Connect with us


Australian Senate launches landmark excess death inquiry following COVID shot rollout


9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The Australian Senate has initiated an inquiry into the surge of excess deaths since the 2021 COVID vaccination program, marking the first formal parliamentary examination of this issue worldwide.

The Australian Senate has begun an inquiry into excess deaths since the mass vaccination program of 2021 in an effort to isolate the causes of what is described as the worst level of excess mortality since World War II. It is being touted as the first instance in the world of a Parliament formally examining the issue.

The successful motion, brought by United Australia Party (UAP) Senator Ralph Babet, was his fifth attempt to launch a parliamentary inquiry in two years. Previously, the left-wing Labor government and the Greens had blocked the motion, without explaining why. The Senate’s Community Affairs References Committee is now required to investigate the factors contributing to the abnormally high mortality. The report is expected by the end of August.

It will be a difficult task, and the likelihood that there will be any admissions of wrongdoing by government bureaucrats and politicians is vanishingly small, even if the findings compellingly point to the vaccination program as the reason behind the excess deaths.

A range of excuses and misdirection will be used to confound the picture. The most obvious is the point that correlation does not prove causation. It will likely be argued that just because the excess deaths happened at about the same time as the mass inoculations it does not necessarily mean there is a causal connection. This is true, but it only means that the evidence is circumstantial, which is valid and can be conclusive, especially when there is no obvious alternative explanation and similar surges in deaths have been observed in most countries that were heavily vaccinated.

READ: US gov’t scientists received $710 million from Big Pharma during COVID, watchdog finds

There are likely to be arguments about the precision of the data and the establishment of an appropriate base line. There is little doubt about the overall trend. The Australian Actuaries Institute sounded the alarm in early 2023. But a favoured tactic of bureaucrats is to argue over fine detail in order to distract from the big picture.

There will thus need to be work to get precise data, if that is possible. For example, according to Babet on March 26 this year, the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s (TGA) provisional mortality figures “confirm that to November 2023 there were 15,114, or 10 percent, more deaths than the baseline average.”

Different figures are in an article in (referencing figures from Mortality Watch). The excess death figures were below 4 percent in 2021, just under 14 percent in 2022, and just over 7 percent in 2023.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has different figures again: -3.1 percent in 2020 (when politicians were saying a deadly pandemic was ravaging the country), 1.4 percent in 2021, 10.9 percent in 2022, and 9.1 percent in 2023. These inconsistencies will have to be resolved.

Another likely tactic is that it will be argued that the problem is “multi-factorial”: that the deaths were caused by many things. This will have some truth to it – the lockdowns probably led to increased suicide rates, for example – and it is likely that it will be used to confuse the picture. But it will not explain the size of the excess mortality, which is the equivalent of what happens in a war. To explain that a novel reason is required, not causes of death that have existed for a long time.

READ: UK study of children shows heart inflammation develops after COVID vaccination, not infection

The aggregate mortality statistics are not the only relevant data; there are other pieces of evidence that can help fill in the picture. One is that the excess deaths, which have occurred in all age groups, do not seem to have been the result of COVID itself. According to the ABS in 2022, when the excess deaths were at their peak, the median (average) age of death for COVID-19 was 86, significantly higher than average life expectancy in Australia. That suggests relatively few working age and younger people died from the disease. So, what killed them?

Another pointer is a report that there have been 20 percent more sudden cardiac arrests in Victoria than five years ago – and more than 95 percent of the patients are dying. “Of the 7,830 people whose hearts stopped beating due to this condition in 2022/23, just 388 survived, the latest Ambulance Victoria figures reveal,” reports the Herald Sun. The ABC, the national broadcaster, reported that many of the heart attack victims are young, but did not investigate any further.

The state government’s response has been to buy more defibrillators. There has been no mention of the vaccines as a possible cause despite accumulating evidence that the heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis are the most commonly reported adverse events associated with the vaccines.

Especially telling has been the TGA’s response. They simply stopped reporting on myocarditis and pericarditis. Such tactics are typical of Australian bureaucrats’ efforts to protect themselves.

The biggest challenge will be analyzing causation of the deaths in an environment where most of the people providing the data have a vested interest in not having their actions exposed, especially when the evidence might show that they have committed a homicide. Australian doctors and academics are also under threat of losing their careers if they voice their doubts about the vaccines. They, too, are hardly likely to be eager to take responsibility for deadly mistakes.

It is more likely that the exposing of the truth in Australia will have to wait for the insights of experts such as Dr. Francis Boyle, who was responsible for drafting the United States’ 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act. He recently testified in a Florida court case that the “mRNA nanoparticle injections” are “biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction.”

