Letter sent last March, they were warned! They can’t say they were just doing their job this time and it’s time they were held accountable.
States must protect people from potential harms arising from and during scientific research. States have the obligation to protect people from being used or exploited in harmful scientific experiments, as well as the obligation to set safeguards to prevent harm caused by research or experimentation.
The length of this letter is due to the extensive use of direct extracts from various official documents. All the legal information regarding informed consent is here and it is in you and your centre’s/departments best interest to heed this warning. A media release outlining the contents of this letter, as well as the intent behind sending it, will be sent to all major and community media outlets for the sake of transparency.
As we have seen in the past, medical professionals can be held criminally responsible for their role in medical experiments gone wrong. It is for this reason we are sending this letter to inform you today and our only intention is to save lives by ensuring medical professionals are doing their best to adhere to the applicable laws and do no harm during this mass clinical trial. Medical professionals don’t always get it right, but we hope that, armed with this information, unnecessary mistakes will be avoided.
From the outset, we need to be clear on an important aspect of the vaccine rollout: the federal minister for health, Greg Hunt has described the vaccine rollout as the “largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever”.
Therefore the usual informed consent requirements like the ones listed below (from the Australian Immunisation Handbook), does not apply where subjects of medical experiments are concerned. Language barriers need to be addressed to the point that communities understand that the vaccination is part of a clinical trial, understand the ingredients list and allergy status as well as risks and what to do in case of an adverse event.
The COVID-19 risk of ADE should have been and should be prominently and independently disclosed to research subjects currently in vaccine trials, to those being recruited for the trials and to future patients after vaccine consent, in order to meet the medical ethics standard of patient comprehension for informed consent.
Trespass to the Person
Intentional interference with a person is also known as Trespass to the Person. This is classified as any unwanted, offensive, or unjustified interference with a person’s body, liberty or rights. Charges of interference do not necessarily burden the plaintiff with proving damages, rather with proving intent to commit the offense.
As modern medicine progress, it is worth bearing in mind that the more elective and discretionary the procedure is, the greater responsibility there is on the doctor to provide information about risks. It is not enough for a doctor to just sign a paper; they must sit down with the patient and make sure that the patient understands the risks involved.
There is case law in Australia about informed consent. Each state and territory also has guardianship and/or medical treatment legislation about capacity and consent. This legislation is different in each state and territory, and can be complex.
“A reasonable person in the patient’s position, if warned of the risk, would be likely to attach significance to it; or if the medical practitioner is or should be reasonably aware that the particular patient if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it.”
Criminal Trespass of Person
At common law a trespass was not criminal unless it was accomplished by violence or breached the peace. Some modern statutes make any unlawful entry onto another’s property a crime. When the trespass involves violence or injury to a person or property, it is always considered criminal, and penalties may be increased for more serious or malicious acts. Criminal intent may have to be proved to convict under some statutes, but in some states trespass is a criminal offense regardless of the defendant’s intent.
Meaning of Intent:
In tort law, intent is a classification element for charges of assault, battery and infliction of mental distress. Intent is the desire and deliberate planning to do something. Tort law defines an intentional tort as a civil wrong knowingly committed by the offender. This is contrasted with a tort of negligence, which results from lack of concern or responsibility on behalf of the offender.
Damages awarded in tort cases when intent is proven are generally larger and more successful than negligence cases.
Liability in the absence of consent – The absence of a valid consent is a determining factor in establishing liability for civil assault or trespass.
The Queensland Criminal Code s.245 definition of assault is:
“(1) A person who strikes, touches or moves or otherwise applies force of any kind to the person of another, either directly or indirectly, without the other person’s consent, or with the other person’s consent if a consent is obtained by flawed, or who by any bodily act or gestures attempts or threatens to apply force of any kind to the person of another without the other person’s consent, under such circumstances that the person making the attempt or threat has actually or apparently a present ability to affect the person’s purpose, is said to assault that other person and the act is called an assault.”
The informed consent process for the medical experiment involving the covid-19 vaccine is incompatible with the human rights set out in the charter (Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006). Furthermore, the bill is incompatible with The Australian Constitution Section 10. Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; or
(c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent.
The Nuremberg Code, the first of its kind, was created to prevent a recurrence of the horrors committed in Nazi Germany, and it paved the way for the development of medical ethics and greatly influenced the evolution of human rights law.
The later Declaration of Helsinki, adopted in 1964, reaffirmed the need for informed consent in all research and warned that the “interest of science and society should never take precedence over considerations related to the wellbeing of the subject.”
