Australian Judge in COVID Shot Case Failed to Disclose Ties to Pfizer
- by Rishma Parpia
- Published
- Cultural Values
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Australia implemented very strict lockdown measures and public health policies, including mask and COVD shot mandates, curfews, school closures, and restriction of movement of people throughout the country.1
In 2021, the Western Australian Government’s Department of Health published the 2021 West Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) report that showed an exponential increase in the number of adverse events following COVID vaccination, which placed a burden on hospitals.2 The report stated:
The number of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reported to WAVSS was significantly higher in 2021 than in previous years (10,726 compared with an average of 276 per year for the 2017-2020 period) due to the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccination program.3
The data showed that the top two adverse events following COVID shots was myocarditis and pericarditis at a rate of 264 per 100,000, which is 24 times the rate of other routine vaccinations, particularly in the 18-24 and 25-29 age groups.4 As a result of this data, in 2023, a case against Pfizer, Inc. and Moderna, Inc., the manufacturers of a mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid)) COVID shots, was made in federal court in Australia.5
Pfizer and Moderna Sued for Using GMOs in mRNA COVID Shots
The plaintiff, Dr. Julian Fidge, applied for an injunction in Australian federal court to prevent Pfizer and Moderna from further distributing their mRNA COVID shots. He alleged that the mRNA COVID shots contain unlicensed genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which is a criminal offence in Australia under the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 (GT Act).6
Dr. Fidge sought to present evidence showing that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID shots objectively satisfy the legal definitions of GMOs, in accordance with Section 10 of the GT Act. If Pfizer and Moderna had been found guilty, the court would have had to question whether both companies had knowingly violated the GT Act and they could have been banned from selling their COVID shots in Australia.7
Federal Court Justice Helen Rofe dismissed Fidge’s case on the basis that he is not an “aggrieved person” (a person who as a result of a criminal offense suffered bodily harm) or the purposes of Section 147 of the GT Act.8 As respondents, Pfizer and Moderna benefitted from Rofe’s dismissal of the case.9
Judge Rofe Failed to Disclose Ties to Pfizer
A complaint, which was filed by the law firm PJ O’Brien & Associates with the Federal Court Chief Justice Debra Mortimer, alleges that prior to dismissing Fidge’s case, Rofe failed to disclose her ties with Pfizer. When she was a practicing attorney, she directly and indirectly represented Pfizer in at least five separate cases, which created a conflict of interest.
The complaint also stated that Justice Rofe has many affiliations and associations with the pharmaceutical and scientific research industry. Her extended family established the Grimwade family pharmaceutical fortune and also managed Australian biomedical research organization, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute (WEHI). The WEHI has received millions of dollars in funding from taxpayer dollars and over $30 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.10
Katie Ashby-Koppens, a solicitor at PJ O’Brien & Associates stated:
Judges are duty bound to disclose not only potential conflicts, but also perceived conflicts. Failing to disclose this information is not just a breach of common courtesy, but is a breach of the judicial obligations of a sitting judge.” She added that, “Justice Rofe’s dismissal of our case should be voided and our matter should be heard by a judge with no presenting conflicts, as should all matters in the Australian judicial system. We have asked Chief Justice Mortimer to investigate our complaint. Additionally, we call on the Parliament of Australia to investigate allegations of misbehavior of a sitting judge. If the allegations of misbehavior are proven, the Parliament may remove Justice Rofe from the bench.11
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view Reference
No comments:
Post a Comment