If true, it seems very unlikely that Australian health authorities knew. The TGA admitted that it just followed the FDA’s recommendations throughout the crisis. But given that it is supposed to be their job to know it is no excuse.


Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

How Did a Small Group Do This?

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute


“You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.”

A very interesting study appeared last week by two researchers looking into the pandemic policy response around the world. They are Drs. Eran Bendavid and Chirag Patel of Stanford and Harvard, respectively. Their ambition was straightforward. They wanted to examine the effects of government policy on the virus.

In this ambition, after all, researchers have access to an unprecedented amount of information. We have global data on strategies and stringencies. We have global data on infections and mortality. We can look at it all according to the timeline. We have precise dating of stay-at-home orders, business closures, meeting bans, masking, and every other physical intervention you can imagine.

The researchers merely wanted to track what worked and what did not, as a way of informing future responses to viral outbreaks so that public health can learn lessons and do better next time. They presumed from the outset they would discover that at least some mitigation tactics achieved the aim.

It is hardly the first such study. I’ve seen dozens of such efforts, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of these. The data is like catnip to anyone in this field who is empirically minded. So far, not even one empirical examination has shown any effect of anything but that seems like a hard conclusion to swallow. So these two decided to take a look for themselves.

They even went to the next step. They assembled and reassembled all existing data in every conceivable way, running fully 100,000 possible combinations of tests that all future researchers could run. They found some correlations in some policies but the problem is that every time they found one, they found another instance in which the reverse seemed to be true.

You cannot infer causation if the effects are not stable.

After vast data manipulation and looking at every conceivable policy and outcome, the researchers reluctantly come to an incredible conclusion. They conclude that nothing that governments did had any effect. There was only cost, no benefit. Everywhere in the world.

Please just let that sink in.

The policy response destroyed countless millions of small businesses, ruined a generation in learning losses, spread ill health with substance abuse, wrecked churches that could not hold holiday services, decimated arts and cultural institutions, broke trade, unleashed inflation that is nowhere near done with us yet, provoked new forms of online censorship, built government power in a way without precedent, led to new levels of surveillance, spread vaccine injury and death, and otherwise shattered liberties and laws the world over, not to mention leading to frightening levels of political instability.

And for what?

Apparently, it was all for nought.

Nor has there been any sort of serious reckoning. The European Commission elections are perhaps a start, and heavily influenced by public opposition to Covid controls, in addition to other policies that are robbing nations of their histories and identities. The major media can call the victors “far right” all they want but this is really about common people simply wanting their lives back.

It’s interesting to speculate about precisely how many people were involved in setting the world on fire. We know the paradigm was tried first in Wuhan, then blessed by the World Health Organization. As regards the rest of the world, we know some names, and there were many cohorts in public health and gain-of-function research.

Let’s say there are 300 of them, plus many national security and intelligence officials plus their sister agencies around the world. Let’s just add a zero plus multiply that by the large countries, presuming that so many others were copycats.

What are we talking about here? Maybe 3,000 to 5,000 people total in a decision-making capacity? That might be far too high. Regardless, compared with the sheer number of people around the world affected, we are talking about a tiny number, a mico-percent of the world’s population or less making new rules for the whole of humanity.

The experiment was without precedent on this scale. Even Deborah Birx admitted it. “You know, it’s kind of our own science experiment that we’re doing in real time.” The experiment was on whole societies.

How in the world did this come to be? There are explanations that rely on mass psychology, the influence of pharma, the role of the intelligence services, and other theories of cabals and conspiracies. Even with every explanation, the whole thing seems wildly implausible. Surely it would have been impossible without global communications and media, which amplified the entire agenda in every respect.

Because of this, kids could not go to school. People in public parks had to stay within circles. Businesses could not open at full capacity. We developed insane rituals like masking when walking and unmasking when sitting. Oceans of sanitizer would be dumped on all people and things. People were made to be afraid of leaving their homes and clicked buttons to make groceries arrive on their doorsteps.

It was a global science experiment without any foundation in evidence. And the experience utterly transformed our legal systems and lives, introducing uncertainties and anxieties as never before and unleashing a level of crime in major cities that provoked residential, business, and capital flight.

This is a scandal for the ages. And yet hardly anyone in major media seems to be interested in getting to the bottom of it. That’s because, for bizarre reasons, looking too carefully at the culprits and policies here is regarded as being for Trump. And the hate and fear of Trump is so beyond reason at this point that whole institutions have decided to sit back and watch the world burn rather than be curious about what provoked this in the first place.

