ArkMedic | 29 Oct 2023
They lied. They know they lied. And now they know that we know they lied.
This week could well have been a defining moment in the unravelling of the burning pyre of lies that we have been plagued with for the last 4 years (actually much longer but that might be a story for another day). And it belongs to Senator Gerard Rennick, who has been an absolute stalwart in the fight for truth over that time.
In this exchange currently blowing up around social media from the Senate Estimates hearings on the 26th October… the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) is asked a very simple 2-part question.
“Why weren’t the mRNA vaccines tested for genotoxicity and
Why didn’t the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator look at it in terms of a gene technology?”
Here’s the full clip with subtitles embedded.
So there are two questions there, and we’ll spend more time on the first one than Dr Bhula – who dodged it completely by saying “well the TGA answered that already”. Yeah… no, they didn’t.
What they previously said (wrote) was that it wasn’t tested for genotoxicity because it was a vaccine. Here is the relevant passage from the preclinical evaluation document:
What they are saying here is “because were are calling it a vaccine and vaccines have traditionally been safe with no link to genetic toxicity we don’t need to do any genetic toxicity tests”
The problem is that for the purposes of drug safety it isn’t a vaccine, it’s a genetic therapy.
OK it might be intended as a genetic therapy vaccine but it’s still a genetic therapy (gene therapy or gene technology) from the perspective of risk to the population – which is exactly the purpose of the OGTR. In the realm of population safety it is irrelevant whether the vaccine works or not (i.e. whether it’s called a vaccine a schmaccine or a wiggly woo) but only whether it is safe or not. And gene therapies have definite genotoxic and carcinogenic risk.
In fact, that’s why Onpattro – one of the first gene therapies approved by the TGA in 2022 – had to have genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies. They are not that difficult to conduct (although not necessarily reliable because they often are only performed on cells)
Bear in mind that Onpattro (Patirisan) is a siRNA genetic technology, which is a short non-coding double-stranded RNA of only 21 nucleotides length (what could go wrong eh?) which are so effective they can stop the production of a whole protein pathway.
By comparison the COVID mRNA vaccines comprise nearly 4000 nucleotides. Imagine the havoc that could potentially result if you only need 21 nucleotides to shut down production of a single protein – and you now have 4000.
So Onpattro had to have genotoxicity studies, but the COVID mRNA vaccines didn’t?
Makes sense eh?
Oh and just for fun Onpattro’s Pregnancy categorisation is Category D.
Of course none of that caution was necessary for the 200x bigger RNA in the Pfizer of Moderna “RNA” products, “because they’re vaccines”. So the TGA categorised them as Category B1 to give them the pregnancy green light without any testing at all. If you remember we explored this here:
And that’s all it took to make an unknown entity super safe – just call it a vaccine!
Yes, they are Gene Therapies
Now we come to the second part of the question and the absolute disaster of a response from Dr Bhula who tied herself into a genetically modified pretzel of gargantuan proportions with this clip from the above exchange
Gerard Rennick is absolutely right. It transfects cells of Australian citizens. Around 24 million of them in fact, including children who could never benefit from the
vaccine gene therapy. And in order to avoid admitting that this makes it a gene therapy under the law (see below) in Australia, Dr Bhula says “No, I disagree with that”.
Dr Bhula is stating (under oath) that Australians were not transfected by the therapies sold as vaccines – AstraZeneca (a viral vector transfection therapy), Co-miRNA-ty (the Pfizer mRNA, which transfects RNA and some plasmid DNA into cells in order to produce spike protein) and the Moderna RNA product which does exactly the same.
So, what is transfection? It’s the process of getting nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) into cells. You can look this up anywhere.
They haven’t even tried to change this definition because every molecular biologist knows it. Except Dr Raj Bhula.
Unless, of course she means that Australians were transfected, just not on Australian soil.
