The 38th cause of death in Australia is...

A bureau in Australia that publishes statistics on all sorts of matters is astonishingly called the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In this article the focus is on the deaths of Australians.

The 38th cause of death is the number one reason the government has locked up it's people for.

So there are 38 more 'important' reasons why people die in Australia that there is ZERO focus on.

Is this really about the serf's health, or more about profiteering from a so called situation, a government created situation.

This information is currently available in a general type link, where it will change by the next statistic update:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/causes-death-australia/latest-release#data-download

Since the information within the link will change it has been archived within a pdf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S69cwgpICogITVQD0ZgbloHszxH-RRhQ/view?usp=sharing

UK's HSA report Week 42

In the United Kingdom, their health authority publishes a weekly report with regards to the happenings of pharmaceutical products with respect to the current global health situation.

The British government has admitted the fact that once a person has been double jabbed, full natural immunity will never again be acquired.

As a result one will be reliant upon the pharmaceutical's product, in effect creating a customer for life.

After all what good are you to a corporation if you only purchase their product only once twice or even three times soon being the new requirement in the colony called Australia.

Paying attention to page 23 of the report, the U.K. Health Security Agency admitted that the "N antibody levels appear to be lower in people who acquire infection following two doses of 'vaccination'"

It goes on to explain that this antibody drop is basically permanent.

What does this mean?

We know the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the virus (in fact, the report shows elsewhere that vaccinated adults are now being infected at much HIGHER rated than the unvaccinated).

What the British are saying is they are now finding the vaccine interferes with your body's innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus.

Specifically, vaccinated people do not seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.

In the long term, people who take the vaccine will be far more vulnerable to any mutations in the spike protein that will come along, even if they have already been infected and recovered one, or more.

The unvaccinated, meanwhile, will produce lasting if not permanent immunity to all strains of the alleged virus after being infected with it naturally even just once.

See page 23:

See page 24:

See entire document within the link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lYKT1bL_xEFIhI3IXM4IOcPsCselM6mm/view?usp=sharing

Disclosure of health information

With regards to the federal law called the Privacy Act of 1988, what circumstances permit the collection, use or disclosure of health information?

See Section 16B:

What is an organisation?

With regards to the current so called global health situation, what is an 'organisation'?

According to a Commonwealth law namely the Privacy Act of 1988, Section 6C, it is the following:

2 Lawyer's Explain Just How Dangerous The Bill Is

Please note that this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn410FStyQA) has now (since before 21-Nov 2021) been removed.

See link to alternative source:

https://gloria.tv/post/7W8heYCyuukEEor9DLfFLijU6

'Voluntary' was always to be a mandatory action

People were lied to from both federal and state governments that a medical procedure was to be a voluntary action.

In the police state of Victoria, the 'mandatory' action was more pronounced.

At the end of the business day, one is forced, coerced and threatened if that person does not succumb to an injection of a trial drug.

Imagine if we didn't live in a democracy.

Would that mean people would get shot if they didn't succumb to that medical procedure?

Remembering that it's all about pro choice.

See document in above screenshot at:

https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/COVID%20Industry%20Vaccination%20Requirements_Advice%20for%20employers.pdf

Please note that no lawfully enacted instrument exists that states that a person must partake in a medical procedure.

If any reader has evidence to the contrary, please submit this in a comment to this post.

Before submitting to a trial ask your doctor these questions

If you listen to the mainstream media in relation to today's so called global health situation, then you are apparently anti 'whatever', conspiracy theorist tin foil hatter or whatever other character assassination the media conjure up if you ask questions.

The reality is that when participating in ANY medical activity you should or rather MUST ask questions.

You have the right to ask your doctor questions in relation to a proposed medical procedure, where if the answers are not satisfactory, then you have the right to reject the treatment.

