COVID-19
Federal Covid Inquiry Finds Public Trust Plummeted

From the Brownstone Institute
By
There is nothing like aggressively wresting human and civil rights away from a population to forcibly impose rules that fly in the face of available evidence, whilst censoring those who try to point this out, and refusing to reveal information on which your rules are based, to bottom out trust in the population at large.
In a report handed down Tuesday, Australia’s federal Covid Inquiry found that extreme public health restrictions, coupled with a lack of transparency about the evidence informing these decisions, has led to a major slide in public trust.
Apparently we need experts and a federal inquiry to tell us the bleeding obvious.
This, by the way, is not a Covid inquiry “like a royal commission,” as was promised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prior to his election, but is the toothless ‘royal commission lite’ alternative put forward by Albanese after he got into power.
From the Australian,
“The long-awaited report into Australia’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic has lashed state premiers for fuelling distrust and confusion, and for adopting draconian border closures that lacked consistency and compassion…
“In the report, the panel argued the need for transparency in future pandemic responses after “economic, social and mental health and human rights impacts were not always understood or considered” in 2020.”
That’s putting it lightly.
Economic, social and mental health, and human rights impacts weren’t considered at all.
That’s why the Queensland Supreme Court ruled that Covid vaccine mandates enforced by the Police Commissioner were unlawful. Justice Glenn Martin held that the Police Commissioner “did not consider the human rights ramifications” before issuing the Covid workplace vaccination directive within the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
When asked about potential human rights abuses caused by his government’s heavy-handed Covid response, former Victorian Premier Dan Andrews retorted, “Seriously? One more comment about human rights – honestly.”
In one egregious case, the Ombudsman determined that the Andrews Government had “breached human rights” by confining over 3,000 Melburnians to nine tower blocks, under police guard, for up to two weeks.
Back to the Australian,
“[The report] lashed “control measures” instituted by state and federal authorities without sufficient explanation.
“This fed the perception that the government did not trust the public to understand or interpret the information correctly and contributed to the decrease in trust,” the summary reads.
“It was the mandating of public health restrictions, especially vaccination, that had the biggest negative impact on trust. The combination of mandatory measures and the perception people had that they were unable to criticize or question government decisions and policies has contributed to non‑mandated vaccination rates falling to dangerously low levels.”
This is absolutely the case. The hashtag I used the most on social media during Australia’s Covid response was, ‘make it make sense.’
There is nothing like aggressively wresting human and civil rights away from a population to forcibly impose rules that fly in the face of available evidence, whilst censoring those who try to point this out, and refusing to reveal information on which your rules are based, to bottom out trust in the population at large.
The biggest failure by far was the silver bullet vaccines that authorities mandated in order to prevent infection and transmission, when they were not tested for such endpoints, and observational data showed they waned in effectiveness after a month or two at best.
Safety surveillance databases exploded with adverse event reporting rates never seen before, yet authorities still insist these are definitely the best, most safe and effective products ever deployed on the population.
It’s small wonder then that fewer than 4% of Australians under the age of 65 have bothered to get a booster in the past six months.
But the nonsensical Covid response wasn’t just limited to the failure of the vaccines to deliver as promised. A few other rules that made no sense:
You need to be protected by a mask standing up, but if sitting at a table you are safe.
Mandatory vaccines are voluntary.
Rapid antigen tests are illegal – wait, now they’re mandatory.
Footballers can cross the border safely but children wishing to visit a dying parent cannot.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
To this day, federal, state, and territory governments have blocked all attempts to access the health advice on which their extremist policies were based.
In an address on Tuesday, Health Minister Mark Butler admitted that “heavy-handed” policies implemented during the pandemic eroded trust, and that “many of the measures taken during Covid-19 are unlikely to be accepted by the population again.”
But don’t think for one second that means they won’t try it again.
Just as the Queensland Government took its Supreme Court loss as a signal that it needs to add a ‘considering human rights’ box-ticking exercise next time it breaches human rights to bring in a mandate, the federal Covid Inquiry report recommends ways to do the whole shebang next time, but better.
That includes more spending, fast-tracking the new Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC, which the government has invested $251.7 million to establish), and better global coordination, particularly with the World Health Organization’s One Health policy.
The report recommends transparent, evidence-based decision-making next time around, but in light of my recent interactions with the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), forgive me for considering this a pipe dream under the political status quo.
Butler said that the report was not about laying blame for individual decisions, but was rather about learning lessons. In other words, there will be no accountability.
Instead, Covid premiers and leaders have been awarded medals and cushy jobs. Most recently, Andrews was appointed to the lucrative role of chairman of Orygen, a youth mental health not-for-profit, to collective outrage.
A good thing that has come out of the report is that government overreach on vaccination mandates has been squarely blamed for a drop in vaccination rates in Australia more generally (not just for Covid vaccines).
“The erosion of trust is not only constraining our ability to respond to a pandemic when it next occurs, but it’s already, we know, bled into the performance of our vaccination programs, including our childhood vaccination programs,” said Butler.
“Since the beginning of Covid…we’ve seen a reduction of seven or eight percentage points in participation in the whooping cough vaccination program for under fives and measles vaccination program for under fives, which means we are well below herd immunity levels for those two really important diseases.”
Nice to see a politician finally admit the role of government in driving this trend, which is too often blamed on the boogeyman of ‘misinformation.’
Read the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report.
Read the COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report Summary.
For further commentary, check out Alison Bevege’s response to the report on her Substack, Letters from Australia.
Republished from the author’s Substack
COVID-19
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’