The only problem with that is that would have had to mean that 24 million Australians were secretly transported through a stargate at their vaccination centre to a non-Australian venue, and then return as a genetically modified organism who presumably may or may not be Australian any more.
It’s an absolute farce and a great time to put in a poll:
Did Dr Raj Bhula lie when she told Senator Gerard Rennick that Australians were not transfected with the COVID 19 genetic vaccines
I work for the OGTR/TGA
1 VOTES · 1 DAY REMAINING
And we know that transfection is the method by which these vaccines work because all the government agencies told you that, they just mostly forgot to use the word “transfection”.
But Pfizer didn’t. And it’s Pfizer’s words – which are accurate – contained in the TGA’s preclinical evaluation report – that Senator Rennick was quoting to Dr Bhula who, with Simon-Peter-esque levels of ridiculousness, denied it more than once.
In the report1 in fact there are 17 mentions of transfection, presumably implying that Dr Bhula either didn’t read the pre-clinical evaluation report, doesn’t know what transfection means, or was just out and out lying about it. She certainly must have missed page 34.
Which begs the question…
If the head of the OGTR has no idea that these RNA-DNA therapies work by transfection of the host (person receiving the product), how on earth can they be competent to hold that position?
Or, is the OGTR itself not fit for purpose?
Well, I guess it doesn’t matter because they can make the rules up as they go along, and nobody is going to hold them to account.
It also doesn’t matter because the majority of the Australian, UK, European, Japanese and US population received these transfection products leaving a demonstrable PCR-detectable tag on any recipients. Just like Monsanto would have wanted…
1 SEPTEMBER 2022
OK, so it’s a Gene Therapy. So What?
Well now comes the kicker question.
If it doesn’t matter that it was a gene therapy, why did every organisation cover it up and why did the OGTR lie about it?
Because it matters.
It matters because the administration of a product that was not what it was sold as, to a population that is now running a 15% excess death rate as a result of “something” that happened in 2021-2022, is fraud.
And fraud vitiates everything.
It vitiates the contractual indemnities provided to and by the government.
Because if the government intentionally hid pertinent information in order to persuade the population to take something that they wouldn’t have taken if that information was available, that is fraud. And when applied to violation of bodily integrity that becomes an assault.
And this is not an accident. Fraud is something that happens intentionally. It’s an intent to deceive. And just like Raj Bhula intended to deceive Senator Rennick, here is Stefan Oelrich (Bayer aka Monsanto) admitting exactly this in the marketing of COVID vaccines as vaccines instead of gene therapies.
“If we had surveyed the public would you be willing to take a gene therapy we would have had a 95% refusal rate”. So let’s call it a vaccine. Yay.
But that’s fraud of course. On a global scale.
And that’s why it matters.
But it will be the courts that decide whether this was a gene therapy or not and they will have to rely on the existing legislation.
Yet the existing legislation in all commonwealth countries will be relying on Australian legislation in the coming weeks. This is because of a law suit currently underway in Australia to hold the TGA, OGTR, Pfizer and Moderna responsible for committing potentially the largest fraud ever on the Australian population.
It all hinges on the definition of “gene therapy” and “genetically modified organism”.
We know what games they will play. Someone will try their best to create a new and modified Organon. A new twisted definition of the very words that were enshrined in the Gene Technology Act of Australia 2020, which has implications for every Commonwealth country in law.
I would encourage you all to follow the story closely on Julian Gillespie’s substack and share these articles to anyone you know who has received one of these products.
**revised with late Quote from an Australian Professor below** good Substack folk, where does one begin when a Regulator, meant to be a subject matter expert, capitulates and starts telling the truth .. only to then lie further as a means of distancing themselves from an earlier lie…
The truth will win eventually. It always does.
It will need time and it will need effort.
The effort must come from you – the people – who must demand transparency so that a repeat of this mass assault by fraud is never allowed to happen in the medical realm ever again.
TGA FOI 2389 document 6 version with limited redactions