COVID Royal Commission Terms of Reference Inquiry (Malcolm Roberts)

The Senate inquiry to draft terms of reference for a future COVID Royal Commission is having its first public hearing today in Canberra.

This committee will report on what the appropriate terms of reference will be to give all Australians a say and have a fully empowered Royal Commission into the COVID mismanagement.



The clip is seven hours long (but it includes lunch, and other breaks).

What any Royal Commission should ultimately be doing is pursuing criminal charges against those that mandated the experimental Covid 'vaccines' that were not actually vaccines. They were never supposed to stop transmission of the disease - but were marketed as such - and people were heinously told to take them or lose their job or be banned from certain areas of society.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is, due to the draconian injection mandates, an undeniable Prima Facie criminal case to be made against those in authority who coerced or tricked people into taking the experimental jabs. This is a clear crime against humanity. Any politician, health official, judge, corporate head, media boss, etc, who participated in this action is guilty. Coercing or tricking people into taking the jabs is a crime under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which cannot be suspended under any circumstance.  

One simply cannot force people into taking an experimental medicine. A key reason is if something is wrong with the drug it could kill large numbers of the test subjects, or perhaps all of them.

If someone wants to take an experimental drug, that is up to the individual, so long as they are informed of the dangers. With the Covid injections, that people were wrongly told were 'safe and effective', there was no informed consent process. It is a fact that there was not enough time to properly test them for safety, where there were already signs the technology was inherently dangerous. Their efficacy was questionable considering that Pfizer, the leading company, used a relative risk reduction model rather than an absolute risk reduction model - in reporting their efficacy rates. It was impossible to say that the experimental shots were safe and effective as claimed at the time. 

What's worse is that the lies continue as people in authority push booster shots. 

Currently there is an epidemic of excess deaths in the countries that took the shots. And because we are in an experiment, the onus of proof is reversed when it comes to safety. Fundamentally, the drugs should not be considered safe until proven so. However, there is abundant evidence to show they are NOT safe and are the cause of these deaths. We have autopsy data, we have bio-distribution data, a valid mechanism of harm (immune attack on jab 'infected' cells), and official admissions (in the form of Pfizer's own adverse event list that is over 1200 items long, which includes such things as hemorrhagic syndromes, damage to the heart, death, neurological disorders etc), plus a strong temporal correlation to deaths and illness. The arrows are all pointing on one direction. The shots are not safe.  

To shake ourselves out of this irrational Twilight Zone situation we need criminal prosecutions. The perpetrators must be brought to justice so this stops and never happens again.  

Note: Perhaps the best submission presentation starts at 2 hours 18 minutes and ends at 3 hours 48 minutes. At 2:52:22 the issue of the Nuremberg Code is raised, which is where Article 7 of the ICCPR is drawn. The last set of jab injured presenters also does a good job.  

Also note: that there is a lot of deflective, or self congratulatory, BS in other parts of this hearing, with attempts at making fallacious arguments from authority. What is needed is an examination of everything put out by authoritative bodies. There's a good comment in the live feed of this video, in relation to one of the officials, where someone asks (paraphrasing) 'Is the witness reading from a CNN teleprompter?'

Comment: In relation to the experts in this hearing that were still pushing the jabs as being safe. You only have to understand two things about the technology; that 1. it 'works' by delivering the mRNA into your cells that are then attacked by your immune system, and 2. the jab material bio-distributes throughout your entire body so that cells anywhere along the vascular and lymphatic system can be affected. The fact that cells all over your body can be affected means that different symptoms will manifest depending on what organs are impacted. Your heart can be damaged, your brain can suffer damage, your immune system can be damaged, you can get blood clots, there can be internal bleeding at any location, etc etc etc.

In the end, if we do not get justice here, we will get it in the future as more people die, or as more medical research is conducted, or, perhaps, if more (class action/independent) legal cases win through. This is not over by any stretch. It's vitally important that the use of the mRNA technology is stopped to prevent further harm.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, February 2, 2024.]