Australia is an increasingly lawless and irrational country

What I’m talking about today is the illegal and irrational conduct of Australian governments in the name of a health crisis. This includes lockdowns, mandates and protest arrests.

You may say these steps are warranted – safety versus freedom, but I think of them as indications of a further slide down an already slippery slope, in part because these actions are not backed by solid scientific data.

If governments can get away with this now, what will be next? A social credit system like China where so-called non-conformist behaviour means you can’t buy a train ticket, get an education, are publicly shamed or put on a blacklist?

I recall what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, which ended in the genocide of millions of Jews, and what I’ve seen with my own eyes what oppression led to in Indonesia and East Timor (now Timor Leste) resulting in their struggles for democracy and independence. I know how real these things can get. 

I thought I’d pick just three issues that demonstrate the concerning direction in which our country and its people are headed.

1. Australian lockdowns have been illegal

Did you know that unless you or your business have been specifically named in an official health order from your state’s health department, you are not required to go into lock down? If you are issued with such an order, it is be valid for only 28 days. You can find out more here. You may think lockdowns have been warranted, but keep reading and you’ll learn they’re not backed by evidence.

Further to this, the arrests of peaceful protesters in Victoria during the 2020 lockdowns are likely to be ruled by the Australian High Court as illegal and unconstitutional, meaning that ‘Australia has witnessed the detention of its first political prisoners’. You can read more about that here. Is this the kind of country we want to be?

Another slippery slope aspect of the Sydney lockdown has been putting (unarmed) Australian Defence Forces personnel onto the streets to help enforce the lockdown. I’ve worked in security sector reform in developing countries, and one of the first things you teach newly democratising security forces is that the role of the police is an internal security, law and order one, while the role of the defence forces is protective external security one. I am disturbed at this growing convergence of roles. As I have seen first hand in Indonesia and East Timor, a close ideological and operational alliance between the police and military has historically been associated with repressive regimes, not democratic ones, with the military having access to far greater force than the police. A military should not use its force or power on its own people.

Put together, what this points to is that governments are blatantly flouting the law and democratic processes, and largely doing it without public questioning or recourse. But I would go one step further and question whether lockdowns are even a valid method stopping COVID-19.

For example, while Sweden’s no-lockdown and no-masks policy with restricted gatherings and physical distancing resulted in more COVID-19 cases, they experienced less deaths, and in July 20201 they hit zero deaths. There could be various factors at play and you can read more about it here, but one I found interesting is that health is actually a longer-term game, and ‘a lower economic hit now means a lower excess death hit later’.

An alliance of Australian doctors called the Covid Medical Network back this up in a statement here about the long Victorian lockdown:

‘The ambition for ‘viral elimination’ and the intent of achieving “zero cases for a period of time”, is both irrational and unachievable, according to the best local and international evidence. The latest evidence suggests that ‘lockdown measures’ in general have limited effectiveness in reducing the viral health impacts in the long term. The Victorian government’s measures are ‘anti-health’ and deny the principles of good medical practice. They constitute a disproportionate approach which relies on a fear-based media narrative as well as inadequate and misleading information. This must cease as soon as possible.’

They also state here that the ‘Doherty modelling report, prepared for the Australian National Cabinet on July 30th 2021, has been used as the grounds for the road map out of the pandemic, paving the way for Australian political leaders to justify rolling lockdowns and restrictions as well as drive an 80% vaccination target for our return to “normality. However, our analysis has shown that science was lacking according to our standards of modelling…It is just another example of how bad the science applied to the pandemic is, begging the question, should we not re-examine the science using real-world experts instead of academia based experts. We need a new approach, and better science.’

2. A protocol exists with a very high success rate for curing COVID-19

Professor Thomas Borody from the Centre for Digestive Diseases in Sydney has created a protocol called the Ivermectin-based Triple Therapy compromising Ivermectin, Doxycycline and zinc. It has been shown in trails to successfully cure COVID-19. In one trial in Bangladesh where COVID-19 levels were high, the cure rate was 100% or all 60 people in the trial. 

There is already significant research supporting this protocol, yet considerable resistance exists against using it. Of note, it’s not being used in Australian hospitals, although some individual doctors are prescribing it for their patients. You can learn more here and here.

Some suggest this is because the drugs are generic (out of patent) and therefore not lucrative, with Dr Borody explaining there is no pharmaceutical company behind the protocol to lobby governments. I’ve seen first hand working in the Australian parliament how immensely powerful lobby groups can be.

