Tracking the Sydney Funnel-web spider
Sometime this summer, Caitlin Creak will be tacking tiny tracking systems slightly larger than a rice grain to the heads of eight male Sydney Funnel-web spiders Atrax robustus to see where they wander at night.
Sometime this summer, Caitlin Creak will be tacking tiny tracking systems slightly larger than a rice grain to the heads of eight male Sydney Funnel-web spiders Atrax robustus to see where they wander at night.
Mary Drost's 90th birthday party took place on 13 October 2021, while Melbourne was still in Lockdown, but you could meet in the open air if you wore masks and were within 20km of your home. I was unable to attend because it was out of my 20km range.
Hi to you all, and particularly to those of you who I do not know. As you will have heard from Mary, I have agreed to take over as Convenor from Mary Drost OAM. In 2005 Mary established Planning Backlash as an umbrella organisation and coalition of community and resident action groups.
I learnt yesterday, on Wendesday, that George Christensen's Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021, [1] about which I had posted an article was dropped on Tuesday 29 November because no other member of the House of Representatives, not even one 14 other members of Julian Assange Support Group would second George Christensen's motion!
I know what you did last summer: chemical clues in the marsupial’s whiskers can reveal what they ate months – and even seasons – ago.
Scientists can peer at least nine months into a Tasmanian devil’s past by studying its whiskers, a new study led by UNSW Sydney has found.
The long, wiry whiskers on these stocky marsupials hold chemical imprints from food they’ve eaten in the past – records that can help tell broader stories about their foraging habits, habitat use and how they respond to environmental change.
Was COP26 a big waste of time? Population ecologist and PM Expert Advisor Prof William Rees weighs in on the major UN climate conference and points out humanity's collective failure to acknowledge and address the root cause of environmental problems: we are consuming more than the Earth can provide.
It is a great irony, if not tragedy, that so many well-intentioned people, especially climate-focused non-government organisations and ordinary citizens wasted so much time and effort at COP26 in Glasgow. It’s not that the official negotiators achieved so little, but rather that climate change is not the real existential threat, OVERSHOOT is.
George Christensen, the Australian Federal Member for the northern Queensland coastal seat of Dawson, has today, on 29 November, introduced the Illegal Detention of Australian Journalists (Free Julian Assange) Bill 2021 into the House of Representatives. Every Australian, who wants to finally see Julian Assange released from prison, must urgently contact his/her Parliamentary representative and urge each of those members to do all that he/she is able to see that George Christensen's bill gets put, fully debated and thence voted upon. |
The final sitting of the Australian Parliament for 2021 is from Monday until Thursday next week. In the embedded video, I explain how, if it chose to, the Federal Government could have acted long ago to force the British Government to end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange. Australians must make the government act to free Julian Assange, or else, hold it to account should it continue to fail to do so.
A recent opinion poll by The Australian Centre for Population Research (TAPRI) found that 70% of Australians do not wish to return to pre-Covid immigration levels of 240,000 per year or anything like this number.
In contrast, an Essential Research (ER) poll suggested that a declining proportion of respondents were concerned about immigration levels being too high.
Richard Medhurst attended both days of the High Court Appeal by the US to obtain extradition of Assange to America, and we have linked to his video report below, and transcribed parts of it, including the question of whether Assange might do a prison sentence in Australia, if convicted - a question that has been treated very naively by the Australian media.
"I am highly concerned that residents’ rights are being eroded progressively and quietly by the State government through these Planning Reforms under the veil and distraction of a COVID emergency." (Kate Hely, Mayor of Stonnington.) The Toorak Residents' Group emailed the Malvern East Group material including the comments below, which are from the Mayor of Stonnington, Kate Hely, who, with a number of Mayors, had asked for a meeting with Minister Wynne to discuss the recent Planning Scheme Amendments. Minister Wynne chose not to meet with them. He sent one of his staff instead and the Mayors were NOT pleased. It is thought that he won't meet with the MAV either and that organisation is not pleased either. Mr. Wynne's disdain for local communities is well known.
"The State is looking to introduce a new Planning Reform that could lead to further removal of the community’s ability to shape local planning decisions; reforms that could remove your ability to meaningfully object to a development next door or down the road; and that could ignore the desire of our communities and the commitment of our councils to build neighbourhoods to be proud of.
I am highly concerned that residents’ rights are being eroded progressively and quietly by the State government through these Planning Reforms under the veil and distraction of a COVID emergency."
I recently led a group of 10 metro mayors who together represented 1.4 million people and 12,000 planning decisions a year to politely discuss our concerns about potential reforms with the Minister for Planning, and yet we were only deemed worthy of meeting his advisor.
We overtly asked to be involved in forming reform decisions but were essentially dismissed.This week I heard that the President of the MAV (Municipal Association of Victoria - the peak body for all 79 Victorian councils) had not even been able to get a meeting with the Minister to discuss the concerns of our sector. So councils have been proactively trying to cooperate and work with the State on these reforms, and yet the door remains shut to us.
Compounding this sense of alarm, Council officers have been asked to sign non-disclosure agreements with DWELP (The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning - which is the State Government department in charge of planning) such that they cannot share information about the proposed Planning Reforms with the community elected councillors.
….. They are attempting to block the ability for democratically elected community representatives to know about or feed into what will dramatically impact our community, villages, streets and neighbourhoods! Alarm bells should be going off!
I have not been given any detail about these reforms. There is a discussion that they could speed up the planning process. But is that by simply removing the voice of our community? There is discussion that the reforms will help to stimulate a post-COVID recovery. But are quick builds more important than long-term neighbourhood character and due consideration of context?
My neighbouring Mayor, Gary Thompson of Boroondara pointed out, “Over the last 24 years each State Government has introduced a few new Planning Provisions. The Andrews State Government has introduced 1/3 of all the Planning Provisions over the last 24 years in just over two and a half years…. Why? Because they have the power to do so in Government.”
This is not democracy in action. It is more like democracy being locked out of the room.
And it all might happen before Christmas. However, we don't really know because they will not share with locally elected representatives what’s behind the ‘secret planning reform’ door.Stonnington Council has goals and plans for how we want to preserve and enhance our neighbourhoods, villages and streets. We have educated and sophisticated residents that expect to be able to have a voice in what happens in their neighbourhoods and streets. We have residents who expect their Council to advocate on their behalf. I am highly concerned about these reforms - and our community should be too."
