Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]


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


Court decision allows Trudeau gov’t to avoid accountability on COVID travel app, top legal group says

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Four Canadians who refused to comply with the government’s border surveillance program had charges against them withdrawn, but no determination was made on the constitutionality of forcing the unvaccinated to quarantine.

A constitutional legal group says a recent court decision to withdraw charges leveled against four men who refused to go along with a COVID border surveillance program means the federal government “escaped accountability” for rules that targeted jab-free Canadians.

“This outcome is bittersweet for each of our clients,” said Chris Fleury, an attorney for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), in a recent press release sent to LifeSiteNews.

“It is positive for each of them personally. On the other hand, they were deeply interested in seeking a determination of the constitutionality of the irrational and unscientific decision forcing unvaccinated Canadians to quarantine.”

Fleury noted that the court ruling means the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has “again escaped accountability for Covid policy decisions that breached Canadians’ Charter rights.”

The JCCF said the City of Mississauga withdrew “five charges against four Canadians who refused to comply with ArriveCAN requirements at the Toronto Pearson International Airport.”

The federal government’s $59.5 million scandal-ridden ArriveCAN travel app was introduced in April 2020 and mandated in November 2020. The app was used to track the COVID jab status of those entering the country and to enforce quarantines when deemed necessary.

When the app was mandated, all travelers entering Canada had to use it to submit their travel and contact information as well as any COVID vaccination details before crossing the border or boarding a flight.

In February, LifeSiteNews reported that Conservative Party MPs accused the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) of lying to Parliament over sweetheart contracting approvals concerning ArriveCAN.

Man revealed COVID jab status after breaking down under ‘pressure,’ then hit will $5,000 fine

“After arriving in Toronto from the Netherlands, Mr. Sly-Hooten felt that his personal medical information should remain private and chose not to disclose his vaccination status via ArriveCAN. In response, Peel Regional Police and Public Health Agency of Canada personnel detained him,” the JCCF said.

The JCCF added that “under pressure” and without any “counsel,” Sly-Hooten “broke down and revealed his vaccination status.”

“He received a $5,000 ticket for violating the Quarantine Act and was ordered to quarantine in his home for 14 days,” the JCCF explained.

The JCCF noted that it was able to help Sly-Hooten launch a constitutional challenge “against ArriveCAN, citing his right to liberty, his right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, his right to be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, and his right to counsel after arrest and detention – all protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

Other withdrawn tickets include those issued to Mark Spence, Aaron Grubb, and Evan Kraayenbrink.

The JCCF noted that, like Sly-Hooten, “each were charged for choosing not to provide information via ArriveCAN and were ordered to quarantine for 14 days.”

“Prosecutors have withdrawn the charges because they believe it is not in the public interest to expend further resources on a trial,” the JCCF said. “This outcome follows a similar pattern of ArriveCAN-related charges being dropped before their trials in what appears to be an attempt to shield the controversial program from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, charges are being dropped before the merits of constitutional challenges to ArriveCAN can be heard by the courts.”

Canadians were told ArriveCAN was supposed to have cost $80,000, but the number quickly ballooned to $54 million, with the latest number showing it cost $59.5 million.

The app itself was riddled with tech glitches along with privacy concerns from users.

Canadian Auditor General Karen Hogan announced an investigation of ArriveCAN in November 2022 after the House of Commons voted 173-149 for a full audit of the controversial app.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) is investigating how various companies such as Dalian, Coaradix, and GC Strategies received millions in taxpayer dollars to develop the contentious quarantine-tracking program.

Continue Reading


Employee wins lawsuit filed by gov’t agency after losing job for refusing COVID shot

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

The federal government successfully sued on her behalf, citing a Title VII violation.

A former assistant manager who was fired after applying for a religious accommodation to refuse the COVID shot has been awarded a six-figure payout after a federal government agency filed a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf.

Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers on Thursday ordered the Pensacola, Florida store Hank’s Fine Furniture (HFI) to pay a former manager, identified in the lawsuit as “K.M.O.,” $110,000 for refusing to accommodate her request for exemption from the COVID shot due to her “sincerely held Christian beliefs.”

“HFI is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII,” Rodgers wrote, the Pensacola News Journal reported Monday. He further declared that HFI “will reasonably accommodate employee and prospective employee religious beliefs during all hiring, discipline and promotion activities,” and “any activity affecting any other terms and conditions of employment.”

Significantly, the store also “cannot require proof that an employee’s or applicant’s religious objection to an employer requirement be an official tenet or endorsed teaching of said religious belief,” according to Pensacola News Journal.

Hank’s Furniture must also adopt a written policy, disseminated to all employees, declaring that HFI “will not require any employee to violate sincerely held religious beliefs, including those pertaining to vaccinations, as a condition of his/her employment.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on behalf of K.M.O. (EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-24533-MCR-HTC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida after it was unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement “through its administrative conciliation process.”

According to Pensacola News Journal, about two weeks after HFI implemented a policy mandating that its employees receive a COVID shot, K.M.O. told the company she would not get the shot due to her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and then requested a religious exemption.

According to the lawsuit, HFI ignored her request and asked if she would comply with their COVID shot policy, and K.M.O. then told HFI she planned to submit a written religious accommodation request, asking “whether HFI had a particular form she should use.”

HFI reportedly did not respond to her request. When K.M.O. complained that HFI’s unwillingness to grant her a religious exemption was “unjust,” her new supervisor reportedly told her that “HFI did not care why she would not take” the COVID shot and that HFI “would never grant an accommodation.”

When K.M.O. emailed HMI on September 6, 2021, asking for the status of her religious exemption request, HFI informed her that her religious exemption request was “severely lacking,” and then denied it.

K.M.O. then “asked for help to submit an acceptable religious exemption request,” but HFI refused to discuss any accommodation, according to the lawsuit. Then on October 31, she was fired by HFI because she did not comply with their COVID “vaccination” policy.

Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson remarked regarding the case for an EEOC press release, “Employees should not have to renounce their religious beliefs in order to remain employed. Let this case serve as a reminder that employers should afford accommodation for religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

Continue Reading