What’s really interesting is that earlier this year India, which was reporting over 400,000 new COVID-19 cases and over 4,000 deaths per day, went to barely any cases within five weeks of the addition of Ivermectin into their treatment protocol. You can see the statistics here, and also learn about how Wikipedia is not allowing this information to be shared.

3. No one has talked about the importance of maintaining good health and immunity to prevent COVID-19, whether vaccinated or not

No matter whether you’re vaccinated or not, you can still get COVID-19 and possibly die from it. People with underlying chronic health issues are far more susceptible.

Yet not one public health official I’ve heard has talked about the importance of eating a whole foods diet, reducing and managing stress, moving regularly, drinking adequate water and getting regular sun, let alone doing something about chronic diseases by, for example, losing weight, and reducing sugar, refined carbohydrates, alcohol and junk foods (health food shops are shut during the lockdown, but alcohol shops remain open).

Sound too basic? Not at all. These things are our fuel and we need them to thrive. You wouldn’t put dirty fuel into a car, never service or wash it and expect it to perform well and look good. This is the same with the human body.

We need a multi-pronged plan for the health of this country’s population that includes short-, medium- and long-term strategies that consider all aspects of our health. Simply put, there is no one magic pill for individual or public health, and we need better education and more support.

Vitamin D

Another absence has been to advocate the use of Vitamin D, yet it plays a vital role in general immunity and COVID-19 prevention.

Late last year, 20 health and medical experts from the UK, Europe and US sent an open letter to world governments calling for immediate recommendations to increase Vitamin D intake to 4000 IU per day for healthy adults. They cited evidence from more than 70 studies, including a randomised controlled trial, to support the claim that Vitamin D reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation and death.

Vitamin D deficiency is one of the most common worldwide and impacts many of us. This is due to our diets, lack of sun exposure, lockdowns, stress, chronic disease and other immune challenges. Yet it’s important for cell formation; bone, heart, skin, hair reproductive and pancreatic health; our vascular, respiratory, reproductive, immune and digestive systems; ageing; sleep; mood and more.

If you take just one supplement at the moment, take 4000 IU of Vitamin D3 every day. Optimal levels are between 125-150. Lab normal levels compare you with everyone whose blood gets tested there, meaning they’re often lower than optimal.

Stress

Stress is a big player in all disease. I’ve blogged about this here in my role as a nutritionist, but it shuts your immune system down and impacts the health of every single cell in your body, which are the building blocks of your health and wellbeing. 

The problem with current fear mongering and lockdowns is that stress levels have risen in a big way. With lockdowns, domestic violence in Australia has increased (see this Australian Government report here), in the UK there was an ‘alarming 20% rise in babies being killed or harmed during the first lockdown’ (see the report here), and this article dated June 2021 states that ‘attempted suicide rates among Victorian teenagers have skyrocketed by 184 per cent in the past six months’.

In addition, as the Covid Medical Network state here, ‘The fear and societal anxiety caused by these policies [lockdowns] has delayed presentations of many serious medical conditions, including cancers and heart disease.’ 

On Delta

The Covid Medical Network cites that the Doherty modelling report here says there is ‘limited evidence that the Delta strain is more severe than previous strains. Therefore how can we say with conviction that the delta strain is deadlier than previous strains?’ I am waiting for more information on this strain to come out in September 2021.

Your health has been politicised

Your health and rights over your body have been politicised and our control fo this, and broader future looks increasingly undemocratic. It’s time to get informed and lobby your elected representatives, whose role it is to serve the community (and not the other way around), to create logical, good science-based responses to COVID and other ongoing health concerns.

Also, it’s time to stop being scared. Again, inform yourself, take control of your health, eat well, stress less and TRUST your body. It has amazing abilities to heal and protect itself if given the chance.

Another esample of politicisation is that in 2019 websites that advocated eating real food for health i.e. food as medicine and safe supplements, had their accessibility limited by 40-99% overnight on the basis that so-called ‘alternative health’ is not backed by science, which is simply not true. All my work, for example, is research based. Mine dropped by 45%. What a strange world when empowering people about their own health using food and lifestyle is viewed as being radical and anti-social. What’s really going on here?

A bit about me:

I am pro good science – although science is subjective anyway and a recent study showed that a significant amount of research is biased due to funding compromises – and pro deep rational thinking. My qualifications are in international relations and nutrition, and I’m part-way through a science degree. Also I’m a thinking human being.

Remember the Nuremberg Code

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
    This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. 
    The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
  4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  5. No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the
    experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
  7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
  8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  9. During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.
  10. During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

[“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]