"Legal update for Gliders... Wildlife Act re-write... Protesters halt log traffic for 5 hours ... Giant tree found – 14m around ... NSW parliament unanimous against biomass burning..." Read the details inside.
Legal update for Gliders
Wildlife Act re-write
Protesters halt log traffic for 5 hours
Giant tree found – 14m around
NSW parliament unanimous against biomass burning
Vic’s biodiversity in steady decline - govt report
Clearfelling our logging laws
Protection deception – giant trees
Glamming up garbage incineration
Money splashed to assist logging
Bairnsdale sawmill attacks local
$2M given to wood-incinerator - 5 jobs
Burnt offerings to Gliders
Major Events (Bushfire) Review – but resistance to less logging/more reserves
MEG is grateful to have heard of this review from Clifford Hayes (MLC Southern Metropolitan Region and we are surprised that DELWP didn’t send notice of the Review directly to us. We are also grateful to Mary Drost, Convenor of Planning Backlash. Mary forwarded this to all the residents’ groups in the network.
In our opinion this document should be called “just more of the same” rather than a “review.”
We did not notice a reference to the recent ‘reforms’ to Planning made by State Government in this document….the reforms to which there was no community consultation, indeed not even consultation with local councils. Certain members of staff were consulted and had to sign confidentiality agreements.’ Surely these so-called reforms form part of the planning framework in which they are to operate and yet DELWP does not even mention that the ‘reforms’ give the Minister “unprecedented’ power and seem to be aimed at providing CERTAINTY for developers so WHY are these new powers not mentioned in a “Planning Framework Review.?’
There was no ‘engagement with the community’ over these outrageous invasions of our rights.
For some years MEG has promoted the notion of ‘decentralising’ the State’s population.
Strategically directed, incentive driven decentralization has been our mantra. This does not mean just nominating towns such as Geelong, Ballarat or Bendigo and having more transport between each of these centres to Melbourne. Doing this leaves Melbourne as the centre to which endless attention is paid. It means have a transport system that crisscrosses the State.
Big infrastructure plans should not just concentrate on what is proposed for Melbourne…such as that tunnel that has ground to a halt, a network of roads for Melbourne that, so far, has resulted in the destruction of so much green space, so many canopy trees that clean the air we breathe with the obvious effect of being a detriment to health. Combined with Local Councils’ efforts to FILL open space with STUFF this is a negative use of the ‘tax dollar.’
Big infrastructure plans should focus on building rail lines across the State linking regional centres with each other as well as with Melbourne, building tram lines in the regional cities, linking the regional cities with airports. This sort of thing is what regionalization is all about. If State Government made a real effort to be a government for the STATE and not just for Melbourne we could begin to see some hope of this city surviving.
Encouragement should be given to establishing manufacturing industries both in the regions and in Melbourne so that Victoria could become a centre for all of those things that are at present made in certain Asian countries.
Encouragement should be given to wealth accelerators. We cite the instance of the small company in W.A. that is experimenting with the notion of removing carbon from coal. The idea of offering incentives for manufacturing activities should be both city-based and region-based.
We should mention first that the Green Wedges do not have sufficient protection and this is a matter that State Government should deal with immediately.
No planning scheme (or ‘framework’) can continue to promote the wanton destruction of thousands of trees and fob off the protesters with that old perennial….”we will plant double the number of saplings.” All forms of Government say this forgetting just for the moment the number of YEARS it takes for a tree to develop a canopy that will start absorbing pollution, provide shade, counter the ‘heat island’ effect. Stonnington Council is as guilty of doing this as is State Government.
The push by Government for dense high-rise developments is a deliberate act of vandalism which is whimsically called ‘progress.’
We can find no mention of ‘ventilation’ in any of DELWP’s document and surely this matter must be dealt with in the light of our experience with COVID.
We can find no mention of the ‘flammable cladding’ scandal in the Review of the framework for “Plan Melbourne 2050.” Another issue that does not rate a mention.
With Melbourne’s population slowly decreasing due to COVID and more and more workers opting to ‘work from home’ now is the time to encourage a decrease in numbers for the city rather than putting forward a framework to handle an increase. State Government should grasp this opportunity and set out for the State a framework of development with environmentally sustainable objectives rather than spending an enormous amount of time and effort on producing yet another lengthy document filled with what has become known as ‘weasel words.’
In the category of ‘weasel words’ come such terms as……..
‘engagement with the community’… emerging character…. making Melbourne marvellous….. integrated transport…,,.liveability…..,,sustainability & resilience.
We have heard them all SO OFTEN…. We have even been guilty of using one or two of them at times.
State Government Departments such as DELWP could lead the way by using a new vocabulary as it develops new ways of developing the STATE instead of just more of the same only FASTER.
Initially the ‘zones’ provided the community with a degree of certainty. With the present Minister’s constant ‘watering down’ of the requirements of the zones such certainty is gradually being whittled away.
In the original legislation regarding ‘zones’ there was one glaring omission. There was, and is, no grading of Commercial Zones. It is all Commercial 1. A Small Neighbourhood Activity Centre can have the same level of development that is allowable in a Principal Activity Centre. This results in far too many anomalies and has resulted in
gross invasions of residential amenity in NRZ and heritage areas. This matter should be addressed.
Let us finish with an apt headline from The Age on October 12.2021
City’s new design mantra: Cut the ‘crap’
From Clifford Hayes: "Next week in Parliament I am introducing a Bill to amend the Planning and Environment Act of 1987 to give this Act some environmental legitimacy. As it stands, it would be more fitting to call it the Planning and Development Act. That's why I'm fighting for change to ensure that the environment is given a high priority in all planning decisions. It aims to enhance to Act by strengthening the objectives to protect the environment.
For many years, the environmental component of the Planning and Environment Act has been mostly disregarded and ignored. I am contacted daily by residents and community groups who are concerned about the destruction of the environment by relentless concrete pouring and tree removal planning approvals—planning approvals that are failing the environment, destroying tree canopy, and contributing to global warming. We are seeing the destruction of native grasslands, reduction of green wedges, decreasing wildlife corridors and an escalating urban heat island effect. There are more than 700 species facing extinction in Victoria.
Amends the Act to include the protection of the environment and native species as an objective in the Act
Introduces a requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement to be completed on all planning applications, strengthening the requirements on decision-makers to focus on the environment. The EIS would be lodged with the responsible authority—be it local council or in some cases even government departments.
