Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate Senator Babet on moving a motion to have a Senate inquiry into excess deaths. I think that is well overdue. We spent hundreds of billions of dollars. We shut people down for a number of years—we locked them down, we locked them out, we locked them up. We shut down our borders. People were unable to see loved ones. I've got friends who didn't get to see their dying sister. There were extremely traumatic circumstances where people were denied their fundamental human rights, all in the name of keeping us safe.

Yet, here we in March 2023, three years since the actual pandemic. It's almost three years to the weekend, actually, since we engaged in this experiment, for want of a better word. It looks like tomorrow we will see close to 190,000 deaths recorded in 2022. That is almost more than 30,000 deaths higher than what was recorded in 2019, despite the fact that we've only had a couple of per cent increase in the population. At one point, we actually had a decrease in the population, when everyone decided to pack up and get out if they could. That was people who had other passports and things like that.

We deserve an inquiry. The premiers promised that they would keep us safe. We heard it ad nauseum, back-to-back, every day for about two or 2½ years straight. Yet, this is where we're at. I think that examining 2022 excess deaths is very important, but I also think it's very important to examine excess deaths in 2021. The reason why examining excess deaths in 2021 is so important is that there was next to no COVID in the community throughout that year. Therefore, we have a very clearly delineated set of numbers that can't be tainted by allegations of long COVID or anything like that.

I want to run through what happened in 2021. In 2021 we had 171,298 deaths, according to the ABS. In 2020, we had 162,592 deaths and in 2019 we had 164,800 deaths. So, because of the lockdowns in 2020, we had approximately 2,300 less deaths than we did in the prior year. Then, if we go to 2021, we've had a jump of 9,000 deaths. To those people who want to claim that the jump in excess deaths in 2021 was a catchup from the lockdowns in 2020, I would argue that that is a fair point to make. However, 9,000 is much greater than the 2,300 decline in deaths.

The other thing we need to note is that in 2021 New South Wales, the biggest state in Australia, with a third of Australia's population, was actually locked down for almost three months, in tandem with Victoria, which was locked down for about two months. So Victoria was locked down for the same period of time as it was in 2020, plus we had three months of lockdown in New South Wales. There is a fair argument to say that the number of deaths in 2021 should actually have been as low as, if not lower than, 2020 because of the extended lockdowns in 2021. But they weren't lower; they were almost 9,000 lives higher.

If we break it down even further and look at a month-by-month comparison, we can see that the jump in deaths from the prior year—the jump in deaths in 2021—only started to accelerate from May onwards. In the first four months of 2021 there is no difference; as a matter of fact, there are actually fewer deaths for the first there months. There was a slight spike in April, which was the month the vaccine rolled out, and then the deaths jumped dramatically—by over 1,000 a month, increasing to 2,000 a month in June, then 4,000, then 2,000, and then it petered back to about 1,000 as the early rollout declined. Then it jumped again towards the end of the year.

That's significant for a number of reasons. That 9,000 increase in deaths occurred only in the last eight months, after the rollout of the vaccine. It wasn't seasonal. If you look at 2017, another bad year for the flu, you see it was a seasonal jump in deaths from July-August to September. Those are the months, not June, because it generally takes about three to four weeks to record those deaths. So we have had a significant increase of three standard deviations from the mean, which is a sigma 6 event, which is a one-in-1,000 event, in 2021.

The other statistic that is really worth noting in 2021 is that the largest jump in deaths actually occurred in the states that had no COVID whatsoever. The largest jump was in WA, of all places, and was about nine per cent. It was followed by Queensland, which had a jump of 10 per cent, and then the other states, like Tasmania and South Australia. Victoria and New South Wales, which had some COVID, actually had a lower increase in mortality. That would be explained by the lockdowns, which tends to reduce the number of deaths, especially in younger people, who have fewer car accidents and things like that.

It's really worth asking yourself what happened in 2021 that didn't happen in 2020. We can refine that even more: what happened after April 2021, because that's when the spike in deaths happened, and what happened in those states that didn't have COVID? Of course there is only one obvious conclusion that: the rollout of the vaccine.

If we then jump to 2022, we can see in the early months of 2022 that the jump in deaths spiked again from late 2021, and that highly correlated with the rollout of the booster shot as well as the rollout to young children and teenagers. It is worth noting that just this week ATAGI admitted that the risk of myocarditis is greater in people younger than 30 if they received the vaccine than it is from the virus. Can someone please explain to me why ATAGI didn't identify this risk before they rolled out the vaccine to young children and why they ignored the advice of the Doherty Institute, which the federal government commissioned in August 2021, that they didn't need to give the vaccine to teenagers or children, because it wouldn't make any difference to transmission? This was throughout the period where they were trying to say it would stop transmission. As we all know now, it never actually stopped transmission or infection in the first place, but let's put that to one side.

