Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I seek the call again.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hughes.

Doctors must be free to give their own opinion to their patients. The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is important, and we cannot have informed consent in this nation if our doctors are silenced, censored and face threat of deregistration, because that is exactly what is happening. There cannot be informed consent when other medical experts from around the world, such as Dr Peter McCullough—probably one of the most highly qualified medical minds in all of the United States of America—says, in his belief, that the vaccines are not sufficiently effective and they are not sufficiently safe and should be stopped tomorrow, but his opinion is not allowed on any mainstream media. His opinion is censored from places like Facebook and Twitter. How can there be informed consent if there is a suppression of free speech? And how can there be informed consent when we continue to say 'safe and effective' but yet there is zero—I repeat zero—long-term safety data?

As for the short-term safety data, the method of data collection is not fit for purpose. It is grossly underreporting the number of adverse events. I'll give an example of this. We have the TGA collecting data for adverse events, and they currently say the number of adverse events from the COVID vaccines is 0.21 per cent. The question is: how many are being underreported? The TGA say: very little. However, we have another group that reports on vaccine safety, called AusVaxSafety. What do AusVaxSafety do? They actually contact, rather than wait for a voluntary response. They are sending SMS messages out to people after they have the COVID vaccine. They have got over four million responses back, and those responses show that the number of people going to a hospital or emergency department or doctor's surgery—which, according to the TGA, should all be reported, under the method they use—is running at 0.9 per cent. So the TGA data is 0.21 per cent, and the AusVaxSafety data is 0.9 per cent—and we know the AusVaxSafety data is underreported because it only goes out on the third day. From that, we know that the TGA's data of adverse events is missing at least 75 per cent of adverse events occurring. Yet that is not reported.

How can there be informed consent? Are parents aware that when their child, a 12- to 17-year-old child, goes and gets a vaccine, their child, if they are in the United States of America, would not be getting the Moderna vaccine because the Food and Drug Administration in the US has not yet decided that it is safe for injection in a 12-year-old child? Do Australian parents understand, and are they given the information, that the Moderna vaccine being injected into their 12-year-old child has been suspended as an injection for 12-year-old children in places like Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and many other countries? Is that information being given to parents? Do parents know the data from AusVaxSafety about young adolescents, which shows that, in comparison to the Pfizer vaccine, while the Pfizer vaccine in adolescents reports at least one adverse event in 48 per cent of kids after the second dose the Moderna vaccine reports adverse events in an incredible 61 per cent? Are parents informed that, of the Pfizer vaccine in adolescents, just over one in 100 people report going to the emergency department and seeing a doctor after their second dose of Pfizer but just under two in 100 do if they are given a dose of Moderna? For adolescents, the chances of ending up needing to see a doctor or going to hospital increase by almost 100 per cent if they take the Moderna vaccine over the Pfizer vaccine. Are parents being informed of that? (Time expired)

See this speech in context