The proposed EIS would encompass information on the project, including its environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and would be used to inform decisions made by the planning authority and responsible authority.
The application containing the plans and the EIS will be advertised and open for objections and submissions as in the normal application process. It will require the responsible decision-maker to address the environmental impact in the decision-making process and respond to the application either favourably or unfavourably.
Note: where a planning permit is not required or there are no environmental effects, this can simply be stated, reducing red tape for small-scale and no impact projects.
For those of you wanting more detail, I have attached the Explanatory Memorandum and copy of the Bill. Please feel free to contact my office if you have any queries.
Please feel free to contact your local Legislative Council MP’s to let them know you support this Bill. I would appreciate any support on this.
The Bill is to be debated on Wednesday 27 October."
Clifford Hayes MLC,
Sustainable Australia Party member for Southern Metropolitan Region,
Parliament of Victoria,
https://www.cliffordhayes.com.au
"It is incredibly rare that the BBC ever admits that one of their reports on Douma in Syria failed to meet the Corporation's editorial standards for accuracy by reporting false claims… Blink and you’d have missed this admission, but we didn’t, and it adds to a volley of misreporting that has dogged journalism and peace in the Middle East for decades." (Ross Ashcroft, Renegade Inc.) Ross Ashcroft skilfully reviews mainstream western media attacks on journalists who tried in 2018 to properly investigate false claims that the Syrian Government launched chemical attacks on its people. He reinterviews those journalists, as he analyses the recent BBC admission of defending lies that support the western media conspiracy to justify US-NATO attempts to overthrow Assad Government. He is joined by political scientist Dr. Piers Robinson and journalist Vanessa Beeley to discuss the crumbling narrative around the alleged Douma chemical attack.
“Merely adding more people isn’t a sustainable economic strategy. We can’t pretend that high immigration comes without a cost and growth should not impose an unfair burden on those who are already here. Excessively rapid growth puts downward pressure on wages and upward pressure on housing prices, both of which have sorely stung workers and aspiring home-owners in Sydney and other parts of NSW for a decade. When you look at the numbers, it’s no surprise communities in Sydney are feeling the pressure. In 2006, annual net overseas migration to Australia increased to roughly double its pace across the preceding 25 years.” (Dominique Perrottet as Treasurer in 2018)
To the horror of many Australians, Perrottet has recently called for 'explosive immigration' to Australia, purportedly as an economic fix. In this interview we see how shockingly cynical this call really is, in the light of Perrottet's own history.
Kelvin Thomson, after quoting Dominique Perrottet above, added, “He told your colleague Michael Mclaren, in an interview in 2018, that simply because the treasury bureaucrats might tell you that putting in more people drives economic growth, that is lazy economics. That’s what he should have told your bureaucrats now, instead of apparently falling hook line and sinker for what he was able to recognize as rubbish three years ago.”
Candobetter Editorial comment: It is obvious that immigration adds pressure on politicians too. Was giving the growth lobby 'explosive immigration' the price Perrottet paid to be NSW Premier, causing him to eat his 2018 words? NSW people and the rest of Australia will also pay for this if it goes ahead.
In the podcast we link to above, Luke Grant is joined by The Hon. Kelvin Thomson, Former Federal Member for Wills & spokesman for the Sustainable Australia Party, who advises that NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet rule out proposals for an “explosive” immigration surge which would bring in 2 million extra migrants over the next five years.
Mr Thomson says, “Not only will 2 million extra people be an environmental disaster, it will be a disaster for young Sydney-siders.”
“For the first time in years the Reserve Bank and leading economists have seen signs of wages growth and increasing job opportunities for young people.”
“The “explosive” two million extra people would detonate those opportunities, blowing the chances of young people to have secure full time jobs right out of the water.”
“The “explosive” surge would also be bad for Sydney’s housing affordability, traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, open space and tree canopy cover.”
During Victoria's lockdown(s), I re-read The Plague, by Albert Camus, which was a prescribed text for me and other Higher School Certificate students (Year 12) way back in 1972. The plot concerns the Algerian town of Oran, which is struck down by bubonic plague in the 1940s. The townsfolk are sealed off and isolated from the outside world, as the plague exacts an increasingly terrible and deadly toll. The book depicts their different reactions to their situation. It has immense power in getting to the heart of what things, and what values, are important in life.
The plague in Oran, and the coronavirus pandemic in Australia, have some clear differences. While the people of Oran are cut off from the world, they are not cut off from each other. They mix at restaurants and cafes and the like. Social distancing doesn’t play any noticeable role – whether this was wise from a health perspective is not spelt out.
Another noticeable difference is that the initial reaction of the townsfolk is largely selfish. It is over time that many of them come to the realization that “we are all in this together”, and join the efforts of the medical team to help those who have been infected. By comparison I feel that the initial response of Australians in 2020 to coronavirus was a “Team Australia” approach, but that as the pandemic has worn on that people have tended to become fatigued and less concerned about the welfare of others.
These differences notwithstanding, I think the book rings many bells for our present situation. Camus says the townsfolk initially believed the pestilence wasn’t real, or that it would soon pass. “A pestilence isn’t a thing made to man’s measure, therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogey of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn’t always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away…”
Camus also says that the town’s leaders and officials were slow to take the plague seriously. He says they had good intentions: “That, in fact, was what struck one most – the excellence of their intentions. But as regards plague their competence was practically nil”. And the epidemic spells the ruin of Oran’s tourist trade.
Then the plague produces a new variant, moving from bubonic to pneumonic. The officials are left “groping, more or less, in the dark”. Camus observes that “Officialdom can never cope with something really catastrophic”. This realization prompts one of the book’s key characters to organize voluntary groups of helpers to help the sick.
Camus also discusses the fatalism in Oran at the time, which is echoed today in the regularly heard observation that “we are going to have to learn to live with COVID”. He wrote “Many fledgling moralists in those days were going about our town proclaiming that there was nothing to be done about it and we should bow to the inevitable”.
But he rejects that fatalism. He goes on to say “And Tarrou, Rieux and their friends might give one answer or another, but its conclusion was always the same, their certitude that a fight must be put up, in this way or that, and there must be no bowing down. The essential thing was to save the greatest possible number of persons from dying”.
