Australia : Matters have progressed since the26 October admission by Australia’s Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Raj Bhula, that the Covid-19 products of Pfizer and Moderna do satisfy Australian legal definitions for being deemed and properly called GMOs.
Genetically Modified Organisms
On this issue of the admission we (Katie Ashby-Koppens, Peter Fam and myself) share with you a note sent to Senator Rennick a few days ago:
.. further and important observations to note since the Bhula testimony ..
Bhula stated (at page 127):
“If, indeed, the mRNA was being manufactured here—and it’s correct that gene technology was used in the modification of the mRNA—then, under the Gene Technology Act, an approval would have been required for that manufacturing step.”In respect of – ‘an approval would have been required‘ – under the Gene Technology Act there is ONLY ONE approval Bhula is speaking about, namely, the approval of a GMO license.
To be clear, the Gene Technology Act and the OGTR regulate and approve ONLY ONE thing: GMOs
As a consequence, the answer provided above is an implicit admission that Bhula and the Committee (she is referring to her advisors on the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee), have always understood and deemed the modRNA products to be GMOs.
With respect to the criminal Brief of Information and Evidence, this means a critical evidentiary point has been established, namely, the products of Pfizer and Moderna are GMOs.
As the Update Katie has forwarded here goes on to explain, in respect of the post-manufacture-steps of Importation and Transportation of GMOs into and around Australia, both Pfizer and Moderna were always required to apply for GMO licenses from the OGTR, as Importation and Transportation are a further form of ‘dealing’ – that the products were manufactured overseas is irrelevant to these subsequent forms of dealing of Importation and Transportation – they are dealings that require GMO licenses.
Consequently, the Attorney-General is now required to recommend to the CDPP that charges be laid, as the only issue remaining for determination is a Judicial Question (the AG and CDPP have no discretion here), namely, the criminal ‘Knowledge’ element in respect to the serious criminal offenses of ‘dealing’ with GMOs in Australia without a GMO license:
see Gene Technology Act section 32(1)(a) and section 33(1)(a) – that is, a Court is now required to determine whether Pfizer and Moderna knew at any time from 2020 onwards, that their modRNA products are GMOs under Australian law.
We know from our civil GMO proceedings that Pfizer met with the OGTR/Bhula in 2020, so clearly Pfizer was asking questions about its product and was seeking ‘regulatory clarity’ – that Bhula devised some bullshit excuse for why they did not need to apply for GMO licenses is irrelevant to a Court
– the only question for the Court to now determine is whether Pfizer understood their product is a GMO under Australian law – there is an abundance of available evidence showing they always knew.
.. ditto Moderna
Dr Julie Sladden was interviewed on Spectator TV a few days ago about this admission by Dr Bhula, and provides evidence of how Dr Bhula and the OGTR played fast-and-loose with Pfizer and Moderna, namely
.. other manufacturers/sponsors who have wanted to import and transport GMOs into Australia have always been required to apply for GMO licenses
.. but the OGTR and Dr Bhula and her advisors (the GTTAC) inexplicably chose not to apply our laws to Pfizer and Moderna
.. was this to assist the Australian Department of Health to sneak these drugs in, and not Inform Australian citizens they were receiving GMOs?
.. nor Inform Australians these GMOs and particularly the excessive DNA contamination, threaten the natural DNA of every Australian
begging the question ..
Have Australians been unnaturally and transgenically altered, forever?
on 19 October 2023 .. Spreicher et al. confirmed excessive synthetic DNA contamination in 27 vials of the Pfizer and Moderna products in Canada, 188-509 fold above WHO and FDA limits, which are the same limits meant to be observed by Australia’s TGA
.. I can also confirm Japanese scientists have also confirmed excessive DNA contamination too .. details coming soon
on 12 October 2023 .. the Australian Federal Police without explanation declined to investigate the fact Pfizer and Moderna continue to commit serious criminal offenses in Australia for dealing with their products without first having applied for GMO licenses
.. had they applied for those licenses the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator would never have granted them GMO licenses, had the OGTR properly looked and found the gross DNA contamination
.. since Australia’s Attorney-General first received the initial Brief of Information & Evidence from Senator Gerard Rennick on 27 September 2023, Mark Dreyfus has done exactly
.. but probably attended a lot of damage control meetings
.. because frankly, the contamination and genetic alteration of a country’s citizens does not bode well for the survival of any political party involved, right
.. that would appear to be Mark’s first priority right now, and that of the Liberal and Labour parties
.. as for the well-being of vaxxine victims and the genetically altered?
.. as for preventing the same to anyone else about to walk-in for another boost of these drugs .. an unsuspecting Mom, with her baby?
By Julian Gillespie
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.