Instead of an honest accounting of the global upheaval, we are getting the truth in dribs and drabs. Anthony Fauci continues to testify for Congressional hearings and this extremely clever man threw his longtime collaborator under the bus, acting like David Morens was a rogue employee. That action seemed to provoke ex-CDC director Robert Redfield to go public, saying that it was a lab leak from a US-funded lab doing “dual purpose” research into vaccines and viruses, and strongly suggesting that Fauci himself was involved in the cover-up.

Among this group, we are quickly approaching the point of “Every man for himself.” It is fascinating to watch, for those of us who are deeply interested in this question. But for the mainstream media, none of this gets any coverage at all. They act like we should just accept what happened and not think anything about it.

This great game of pretend is not sustainable. To be sure, maybe the world is more broken than we know but something about cosmic justice suggests that when a global policy this egregious, this damaging, this preposterously wrongheaded, does all harm and no good, there are going to be consequences.

Not immediately but eventually.

When will the whole truth emerge? It could be decades from now but we already know this much for sure. Nothing we were promised about the great mitigation efforts by governments turned out to achieve anything remotely what they promised. And yet even now, the World Health Organization continues to uphold such interventions as the only way forward.

Meanwhile, the paradigm of bad science backed by force pervades nearly everything these days, from climate change to medical services to information controls.

When will evidence matter again?

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.



  • Jeffrey A. Tucker

    Jeffrey Tucker is Founder, Author, and President at Brownstone Institute. He is also Senior Economics Columnist for Epoch Times, author of 10 books, including Life After Lockdown, and many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Continue Reading


‘Incompetence’: Pentagon Doesn’t Know How Much Money It Sent To Chinese Entities For Risky Virus Research

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation



The Department of Defense (DOD) does not know how much money it directly or indirectly sent to Chinese entities to conduct research on viruses with pandemic potential, according to a new report by the DOD’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The OIG’s report found that DOD has supplied Chinese entities — whether directly or indirectly via subgrants — with taxpayer cash to research pathogens and the enhancement thereof, but the exact figure is unknown because of “limitations” in the DOD’s internal tracking system. Government funding for such research in China has come under scrutiny since the coronavirus pandemic, which multiple government entities believe started when an engineered virus leaked from a Chinese laboratory that was hosting U.S. government-backed gain-of-function research.

“Incompetence, absurdity, insanity; it’s hard to find a word that adequately describes this. Of all the things that DOD tracks, funds for dangerous research that could find their way to a hostile regime should be at the top of the list of those they keep close tabs on,” Michael Chamberlain, director of Protect the Public’s Trust, told the Daily Caller News Foundation regarding the OIG report’s findings. “It makes you wonder if they really know where all our nuclear warheads are. The military is one of the few areas of government in which the public still maintains a modicum of trust, but, sadly, it looks like they are working hard to squander even that.”

The OIG review of this specific issue was required by the terms of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2024, which President Joe Biden signed into law in December 2023. The OIG’s investigation sought to determine just how much taxpayer cash was routed via “grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, or any other type of agreement or collaboration, to Chinese research labs or to fund research or experiments in China or other foreign countries that could have reasonably resulted in the enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential, from 2014 through 2023.”

Specifically, the OIG learned from U.S. Army officials that 12 grant awards fit the description of what it was investigating, seven of which were subgrants or subcontracts provided to entities in China or other foreign countries for research involving or related to enhanced pathogens, its report states. The OIG’s review also identified a further $9.9 million in funding that reached Chinese entities for research purposes, though that research was unrelated to pathogens.

“However, we did encounter significant challenges in searching for awards related to section 252 of the FY 2024 NDAA reporting requirement due to limitations in the DoD’s systems used to track contracts and grants,” the OIG report states. “Therefore, the full extent of DoD funds provided to Chinese research laboratories or other foreign countries for research related to enhancement of pathogens of pandemic potential is unknown.”

The issues with DOD’s grant tracking systems created “significant constraints” for OIG that “hindered [its] ability to conduct a thorough examination” of DOD’s involvement in funding this specific type of research, the report states.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously conducted a similar review of DOD’s spending and Chinese entities receiving taxpayer dollars to conduct research on pathogens of pandemic potential, and its final report — published in September 2022 — also detailed similar struggles with the DoD’s grant and sub-grant tracking systems.

The Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely began when the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, which was the site of gain-of-function research funded by the U.S. government via an organization called EcoHealth Alliance. Additionally, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray has acknowledged that his organization has reached a similar conclusion.

Despite this, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony Fauci has reiterated his position that a lab leak is the less likely scenario of the two as recently as Tuesday. The COVID-19 pandemic killed more than one million Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and millions more globally, while the American policy response to the pandemic inflicted considerable economic and social damage on the general public.

The DOD did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Continue Reading