Indeed. It is an issue of fundamental humanity. In the last year and a half most people I have talked to have overwhelmingly supported community action to save every possible life. They have not displayed any sympathy for the Darwinian “survival of the fittest” approach. I have been impressed by their basic humanity and concern for those around them.
The Plague is worth a read. It is not an easy book, but then we don’t live in easy times.
Many Australians think that if they are accused of a crime, they have a right to a trial by jury. They are therefore shocked when they only appear before a judge, and are encouraged to plead guilty/admit to the charges, without the option of a jury. It feels like being rail-roaded. Research indicates that judges who are regularly called upon to hear criminal prosecutions without juries become 'case-hardened' and prosecution-minded, according to "Trial by Jury" by Graham Fricke, of which we reproduce the first part here. As far as we know, not much has changed since this article first appeared in the Australian Parliamentary Library - in 1996, going by this more recent Victorian Law Reform Commission article on the subject.
When federal Parliament creates criminal offences, the question arises as to whether such offences should be tried by judge and jury, or tried summarily by a magistrate. The framers of the Australian Constitution inserted section 80, which appears to confer a right to jury trial.
A difficulty results from the use of the words 'on indictment' in the opening words of section 80. This has at times resulted in a narrow construction of the section, for the High Court has said that it is only when prosecutions are brought 'on indictment' that the right to jury trial arises; where Parliament has authorised summary proceedings, and summary proceedings are brought, the right to jury trial is avoided.
It is contended that there have been three eras of interpretation of section 80:
an initial period in which the section was regarded as laying down a fundamental law of the Commonwealth;
a much longer period in which a narrow, 'procedural' approach was taken; and
the last decade, which reveals a tendency to revert to the broad approach.
The broad approach, which is necessary if citizens facing substantial liability to imprisonment are to enjoy a genuine right to jury trial, was also supported by prominent judges in dissenting judgments during the second period.
The fact that the narrow approach has been taken makes it important for federal parliamentarians to be vigilant in legislating for criminal offences and the mode of trial of such offences. Where offences are made subject to substantial periods of imprisonment, the legislation should make it clear that the trials should take place on indictment. If summary trial is provided for, the accused will be deprived of an important benefit which some, at least, of the framers of the Constitution intended the accused to enjoy.
Many of the sections of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) do not make it clear whether the offences it creates are triable by jury or summarily. Guidelines are provided by sections 4G, 4H and 4J. Section 4G, for example, provides that federal offences punishable by imprisonment for a period exceeding 12 months are indictable offences, but it adds the words 'unless the contrary intention appears'. This may leave the situation in an unfortunate state of uncertainty. Other federal legislation authorises summary proceedings even though substantial terms of imprisonment may be imposed.
It is suggested that federal Parliament should enact that the trial of any federal offence providing for punishment in excess of one year's imprisonment shall be on indictment. This enactment, taken in conjunction with section 80 of the Constitution, would result in an effective guarantee of trial by jury for serious offences.
Arguably Parliamentary Committees should play a greater role in scrutinising laws to ensure that summary trial is not available for serious offences.
Stronger protection of a right to trial by jury for serious offences, even if that right could be waived by the accused, would facilitate the democratic participation of the community in the administration of justice. This in turn would strengthen public confidence in the legitimacy of the Australian criminal justice system.
Zoom Meeting details:
Date and time: Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 6pm AEDT (Australian Eastern Daylight Time)
Join link: V
Meeting ID: 891 1161 3603. Send your questions for the presenters prior to the event by emailing: [email protected]
October 2021 update
Posted on October 1, 2021 by admin
Suellen Hunter from the City of Melbourne’s Heritage Strategy Team will present the results of the Hoddle Grid Heritage Review, including the protection of 137 individual places and 5 precincts. Following this members of the Urban Design team Danielle and Lavanya will provide a short presentation on the Design Excellence Program, including the soon to be launched Design Excellence Advisory Committee and Melbourne Design Review Panel.
The presenters for the event:
Suellen Hunter, Senior Strategic Planner Heritage, City of Melbourne
Danielle Jewson, Senior Urban Designer, City of Melbourne
Lavanya Arulanandam, Urban Designer, City of Melbourne
Send your questions for the presenters prior to the event by emailing us at: [email protected]
We look forward to seeing you!
Zoom Meeting details:
Date and time: Thursday, 7 October 2021 at 6pm AEDT (Australian Eastern Daylight Time)
Join link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89111613603
Meeting ID: 891 1161 3603
Invitation to register for the on-line Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Conference for November 2021.
On 8–11 November 2021, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) will host the sixth annual Stockholm Security Conference (SSC 21). The theme of this year’s conference is ‘Battlefields of the future: Trends of conflict and warfare in the 21st century’.
This page contains an overview of the conference programme for 8–11 November. The conference will be held in a virtual format.
The session will be live-streamed on SIPRI's YouTube channel. Click here for the session overview.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
Click here for the session overview and registration details. This session will be held in French.
Click here for the session overview and registration details. This session will be held in Arabic and English
Click here for the session overview. This session is by invitation only.
Please email the SSC 2021 Team at [email protected] to inquire about participation.
Click here for the session overview and registration details.
More information coming soon.
For more information, please contact Noel Kelly, Programme Coordinator; and Johanna Eliasson, Events Assistant at [email protected].
For media enquiries, please contact Alexandra Manolache, Communications Officer ([email protected], +46 76 628 61 33) or Stephanie Blenckner, Director of Communications ([email protected], +46 8 655 97 47).
Dr Mike Hansen is a lung specialist who works in emergency medicine in the United States. He has been giving reports and updates on Covid 19 since the beginning of the pandemic. Here, he is very clear on Ivermectin dosage and risks, as well as analysing trials to date on its effectiveness. He also gives his opinion about the effectiveness of vaccines from his own experience treating thousands of hospitalised COVID-19 patients.
