is priceless as he can’t hide his incredulity. He asks Billy about responding to AHPRA under basic trade-law rights, but Billy had already tried “the international covenant on political and civil rights”. And so it came to pass that Triccy and Meryl called foul on this claim of Billy’s. But they were ten and fourteen days late respectively. Where did they get such bad ass information? Could it be that badder asses had earlier sought to hold Billy to account? A quick visit to Billy’s Facebook page gave me an answer of sorts. Some devious character with an obviously fake name had commented under the video, a day after it was posted:
The plot thickens! There’s also some lucky losing cast iron flying pig standing on an old copy of The Skeptic magazine and snooping around X.
@DrBillyBay Can you support your claim of being prevented by AHPRA to work in “any job at all” please? You’re suspended, and AHPRA suspension outcomes are clearly stated on their website. I’m worried you might inadvertently reinforce Triccy’s claim you “spruik misinformation”.
Humour aside, there are serious elements to consider in the wake of Billy’s ultimately harmless threats against seasoned con-artists. It’s breath-taking to witness Meryl Dorey, architect of the 2016 No Jab No Pay High Court scam, levelling accusations of donation fraud against him. NSW Fair Trading found the AVN guilty of breaching the Charitable Fundraising Act 1991, yet decided not to press charges. As for the money Dorey admitted to hoarding, furious AVN donors had to swallow the loss of their $160,000. Yet she recently wrote about Billy:
So Bully is gaining money from our suffering community under false pretences and I exposed that along with several other long-time supporters of health freedom and informed choice.
Meryl exposed nothing others hadn’t revealed two weeks before. Her own false pretences ensured a career sabotaging public health initiatives and scamming donors. Prior to the formation of the unfunded volunteer group, Stop The AVN, her unceasing schemes ran unchecked. COVID was a double-edged sword; bringing more followers to anti-vaccine conspiracies, but ensuring the increasing irrelevance of the Cult of Meryl. Even the AVN court cases failed. The frustration seeps through in this stand-over advice she offered Billy.
Better than you have tried to censor me for nearly 3 decades and they have not been successful. Perhaps it’s time for you to do some deep soul searching Bully and try to work out why you are actually involved with this issue. Because as far as I can see, it doesn’t appear that caring for our community and the lives of the children and adults therein is your main motivator.
Triccy was far more diplomatic in his criticism, stressing that he meant Billy “no harm”. Unlike Dorey, Triccy appears genuinely focused on change rather than profit and ego. That said, his belief that “we are experiencing World War III, which will be known in the future as The War Against the People”, is based on harmful conspiracy theories of shadow governments. Whilst a key aspect of his rhetoric is that “people will forget their differences”, he is quite skilled at ensuring division between what he wants and what most of us identify as progressive thought.
Billy himself has spent over a year filing for court cases, circling social media and attending protests, after he publicly sabotaged his medical career at an AMA conference in July 2022. Like these other two judging him, he spends a great deal of time spreading disinformation to suit his own bizarre ideology. He also scoops up donations from gullible supporters drawn to conspiracies.
Ultimately, trouble in cooker paradise is nothing short of great news. Belief in conspiracy theories and suspicion of vaccines have both increased post COVID. Researchers are refining their understanding of the factors behind distrust of health authorities. Yet the role social media played in warping uncritical minds during lockdown, has today been replaced by quick-changing narratives adapted to suit. Attacking the Voice referendum is a case in point.
For a long time yet, anything that reflects positive social change will be seen by these players as the latest phase of dark conspiracies. I for one wish them all the infighting and trouble they can muster, and may they tear their angry little worlds asunder.
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.
Losing In The Lucky Country 