In 1978, the Belmont Report framed these issues into “broader ethical principles [to] provide a basis on which specific rules may be formulated, criticized, and interpreted,” and focused on three main principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
The International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) provides a global architecture to support enhanced communication, information sharing, crisis response and address regulatory science issues.
International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) is acting as a forum to support strategic coordination and international cooperation among global medicine regulatory authorities.
The aim of these activities is to expedite and streamline the development, authorisation and availability of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines worldwide. ICMRA members also work towards increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of regulatory processes and decision-making.
In June 2020, ICMRA members committed to stepping up the global collaboration and prioritisation of COVID-19 clinical trials, with the aim of expediting COVID-19 medicine and vaccine development and approval based on robust scientific evidence.
ICMRA statement on clinical trials: International regulators provide guidance on prioritisation of COVID-19 clinical trials
In the joint statement on clinical trials, ICMRA members:
set out concrete actions that stakeholders involved with COVID-19 clinical trials should take to collect, analyse and report the data required to determine which investigational or repurposed medicinal products would be safe and effective for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19;
emphasise their commitment to cooperate, expedite and share the evaluation of all COVID-19 trial results submitted to them;
pledge to provide clear and transparent benefit-risk analyses in order to support the approval of effective and safe medicines, biologics, and vaccines against COVID-19.
With the Nuremberg Code, the Helsinki Declaration, the Belmont Report, and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects as the instruments to be followed, there is a noticeable need for legally enforceable norms to protect the rights of research participants.
First and foremost, now is the perfect time to be reminded of the Hippocratic Oath taken. Which can be found here –
It is important to note the international standards for human subject research in the light of norms enshrined in human rights treaties.
We have attached relevant national international ethics and standards around medical research involving human subjects, so there is no reason for those in positions of power to claim they were unaware. We plan to make further enquiries about the safety and suitability of this vaccine and if this notice is ignored we will also consider filing a federal injunction as a class action to put a stop to the unlawful and negligent medical practices on all Australians.
Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science
Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.
Important Information for anyone giving the covid-19 vaccine to First Nations peoples.
Some of the information you must be sure patients are aware of to properly attain free, full, prior informed consent. Please read up on current laws and legislation to stay informed. We have compiled what we can to help.
The plan to immunise First Nations People because they are considered “vulnerable”, would breach the provisions by various human-rights instruments in force in Australia, as well as the Constitution itself, of inalienable freedom of informed choice to refuse medical products and procedures.
The plan to inject untested substances into Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders people who die almost 10 years earlier than non Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, can meet its putative intent only by violating the most fundamental medical ethic, which forbids experimentation by imposition of the risk of a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another.
Human research is not exempt from restrictions necessary to guarantee respect for human rights. We urge you all to proceed with great caution. Before you do anything, it is in everyone’s best interest to learn about Research ethics on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in particular.
Currently, the National Statement requires all research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be subject to ethics review by a human research ethics committee with relevant skills and experience.
AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research
The AIATSIS Act (1989) mandates AIATSIS to provide leadership in the field of ethics and protocols for research related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and collections.
The AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (The AIATSIS Code) ensures that research with and about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples follows a process of meaningful engagement and reciprocity between the researcher and the individuals and/or communities involved in the research.
Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders
Responsibility is reflected through:
• Inflicting no harm. There is a clear responsibility for researchers to do no harm to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals or communities or to those things that they value. The risk of harm, discomfort or inconvenience to participants and to others must be assessed; and research is ethically acceptable only when its potential benefits justify any risks involved in the research. Information about assessing risk and benefit can be found in Chapter 2.1 of the National Statement.
• Establishing processes to ensure researchers’ accountability to individuals, families and communities, particularly in relation to the cultural and social dimensions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life. When engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities in research, researchers carry responsibilities in addition to the science of their research. The connection between their research and community life brings responsibilities for which the researchers or members of the community may be held accountable. Ethical research occurs when harmony between the sets of responsibilities is established, participants’ rights are protected, trust is maintained and mutual accountability is clear. Information about building relationships can be found in Keeping research on track II 2018.
Examples of demonstrating responsibility in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities could include:
• Providing all relevant information for the participants prior to seeking consent, so participants and researchers can consider and manage potential implications of research participation for individual participants, communities, and the partners or family members of participants.
• Ensuring that risk management strategies are in place and that these strategies cover all aspects of the research project.
• Engaging participants and communities in monitoring and evaluating ethical research practice to minimise the likelihood of any unintended consequences arising from or occurring after the research project.
from Kaiyu Bayles