Ex-UK Parliamentarian, Michael Heaver, in this video, says the UK has seen significant wage-growth in various industries, with an interruption to mass migration. He notes that Boris Johnson is currently calling for industry to stop relying on mass migration and to invest money in local industry and wages instead. Employers and Labor are, however, again calling for higher immigration. This comes in the light of the current UK crisis in petrol delivery which has seen drivers queuing for hours, even days, to fill their cars or containers, because lorry drivers are working for better wages outside that industry. Comments on the video indicate low trust that Boris Johnson will actually honour his words, however the topics covered in the video are informative and highly relevant to Australia. Michael Heaver comments, “And, rather than siding with British workers, it seems labour, as with a lot of business, their immediate knee-jerk reaction, to every issue in the labour market, is not to look at to raise wages and invest in the UK domestic workforce. It’s simply to go for cheap foreign labour. Now, this looks to be a major theme for the Conservatives going into their conference …”
The original investigative report by Michael Issakov, on Yahoo!news: https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall. It has been republished worldwide in articles in all the mainstream press: Murdoch, Fairfax, Guardian, ABC Australia. (See links below). We also provide an interview with Michael Issakov on YouTube and an interview with WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson. These revelations should provoke huge questions in Australian parliament, which has abused procedure to avoid all debate of Assange's fate for more than a decade, limiting any discussion to solitary questions and short monologues by outlier members of parliament, despite an ostensible group of parliamentary supporters, one of whom - Barnaby Joyce - has twice been acting prime minister. How much longer can this callous and cowardly conspiracy of contempt for Assange's human rights persist, especially in the face of Prime Minister Scott Morrison's arcane new submarine association with US President Joe Biden?
Below is an interview by Afshin Rattansi of WikiLeaks Editor-in Chief, Kristinn Hrafnsson, on these revelations.
29 Sep, 2021 08:11 : On this episode of Going Underground, Afshin Rattansi speaks to WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson about the shocking revelations that the Trump administration and CIA considered assassinating or kidnapping Julian Assange, with planned shootouts with Russian agents on Britain’s streets, a car crash kidnapping, and an assault on a passenger jet should Julian Assange decide to leave for Russia. Hrafnsson discusses the previous surveillance on Assange, the implications of these revelations on the US extradition case, the complicity of British authorities with the United States, the arguable slow death of Assange at the hands of British authorities happening now, and much more. Michael Issakof
ABC Podcast with Fran Kelly and reporter Matt Bevan, 28 September 2021:https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/the-backstory-with-matt-bevan/13542832. This report, whilst giving good credence to the sources - interviews with 30 CIA agents by investigative journalist, Michael Issakov - still tries to muddy the waters and confuse the listener by referring to multiple contemporary CIA scandals and beat-ups in the Trump era. "A new Yahoo News report claims the CIA plotted to kidnap WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, with some in the Trump administration allegedly considering options for how to assassinate him in 2017. According to the report, then-CIA director Mike Pompeo was motivated to get even with the group following its publication of sensitive agency hacking tools."
The Guardian: (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/sep/27/senior-cia-officials-trump-discussed-assassinating-julian-assange).
Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/trump-administration-floated-kidnapping-killing-julian-assange-report-20210927-p58v72.html
Below is an interview by Michael Smerconish with Michael Issakof, on 28 September 2021.
"Biden is like Trump without the Tweets." The British are known for their "permanent opportunism." "Boris Johnson is like a fifth wheel." US State Department falsely claimed it communicated with the French. China is attempting to make the China Sea into a kind of internal sea. Australia is losing sovereignty to America. US submarines would arrive ten years later than the French ones, so urgency cannot be the reason for breach of contract. (French Minister for Foreign Affairs).
Co-dependency is known to lead partners of people with grave emotional and mental problems into embarassing situations. These kinds of compromise are achieved through manipulation by flattery or pressure on approval-seeking and disapproval-avoiding spouses. Was this the situation for Scott Morrison, who, although Mr Biden could not remember Scott's name, a day or two before, was suddenly convinced by Biden and his team, to seriously snub France, whilst leaving parliament mostly in the dark, in a move that will cost us all even more money but also even more than money. Is China really such an unreasonable threat a world, when America has an order of magnitude more military bases than any other country? Do we really prefer to be completely remade in the image of Walmart, as we become just another new military base for the United States? Is this really just another 19th century trade-war, but with nuclear submarines instead of galleons? Jean-Yves Le Drian is the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs. He was interviewed by lead journalist Laurent Delahousse on France2 News on 18 September 2021, on the subject of Australia's sudden breach of its submarine contract with France for a projected contract with the United States. Inside is a detailed translation of that interview, for any Australians who are interested. The original interview is at Journal 20h00 - Édition du samedi 18 septembre 2021 en streaming - Replay France 2 | France tv.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE: This evening the contract of the century has been broken and France has called its ambassadors home from the United States and Australia. What will be the outcome of this diplomatic crisis between allies? Answers this evening from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, who is our guest.
[Presentation of the other headlines]
LAURANT DELAHOUSSE: A crisis, an earthquake, a conspiracy between allies. It’s hard to work out what’s happening in this affair. The breaching of the contract of the century on submarines is giving rise to consequences that go well beyond economic matters. These highlight a rearrangement of geopolitical maps and it remains to be known where France and Europe will end up in all this.
Before we go to Jean-Yves Le Drian, first, the fact for today: Paris decided to call home its ambassadors in the United States and Australia. (Names journalists Thomas Cuny, Lucie Berbey, and [?Noah d’Intar – unclear] responsible for producing this background segment)
“Alone in the corridors of Sydney Airport, France’s ambassador to Australia leaves the country. Just like his counterpart in Washington. The two diplomats have been called back to Paris for consultation. An exceptional diplomatic decision. Taken by the President of the Republic and justified in this communication from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
Communication from the Quai d’Orsay, 17 September 2021: “This exceptional decision is justified by the exceptional gravity of the announcement made on 15 September by Australia and the United States.”
A few hours earlier on the two continents, the French ambassadors spoke in unison of France’s indignation.
Translation from the French translation of the French Ambassador to the U.S.’s statement: “When we learned that the contract had been cancelled, this really made us angry.”
Jean-Pierre Thebault (French ambassador in Australia, statement in English translated into French): “I think it was a huge mistake. A nasty blow to our partnership. It was more than a contract. It was a partnership.”
The return of the ambassadors, France’s retort after the cancellation of Australia’s order for 12 French submarines to the value of 56 billion euros. Basically, Canberra has turned towards the United States and the United Kingdom. Since then there has been a continuing diplomatic crisis between France and these countries.
PASCAL BONIFACE : (Geopolitical expert – Director of the Institute of International and Strategic Diplomatic Relations (Directeur de l’Institut de Relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS)) : “France, obviously, has been betrayed, as much by the Australians as by the United States, which are allies. And therefore, when there is a betrayal, one cannot accept it without reacting. Otherwise, one loses honour. And therefore it was completely legitimate, moral, and expected, that France should have a strong reaction, rather than be totally humiliated and not react in respect of that humiliation.”
