One can only hope that RFK Jnr's appointment under Trump may trigger a domino effect worldwide on exposure of the corruption of drug and vaccine regulatory bodies. I suspect this is wishful thinking.
True Gareth, however his appointment has yet to be fully ratified and stamped by all - as they say, "It ain't over until the 'lady with the mostest' sings". There's a long way to go before inauguration in 2025.
Already the MSM has massively amplified what they started during the campaign, i.e. hit pieces, take downs and fear mongering ( I won't use 'misinformation' as that word no longer represents what it should). Kennedy is a target and will continue to be one.
The battle is on and it will be viscous as there's there's too much at stake for them - money, egos and reputation, in the US and in Aus.
Another great scoop Maryanne. I hope the comments section fills up with suggestions for what the TGA actually stands for.
It is absolutely showing us that it does not care about transparency. If the drugs that it approves are so wonderful, there should never be a need to be this obtuse.
For those interested the main study on which the "one dose is as good as three" dogma was based on is here
It's a super interesting study because it shows that there is no dose response. And that the main driver for "effectiveness" is confounding. It completely misses the fact that the unvaccinated groups and the vaccinated groups are neither the same (they have different risk factors) and are not followed up for the same length of time at the same age. For an age-dependent disease, this is a real problem.
Sadly, once again we hear another story, in a litany of stories, that have been ever pervasive since 2020, about the malpractice and malfeasance, that is omnipresent within Big Pharma, and which any reasoned analyst would conclude, has ever been thus, within the drug industry, perhaps since its incarnation back in the 1920's.
Clearly, there are individuals within the higher echelons of these companies, whose sole purpose is profit and providing ever greater returns for their investors and shareholders. The ethics of these individuals will always be questionable, as their aim is nothing to do with public health, but is purely based on profit, and financial return.
The individuals that we should point the spotlight at, and perhaps morally, more strongly, are those scientists and researchers who are involved in the creation of these "medications", who, by the very nature of their training, and level of skill, are highly qualified individuals, who know what they are doing, and know where the ethical and moral line is.
These are the individuals who should be taken to task, for the total abrogation of their ethical and moral responsibility. Individuals who should be named and shamed for their professional misappropriation. Individuals who should be cited to their respective professional ethics committees and governing bodies, who should, in turn, effectively strike off these people, from the relevant register, by removing their licences to practice.
Perhaps then, when the Demi-gods on the financial side of Big Pharma realise that they do not have the necessary "expert" minions, to create their "medicines", a sense of propriety might return to this industry.
A long path to undertake, one accepts, but maybe one that Donald Trump and his accolades could consider!
One can only hope that RFK Jnr's appointment under Trump may trigger a domino effect worldwide on exposure of the corruption of drug and vaccine regulatory bodies. I suspect this is wishful thinking.
The TGA is known for rubber stamping the FDA’s decisions…. So I agree, there could be some benefit if the FDA pulls its socks up
True Gareth, however his appointment has yet to be fully ratified and stamped by all - as they say, "It ain't over until the 'lady with the mostest' sings". There's a long way to go before inauguration in 2025.
Already the MSM has massively amplified what they started during the campaign, i.e. hit pieces, take downs and fear mongering ( I won't use 'misinformation' as that word no longer represents what it should). Kennedy is a target and will continue to be one.
The battle is on and it will be viscous as there's there's too much at stake for them - money, egos and reputation, in the US and in Aus.
Oh Yeah, even his cousin (The US Oz Ambassador) was getting in on the act with the mudslinging ! Talk about a "Family Feud" !
Yes, our publicly funded ABC really loved that one.
TGA = Totally Gormless A-holes. 🙊
Lol! I saw it referred to as the Therapeutic Guesswork Administration, but yours is funnier ;-)
Touchè...YOU WIN 🤺
Another great scoop Maryanne. I hope the comments section fills up with suggestions for what the TGA actually stands for.
It is absolutely showing us that it does not care about transparency. If the drugs that it approves are so wonderful, there should never be a need to be this obtuse.
For those interested the main study on which the "one dose is as good as three" dogma was based on is here
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6658930
It's a super interesting study because it shows that there is no dose response. And that the main driver for "effectiveness" is confounding. It completely misses the fact that the unvaccinated groups and the vaccinated groups are neither the same (they have different risk factors) and are not followed up for the same length of time at the same age. For an age-dependent disease, this is a real problem.
In relation to the meaning of the acronym TGA, surely it stands for Temeritous Guilded Authoritarians!
Sadly, once again we hear another story, in a litany of stories, that have been ever pervasive since 2020, about the malpractice and malfeasance, that is omnipresent within Big Pharma, and which any reasoned analyst would conclude, has ever been thus, within the drug industry, perhaps since its incarnation back in the 1920's.
Clearly, there are individuals within the higher echelons of these companies, whose sole purpose is profit and providing ever greater returns for their investors and shareholders. The ethics of these individuals will always be questionable, as their aim is nothing to do with public health, but is purely based on profit, and financial return.
The individuals that we should point the spotlight at, and perhaps morally, more strongly, are those scientists and researchers who are involved in the creation of these "medications", who, by the very nature of their training, and level of skill, are highly qualified individuals, who know what they are doing, and know where the ethical and moral line is.
These are the individuals who should be taken to task, for the total abrogation of their ethical and moral responsibility. Individuals who should be named and shamed for their professional misappropriation. Individuals who should be cited to their respective professional ethics committees and governing bodies, who should, in turn, effectively strike off these people, from the relevant register, by removing their licences to practice.
Perhaps then, when the Demi-gods on the financial side of Big Pharma realise that they do not have the necessary "expert" minions, to create their "medicines", a sense of propriety might return to this industry.
A long path to undertake, one accepts, but maybe one that Donald Trump and his accolades could consider!
That's scary. What does it mean for someone's genetic makeup and passing on those genes?