Again, why weren't these risks identified, and why aren't we looking at the increase in excess deaths? I haven't counted the number of standard deviations from the mean in 2022, but it's actually more than three standard deviations. We are looking at a very low probability. It's worth noting that just today it was reported in the Australian by an extremely good journalist, Adam Creighton, that the number of excess deaths in Sweden, which didn't lock down at all, was one of the lowest in the world over a three-year period. Australia was fifth lowest, and Sweden was lower than that. So you have to ask yourself: did all these lockdowns really make a difference at the end of the day? We certainly don't see that reflected in the numbers from 2021 onwards. Yet again there are more questions to be asked.

Let's now break it down by what the deaths are and see whether it was the vaccine, because we have numbers that highly correlate to the vaccine. We need to look at the causes. One thing the ABS need to do—and I've asked them, as well as the TGA, twice now in estimates—is give the temporal association between the date of vaccination and the date of death for both reported and suspected deaths to the TGA of 980 deaths, plus the 171,000 deaths to the ABS in 2020-21 and the almost 190,000 deaths for this year. We need to look to see how many people died within a number of days from the vaccine and we need to look at the average daily rate of deaths. If we have 170,000 people dying every year, for example, and there are 52 weeks in the year, you would expect about 3,500 deaths a week, which equates to about 400 or 500 deaths a day. If suddenly we start seeing 600 or 700 deaths a day within a short time frame, you can start to draw temporal association correlation.

The other thing is we need to look at the types of deaths that have been occurring. The biggest jumps in deaths have occurred in dementia and diabetes. That's very important. If we know the types of deaths and where the increases have been, we can start to look at the biochemistry pathway and ask ourselves: is it possible to conclude from the numerical data and the types of deaths that we're seeing that they were related to the vaccine?

Dementia is basically a vascular disease. It could be caused by a number of things, but one of the causes of it could be the addition of the spike protein to the circulation system. We know from the top of page 8 of our favourite document, the Pfizer non-clinical evaluation report—FOI 2389 document 6 on the TGA FOI site—that the spike protein can be secreted from the cell membrane. If the spike protein that is created by the mRNA that the vaccine delivers via the lipids into the body cells—and all body cells by the way—can secrete the spike protein back into the circulatory system, that could lead to dementia. As we know from page 45 of the Pfizer non-clinical report, the lipids can be found in the brain, the eyes and the heart. And what is the cause of myocarditis? We asked Professor Skerritt that question in estimates, and of course he said they're doing more research into it. Hey, we're doing more research into it now.

Who can remember Anthony Fauci's comments last year when he was asked about the increase in menstrual bleeding? He said we have to do more research on that. Tucker Carlson went off his head, saying that it's just incredible when we are dealing with the reproductive organs of the human species that they decided not to research that before they rolled out the vaccine.

Could dementia be caused by the spike protein in the circulatory system? Quite possibly. We don't know that for sure, but evidence seems to indicate that the spike protein has stayed in the blood much longer than what the trials—animal trials, mind you, not human trials—showed in the Pfizer non-clinical report. So that's very important.

The other thing is diabetes. Diabetes is an autoimmune disease. Yet again we ask ourselves: could the vaccine cause an autoimmune disease? When we read page 8 of our favourite document, the Pfizer non-clinical evaluation report, we see that the vaccine has induced an autoimmune response. It has actually induced CD8 cells, which are known as killer T cells. Those T cells are going to kill cells. That's what they do. You have your helper cells, your B cells, and they create antibodies and destroy the foreign body in your body. That's the big difference with this vaccine. We have to remember that a normal vaccine will develop antibodies that attack the foreign object in your shoulder, in your deltoid muscle. This vaccine goes in and takes over your cell's reproductive process in terms of making proteins, and then that protein can sit on the cell membrane, as stated in the document, and that can induce an autoimmune response from these killer T cells.

What's scary about this is that—shown on page 45 of the document—these lipids can enter your spleen, your bone marrow and your lymph nodes, and these are responsible for regulating your immune system. Our bone marrow creates white blood cells, and our spleen creates red blood cells. If we start messing around with the organs that are meant to protect us and our immune cells, then we can start getting autoimmune problems. It's very important to note that the virus itself can't get into those immune organs because the spleen and the bone marrow don't have the ACE receptors that the virus does. We need to ask ourselves: is it possible that there is a correlation between the fact that this vaccine creates an autoimmune response—and induces killer T cells—and the increase in diabetes? This is why Senator Babet quite rightly wants a Senate inquiry into excess deaths, and I'd like to conclude by supporting him in that move.