Tonight, the U.S. State Department reacted to the French Government’s decision:
“We have been in close contact with our French allies. We understand their position and we are conscious of their intention to recall the Ambassador to Paris for consultation. France is an essential partner and our oldest ally.”
The emboldened text below is the only part that was verbally translated in the French news
Original U.S. communication appearing on screen :
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Attributed to State Department Spokesperson Ned Price: We have been in close contact with our French allies. We understand their position, and we are aware of their plans to recall Ambassador Etienne to Paris for consultations. France is a vital partner and our oldest ally, and we place the highest value on our relationship. The Transatlantic Alliance has fostered security, stability, and prosperity around the world for more than seven decades, and our commitment to those bonds and our work together is unwavering. We hope to continue our discussion on this issue at the senior level in coming days, including at UNGA next week, in line with our close bilateral partnership and commitment to cooperation on arrange of issues, including the Indo-Pacific.
Jean-Yves Le Drian and his American counterpart, Tony Blinken, will again find themselves in New York, at the seat of the United Nations. The Americans hope to continue the dialogue. [Reference to the last paragraph of the US communication above.]
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : And in an attempt to better understand the Minister for Foreign Affairs is with us. Good evening Jean-Yves Le Drian.
LE DRIAN (FRENCH FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER): Good evening.
LAUREN DELAHOUSSE : For many French people listening, to recall those ambassadors in response to such a humiliation, may not mean much.
LE DRIAN : It’s very symbolic. There have been lies, there has been duplicity, there has been a major breakdown in trust, there has been contempt. Therefore things are not good between us! Not good at all! It means there is a crisis, and at this moment, there is firstly a symbolic aspect – you recall your ambassadors in order to try to understand, but at the same time in order to show our countries which were once partners that we are really very angry, that there is really a crisis between us, and then, it is also, when the moment arrives, to reevaluate our position, in order to defend our interests both in Australia and in the United States.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Mr Drian, you know as I do, this evening, that this measure isn’t going to stop Joe Biden from sleeping. He is happy with the contract, which is now in his favor.
LE DRIAN : Yes, but the fact that for the first time in the history of the United States and France we have recalled our ambassador for consultation is a heavy political action, signifying the importance of the crisis which exists today between our two countries. Also with Australia.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Have Joe Biden and Emmanuel Macron spoken together?
LE DRIAN : Not to my knowledge.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Has Mr Blinken spoken with you?
LE DRIAN : Today, no. Um, I heard your commentary, according to which there had been consultations with – between the Americans and ourselves – before the announcement. It isn’t true.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Meaning that you knew nothing.
LE DRIAN : - an hour before -
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : - nothing of these negotiations an hour beforehand. [… unclear]
LE DRIAN : That’s the reason I’m telling you that there has been duplicity, contempt, lying. It’s -
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : And perhaps -
LE DRIAN : - You can’t play with alliances like that! We are allies.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Mmm.
LE DRIAN : And therefore, when one has an ally, one does not treat them with brutality, with such unpredictability, a major partner which France is. So, there is really a crisis.
This also throws light perhaps on some kind of failure in our research services when one is not up to date …?
LE DRIAN : No. Yes. But really, in fact the agreement which was initiated by the United States an Australia was decided by a tiny little committee and I am not even sure that all the Australian and American ministers knew it.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Mr Biden’s method bears a strong resemblance to Mr Trump’s.
LE DRIAN : Without the tweets.
LAURANT DELAHOUSSE : Without the tweets.
LE DRIAN : But, with a quite infuriatingly pompous announcement. Truth be told, seeing the US President and the Australian Prime Minister in company with Boris Johnson, announcing with such solemn ceremony, this breach and these new commitments, provides so many reasons to question the strength of the alliance.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE: Are there no allies anymore on the American side? Is there a profound breakdown in trust?
LE DRIAN : There is a breakdown in trust.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : And you saw the same thing, well before. We remember 2013 and those French planes taking off. This is something that affected you deeply. It’s a new step after Afghanistan.
LE DRIAN : What’s for sure is that the United States are in the process of recentering their fundamental interests. They are in the process of going back on a particular commitment they had on the international level, and there is a real link between Afghanistan and what has just happened with the Australian contract, except that a true alliance – in a true alliance – people talk to each other. They don’t hide things. They answer our questions. One respects the other. One respects sovereignty. This was not the case. That is why there is a crisis.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : What we might have hoped for was, finally, a strong, intense, European reaction. I haven’t heard Mrs Merkel say anything today.
LE DRIAN: Yes, but -
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Aren’t you disappointed about that, in the circumstances? That, in the end, France finds herself alone, while power bypasses Europe?
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : I’m not sure that we are really so alone in this business, because of various conversations we have had in these last 48 hours, including -
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Perhaps she [Merkel] will speak -
LE DRIAN : But wait, it’s not over – (Smiling)
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE: It’s not over. (Grinning.) It’s not over. (Turning to audience.)
In fact, in a moment we are going to look at how geopolitics in that region are on the move. And we are going to talk about this. Why has America made this choice and why is there new vitality in the Anglo-Saxon axis, and especially why this Asia-Pacific region has become the priority? It’s not new for Washington, which no longer looks to the west, and Europe, but towards the East and China. To understand what is at stake, [..] Presents background piece.
[BACKGROUND PIECE:]
[Picture of Australian Prime Minister Morrison with a rather stupid smile on his face.]
An unconcerned Australian Primeminister, at daggers drawn with Xi Jinping’s China. He has chosen his side and thrown himself into Joe Biden’s arms in a game of power, in that battle of influences that is playing out in the Indo-Pacific region. Australia is thousands of kilometers from the United States, but the two countries are united by their obsession with China. They can no longer bear that Peking (Bejing) wants to reign over this entire region. They have found their theatre, this submarine contract. For Australia, it’s a kind of all-risks insurance against Peking (Bejing), and too bad for the French.
THOMAS GOMART, DIRECTOR OF THE FRENCH INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (DIRECTEUR DE L’INSTITUT FRANCAIS DES RELATIONS INTERNATIONALES (IRI)) : “Australia, which has been the object of multiple pressures from China, has in a way completely switched over into the American camp. That means that this contract also translates into a highly probable form of integration of the Australian Navy into the US Marines, in response to the threat from China.”