From LifeSiteNews
The director of National Intelligence revealed gain-of-function ties to US funding, which could indicate that the US helped bankroll the supposed COVID lab leak.
In this segment of a remarkable interview by Megyn Kelly, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard discusses the current Intelligence Community (IC) research into the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (aka, COVID-19).
Gabbard talks about the U.S. government funding of “gain-of-function” research, which is a soft sounding phrase to describe the weaponization of biological agents.
Gabbard notes the gain-of-function research taking place in the Wuhan lab was coordinated and funded by the United States government, and the IC is close to making a direct link between the research and the release of the COVID-19 virus.
Additionally, Gabbard explains the concern of other biolabs around the world and then gets very close to the line of admitting the IC itself is politically weaponized (which it is but would be stunning to admit).
COVID-19
Study finds Pfizer COVID vaccine poses 37% greater mortality risk than Moderna

From LifeSiteNews
A study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause mortality after Pfizer vaccination compared to Moderna
A new study of 1.47 million Florida adults by MIT’s Retsef Levi and Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo finds significantly higher all-cause, cardiovascular, and COVID-19 mortality after Pfizer vaccination.
The study titled “Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida” was just uploaded to the MedRxiv preprint server. This study was headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi, with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo serving as senior author:
Study Overview
- Population: 1,470,100 noninstitutionalized Florida adults (735,050 Pfizer recipients and 735,050 Moderna recipients).
- Intervention: Two doses of either:
- BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech)
- mRNA-1273 (Moderna)
- Follow-up Duration: 12 months after second dose.
- Comparison: Head-to-head between Pfizer vs. Moderna recipients.
- Main Outcomes:
- All-cause mortality
- Cardiovascular mortality
- COVID-19 mortality
- Non-COVID-19 mortality
All-cause mortality
Pfizer recipients had a significantly higher 12-month all-cause death rate than Moderna recipients — about 37% higher risk.
- Pfizer Risk: 847.2 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 617.9 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +229.2 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.37 (i.e., 37% higher mortality risk with Pfizer) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.384 (95% CI: 1.331–1.439)
Cardiovascular mortality
Pfizer recipients had a 53% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 248.7 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 162.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +86.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.53 (i.e., 53% higher cardiovascular mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.540 (95% CI: 1.431–1.657)
COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients had nearly double the risk of COVID-19 death compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 55.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 29.5 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +26.0 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.88 (i.e., 88% higher COVID-19 mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.882 (95% CI: 1.596–2.220)
Non-COVID-19 mortality
Pfizer recipients faced a 35% higher risk of dying from non-COVID causes compared to Moderna recipients.
- Pfizer Risk: 791.6 deaths per 100,000 people
- Moderna Risk: 588.4 deaths per 100,000 people
- Risk Difference:
➔ +203.3 deaths per 100,000 (Pfizer excess) - Risk Ratio (RR):
➔ 1.35 (i.e., 35% higher non-COVID mortality risk) - Odds Ratio (Adjusted):
➔ 1.356 (95% CI: 1.303–1.412)
Biological explanations
The findings of this study are surprising, given that Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine contains approximately three times more mRNA (100 µg) than Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine (30 µg). This suggests that the higher mortality observed among Pfizer recipients could potentially be related to higher levels of DNA contamination — an issue that has been consistently reported worldwide:
The paper hypothesizes differences between Pfizer and Moderna may be due to:
- Different lipid nanoparticle compositions
- Differences in manufacturing, biodistribution, or storage conditions
Final conclusion
Florida adults who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients.
Unfortunately, without an unvaccinated group, the study cannot determine the absolute increase in mortality risk attributable to mRNA vaccination itself. However, based on the mountain of existing evidence, it is likely that an unvaccinated cohort would have experienced much lower mortality risks. It’s also important to remember that Moderna mRNA injections are still dangerous.
As the authors conclude:
These findings are suggestive of differential non-specific effects of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines, and potential concerning adverse effects on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. They underscore the need to evaluate vaccines using clinical endpoints that extend beyond their targeted diseases.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal accounton X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
Reprinted with permission from Focal Points.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
Crime20 hours ago
Canada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links
-
COVID-1911 hours ago
Tulsi Gabbard says US funded ‘gain-of-function’ research at Wuhan lab at heart of COVID ‘leak’
-
Business12 hours ago
Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create
-
Alberta4 hours ago
Pierre Poilievre will run to represent Camrose, Stettler, Hanna, and Drumheller in Central Alberta by-election
-
Business1 day ago
Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Business3 hours ago
Carney poised to dethrone Trudeau as biggest spender in Canadian history
-
Alberta1 day ago
‘Existing oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-breakeven oil in North America’