As I have posted before the Doherty Report is nonsense, and now NSW is claiming cases from PCR (a discredited test) cycled up to 40 ensuring 80% false positives and we must point out here Gladys is driving the fear narrative on daily case number basis, which is not logical OR best practice. Best practice in a genuine pandemic is to work on death numbers, never on case numbers. And NSW has has less deaths this year than 2020 or 2019 so by deaths, no lockdowns, no vaccines, no masks are warranted. Australian Tracker for Deaths Due to COVID19 Shots Shows Likely More Deaths from 'Vaccines' than from COVID19
And lets go through the law. Federal Law.
Which over rides anything the state puts in place. The Act below is clear, click to read the pdf.
Quoting myself from an earlier post:
In the Act you read about 'Bio-security Control Order' the first takeaway here is this order must be issued, by a Judge, to an individuals name. Thats right. They are not allowed to lockdown anyone, if just been a bluff. Same with masks and all the fines. Let them issue a fine, its UNLAWFUL so will be thrown out of court.
Watch the video below or read the act above
Link below to Video with your rights explained.
The public enquires being held have transcripts available that while being tediously boring to read do show Hazzard and Chant in fine form parroting the same words as if the enquiry is an inconvenient press conference, nether adds anything of value.
Asking questions on the publics behalf CATE FAEHRMANN and PENNY SHARPE. That in 36pages of 1 transcript the absolute most crucial questions were not asked
**1) why is nsw health enforcing lockdowns and mask mandates that breach Federal Law?
- why are restrictions imposed on case-demic figures when best practice says direct-fatality are what count?
- why are Chant and Hazzard using a PCR test withdrawn by CDC as useless, with setting of 40cycles shown to give 80% false positves - it would also account for the mystery of no flu this year.**
They both seemed stuck on what date lockdowns should have begun (irrelevant), the real question is why they are allowed to continue when they are illegal and the death rate is too low to for any rational person to even consider such action.
After Chant and Hazzard left medical experts were brought in and again the wrong questions were asked, so see for yourself the ans below. Experts says lockdowns are forever.
So why do experts globally disagree with this?
These experts are simple talking heads. Penny Sharpe does not have the will or perhaps ability to challenge them on anything. At least she should have queried why external evidence shows lockdowns only serve as a way to keep the public docile and brainwashed, no evidence lockdowns restrict a virus, and any cases from PCR tests should be dismissed. (below from page 24/36)
Professor COLLIGNON: My view is that I think this is difficult to answer and I think it is dependent
on two factors: the rate of new infections—is it going down or stable?—and also the number of people vaccinated.
I would not ever do what they have done in England—"Hey, every restriction is off." I think this will be a gradual
reduction in restrictions. My own view is we will have restrictions until probably April or May next year because
we need to see what is going to happen in the next Northern Hemisphere winter. The other thing is that even if
you relax it, how many people can visit your home? There is going to be restrictions on that for quite a while.
With time—and I think it will be more November—we will have to change from looking at the number
of cases to the number of hospitalisations and deaths. This will eventually become a pandemic in the unvaccinated
and there will have to be a change of focus. At the moment I think it has got to be on cases because the
consequences are still quite significant, because we have not got enough people vaccinated. But come
October-November, particularly when winter and early spring is over—viruses spread less often, plus we will
have more people vaccinated—then I think it is a different viewpoint we probably have to adopt.
Adjunct Professor SLEVIN: To add to what Professor Collignon said, I think all of that is right. I add
to that that the monitoring that is going on in relation to the cases that are active in the community prior to being
diagnosed is also going to be an important metric. But I think Professor Collignon is right: It is going to be longer
rather than shorter in terms of being able to safely come out of restrictions. The restrictions—and how stringent
they are—will have to be adjusted. Again, it is a trade-off: What risk are we prepared to take in terms of the health
of the population and the most vulnerable as against the freedoms that are being sacrificed to protect those people?
There is not a perfect answer.
The Hon. PENNY SHARPE: You are not helping at all with that, but thank you.
Australia and each State is secretly incorporated as a business, and as the states have proved by lying and unlawfully imprisoning citizens , this govt does not serve the people, Gladys has failed NSW by breaking federal law in her duties, and as sovereign peoples we must remove her government from office and try them for their crimes against NSW citizens.
Indeed the Federal Govt must also be held to account for failing to reign in these rogue Premiers treating each state as a personal slave pit filled with objects they may experiment on and torture.
This insanity must stop.
The Australian people need to stand up and stop it now by withdrawing our consent from a government that has utterly failed to serve or protect the people who elected them.
We, the people choose to disobey your edicts and unlawful mandates.