An agreement between Washington and Canberra, at a moment when military tensions are more and more lively in the region. Latest episode: [Picture of rows of Chinese ships in the Pacific] This armada of 200 chinese ships that Peking (Beijing) calls fishing boats, in fact a maritime militia financed by China in order to challenge the countries in the region. A perfect illustration of this middle-ranking empire in a quest for supremacy.
ANTOINE BONDAZ : RESEARCHER – SPECIALIST ON CHINA. FOUNDATION FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH (FONDATION POUR LA RECHERCHE STRATEGIQUE (FRS))
“This confrontation between Australia and China, brooding for years, culminated in 2020. (…) Peking [Bejing] imposed economic sanctions on Australia, with high taxes on wine, beef, barley, and coal. And it is also that economic war that is pushing the Australians to seek shelter under the American umbrella.”
LAURANT DELAHOUSSE : Before we return to geopolitics, what can we do next? What are you going to try to get, to negotiate for, with the Americans?
LE DRIAN : Firstly, there is the agreement we had with the Australians. It was an intergovernmental agreement that I signed myself in 2016 with Mr Morrison’s predecessor. This agreement contained previsions for a situation where one of the parties would want to leave it, since this is an agreement over 30 years.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : So, a violation -
LE DRIAN : So, there are arrangements that indicate, firstly, that the party wanting to break the agreement makes this known in writing, which we have not yet received. After that, 12 months of discussion are required, in order to arrive at a potential breaking of the agreement, if one of the parties wants to break it, at the end of 24 months. We are therefore going to act to ask for explanations from the Australians in order to know how they themselves expect to respect the agreement that they themselves signed. But, there is still another point that preoccupies me in this business.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : Mmm.
LE DRIAN : We were meant to deliver the first submarines by the beginning of the 2030s on a schedule that would take us to 2050. That’s been breached. It’s been breached, say the Australians, because China has militarized.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE. Mmm.
LE DRIAN : And it was precisely in order to ensure the sovereignty of Australia that we entered these contracts with the Australians. But, in short, they say the contracts being broken because of China – And what’s America offering, today? What does the agreement just announced contain? There is an agreement to carry out a study which will end up in a contract after 18 months. A contract for nuclear submarines. Which means they are putting back the delivery date for the new submarines to 2040! All this despite the urgent context of China’s rise?
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE: Therefore, you don’t understand.
LE DRIAN: I don’t understand. And maybe that’s Australia’s choice. And they have also chosen to be truly subordinate to the United States in the region - perhaps a form of giving up a part of their sovereignty. It’s their decision, but it gives rise to questions -
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : The political map is changing there and you are well aware of it. You know that’s been the long-term objective in the region, vis a vis China, since Barack Obama. What will France’s role and place be in that region? And Europe’s?
LE DRIAN : Keep in mind here the rise of a highly confrontational, militarily confrontational, United States-initiated Indo-Pacific strategy in the region.
LAURANT DELAHOUSSE : That’s not our position towards China?
LD DRIAN : It’s not our position. We know very well what China is doing.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : That’s not naïve? It’s the third […unclear]
LE DRIAN : Not at all, it’s not naïve. We know very well that China is rearming. We know very well what China’s behaviour is at the international level: How they are also trying in some way to make the South China Sea an internal sea, which they want to control completely. We know all that, and it must not be accepted. But we Europeans are in a situation where we only recently decided, three days ago, on our own Indo-Pacific strategy. We are in competition. We are in a situation of competition, sometimes violent competition. We are proposing an alternative model, but we are not operating within a rationale of systematic military confrontation – even if sometimes it is necessary to use military means.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : You have previously been known to use the word ‘innocence’, and sometimes even Europe’s ‘naivety’. Have we come to the end of that approach, on the diplomatic level, in the face of China, in the face of the United States, in the face of Turkey, in the face of Russia? Should we be changing gears, Minister?
LE DRIAN : I think that Europe is emerging from its innocence.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : But it seems urgent, Minister.
LE DRIAN : It seems urgent after Afghanistan and this business […] I think that Europe, if Europeans want to remain relevant, they must unite, and defend their own interests together, or their destinies will be totally different and we don’t want to got down that dark road.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : […] Two final questions: No santions, or no reactions, finally, vis a vis the role of the British in that deal? Finally, Boris Johnson has a smile on his face: I just got through Brexit. I’m with my Anglo-Saxon friends. I’ve regained my balance in the face of [… ? ]
LE DRIAN : No sanctions. I told you a moment ago that we recalled our ambassadors to see how we could reevaluate the situation. With Great Britain, it’s unnecessary. We are familiar with their permanent opportunism. So, there’s no point in recalling our ambassador to know this. Moreover, Great Britain, in this affair, is pretty much the fifth wheel.
LAURENT DELAHOUSSE : So, Boris Johnson is a fifth wheel. A few months from the election, your opponents will very quickly oppose you on many things. France’s decline, which is an important issue for the President of the republic, could be strongly represented?
LE DRIAN : The subject is respect, functioning alliances, clarity and truth. I think everyone can share this.
LAURANT DELAHOUSSE : No question of leaving NATO?
LE DRIAN : That’s not the issue. The President of the Republic has embarked on a review of NATO’s fundamentals. Regarding these fundamentals, the next summit will be in Madrid. The culmination of the new strategic concept will of course take into account what has just happened, but at the same time Europe must develop its own strategic compass. This will be under France’s responsibility, in the first half of 2022.
[Translation by Sheila Newman]
Australia cannot become a staging point for the U.S. military, we cannot abrogate our sovereignty to the U.S., we cannot encourage nuclear proliferation and risk environmental catastrophe.
Australian peace, environmental and other activists and organisations are opposed to the Morrison Government decision to join the trilateral security agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) and the development of nuclear submarines.
This authoritarian decision, taken without consultation or engagement of the Australian public, undermines Australian sovereignty, wastes taxpayers money, damages the environment and poses a threat to peace in the region and to global peace.
With this agreement, the Australian Government can no longer claim it is remaining neutral between Beijing and Washington. Now Australia is ‘all in’ with America, regardless of the public.
This agreement also cements military dependence on the U.S. as Australia becomes unable to operate without Washington’s approval. Furthermore, the Morrison Government has also committed to allowing further U.S. military forces into Australia.