See the questionnaire:

Source pdf:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sLSCIuxdfVYZ2v6tv-uJ4DZzzxxBMpl-/view?usp=sharing

 

EXPOSED! Government falsifying 'case' results with cycle threshold at 45

The 'Government of South Australia' has been exposed in falsifying 'cases' in an FOI (Freedom of Information Act) document.

 

From the document it is stated that:

1). "SA Pathology use up to 45 cycles in their in-house PCR testing",

2). The test adheres to "strict National Association of Testing (NATA) testing accreditation requirements."

As of the time of this post, according to the NATA website, there is no 'accreditation' for the PCR test that is being used in Australia, but rather only an explanation of PCT Testing from the 3rd of August 2021.

Please note that on the 7th of September 2021 NATA stated that both Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) are allegedly accredited for use in Australia.

Australians have been tested via a RT-PCR test that cannot be "fully validated" and that is NOT 'accredited' by NATA, giving rise to false positive 'cases' that led the population to be locked up.

The Government of South Australia, dials up the test 45 to cycles which results in a false positive in order to inflict economic duress and limit the right to freedom of movement of the general population.

See an actual result from a RT-PCR test:

See screenshot from the NATA website:

Even though the World Health Organization recommends the test to be carried out between 25-30 cycles the Government of South Australia carries it out 45.

 

 

Victoria, Australia the new Germany of the 1930's

FORGET 'rules', FORGET CHO 'directions'!

Quite simply put, what lawfully enacted law by the Parliament of Victoria is in circulation that allows for discrimination of a human being or 'person', for the law experts, based on one's medical status?

We invite all readers to point to such an Act of parliament that has been lawfully enacted.

Apparently persons who have not been double jabbed with a trial drug* are not allowed to participate in society, or rather the 'economy', according to Daniel Michael Andrews.

So in essence you must (allegedly) meet a certain medial criteria, before you are allowed to participate in a business transaction.

Once again, what lawfully enacted Act of Parliament states this?

With your complicity in mind, you may say great, and get double jabbed.

But there's a problem with that.

The goal posts have been changed.

You will soon be required (by what lawfully enacted Act?) to have three jabs of a trial drug*, as mentioned by Andrews.

With all this happening: 

- No 'constitutional' legal eagles are seeing alarm bells?

- No 'human rights' laws are being violated?

- No anti-discrimination laws are being thrown under a bus?

An absolute abhorrent state of affairs in this (penal) colony called Australia.

Medical apartheid at its finest.

Will the Australian New World Order puppets ever see Nuremberg?

NEVER!

* Trial drug:

(and you thought this would never happen in 'New Berlin' the world's most livable city?)

How the authorities falsify 'cases'.

We have obtained information from a source that wishes to remain confidential from within the medical industry in Victoria as to the testing of people in order to determine a result referred to as a 'case', that being positive for a particular strain of virus.

In Victoria, the RT-PCR test is used to determine whether or not someone has the virus.

The NSW department of health, publicly stated in a tweet that it uses the PCR test at 40 in their testing of the general population.

This contravenes the direction by the WHO where the recommended cycle threshold is ~25-30.

Prior to submitting to the medical examination, the 'consumer' is asked whether or not a jab (or two) was previously administered.

If the answer is yes, then the test is dialled down, and if the answer is no the cycle threshold is increased to give the result of a false positive.

Consumers are NOT given a paper report of their examination, as they should be, in line with pretty much every other single examination previously done in Australia, as this is a legal document, but rather they are texted a simple message with regards to the end result.

First and foremost this is deception carried out by the testing centres, since you are not given YOUR result in full.

We previously posted a test result from a RT-PCR test which shows its inaccuracy as seen below:

See explanatory notes within the article: 

https://corpau.blogspot.com/2020/07/covid-test-useless-faith-in-quick-test.html

This is one of the greatest cases of fraud in Australia's medical history, where the people are complicit.

The current premier Daniel Michael Andrews, when he was a health minister falsified the 'cases' with regards to the swine flu.

BEFORE submitting to a test, tell them that you require the full result for legal purposes.