This will not only deny Australia the ability to act independently but will also make it complicit in dangerous regional tensions and conflict, undermining global cooperation to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
AUKUS is a step backwards for diplomacy, deepening a Cold War mentality, which has alienated Australia not only from France but our neighbours such as Malaysia and Indonesia.
Building nuclear submarines will impose an extraordinary economic burden on the Australian people. Funding for welfare, education, the environment and healthcare will be raided. These resources should be directed to the health, social and economic needs of workers and the Australian people.
There will also be a significant environmental cost as the presence of these vessels in our cities and harbours is a clear and present danger. There are already nine nuclear reactors on the seafloor from sunken nuclear submarines.
For these reasons and many more, we are calling on the Australian Government to fully withdraw from AUKUS and the development of nuclear submarines.
This statement was issued following an emergency meeting of over one hundred activists from around Australia.
On this episode of Going Underground, Afshin Rattansi speaks to Australian journalist and filmmaker John Pilger about the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. Pilger demonstrates a really solid grip on history here, rendering almost irrelevant most other discussions of recent events in Afghanistan. He describes the US military as a killing machine and discusses why the Afghanistan war must be viewed through the lens of Western imperialism, the scale of civilian casualties, and destruction of Afghanistan by NATO countries, how the US created today’s situation by supporting Afghan jihadist forces against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, the social progress and progressive reform lost to history with the fall of the Soviet-backed PDPA government in Afghanistan, and much more! Pilger also discusses the anniversary of the Pinochet coup in Chile and the trial of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
- Monumental foreign policy decisions cannot be made without any public engagement behind closed doors.
- A nuclear-powered submarine fleet will represent a fundamental threat to global peace.
- Aukus cements Australia as a subordinate of the U.S. (Independent Peaceful Australia Network - IPAN)
"The shocking announcement of a trilateral security partnership between the U.S., U.K. and Australia (Aukus), which will be tied to Australia receiving nuclear submarines, is a blow to Australia’s independence and peace in the region.
The security partnership, Aukus, was announced without any public scrutiny or engagement.
While China was not mentioned in the announcement it is clear that this partnership is designed to confront and contain China, in a belligerent and dangerous manner." (IPAN)
A Global Times article by Yang Sheng, entitled “Nuke sub deal could make Australia ‘potential nuclear war target,’ reports Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a press briefing that "China will pay close attention to the development of the AUKUS deal. Relevant countries should abandon their Cold War and zero-sum game mentality; otherwise, they will lift a rock that drops on their own feet." (https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234460.shtml)
Zhao also said that the 'AUKUS' alliance “seriously damages regional peace and stability, intensifies the arms race, and undermines the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” And that, “Countries should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties. In particular, they should shake off their Cold-War mentality and ideological prejudice.”
IPAN stated, "Australia’s receiving of a nuclear submarine fleet as part of Aukus will only cement Canberra’s subordination to Washington.
There are also serious practical considerations to having nuclear submarines that received no public consideration.
Australia will be the only country that has nuclear submarines without nuclear weapons and domestic nuclear industry. While Prime Minister Morrison has said the submarines will not necessitate the development of said industries - despite the Government's close relationship to the pro-nuclear lobby - this only highlights our further dependence on, and integration into, the U.S.
Furthermore, this deal will likely see an end to the $90 billion contracts with the French company Naval Group, which marks one of the most egregious wastes of public funds.
During an economic downturn and a pandemic spending on public healthcare, education and public services should be the priority, sinking billions into submarines that will only put Australia in danger is irresponsible."
IPAN spokesperson, Dr Vince Scappatura, said:
"Embracing Aukus means undermining Australia's sovereign defence capabilities and contributing to further militarisation of the region. Australia should be working to reduce tensions and promote peaceful relations. Never has such a monumental decision been made with such little consultation and public engagement.""We have only just withdrawn from Afghanistan, a generation-long invasion that is still causing untold devastation. Without taking a breath we have gone from following the U.S. into one catastrophe to committing ourselves to another."
Candobetter Editor: We have been reluctant to get into any COVID-19 treatment controversies, because we figure it is hard enough dealing with a pandemic, without the additional stress of wondering about unproven treatments. Recent framing of Ivermectin as dangerous horse-medicine, however, is unfair and misleading. Ivermectin has been long been used to treat humans as well as other animals. This treatment might be controversial, but it should not be that controversial. We would make the case that, since people will take Ivermectin, whether or not it is prescribed by a doctor, it would be better for it to be prescribed and supervised by a doctor, to avoid the risk of major overdose and serious consequences. (Details on adverse consequences can be found in Dr Hansen's video: /node/6172.) The article below is based on a statement from the COVID-19 Antiviral Advisory Group, which references a major meta-analysis of Ivermectin as treatment and prophylaxis for COVID-19. A contrary analysis by can be found at https://www.cochrane.org/news/ivermectin-preventing-and-treating-covid-19. That study finds no proof as yet for or against. Another analysis by US lung specialist in emergency medicine can be found here: /node/6172.
Ivermectin for COVID-19: real-time meta-analysis of 63 studies - https://ivmmeta.com/. The COVID-19 Antiviral Advisory Group which advises more than 200 Australian doctors on early antiviral treatments for COVID-19 has called on the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to immediately reverse its decision that was announced late on Friday, which effectively prevents doctors from prescribing an effective triple therapy medication off-label for COVID-19 because it includes ivermectin. The Antiviral Advisory Groups says, "This represents an unprecedented attack on the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and interferes with normal clinical practice."
The Group quotes Professor Robert Clancy:
“September 10, 2021, was a black day, the day a group of faceless bureaucrats known as the “Advisory Committee for Medicines Scheduling”, through its effector arm, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), compromised medical practice and the health of their fellow Australians. The TGA used its regulatory muscle to prevent doctors at the COVID-19 pandemic’s coalface from prescribing ivermectin (IVM), the one therapy available that is safe, cheap and which reduces mortality in the order of 60 per cent. This poorly conceived action threatens the high standards of medical practice we have achieved in Australia, and the credibility of the administrative structure within which medicine operates.” (Professor Robert Clancy in Quadrant Magazine - 14 September, 2021. Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School. Member of the Australian Academy of Science’s COVID-19 Expert Database. https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/public-health/2021/09/a-sad-and-shameful-day-for-australian-medicine/
The Advisory Group states that the TGA has seriously compromised Australian doctors’ ability to practice medicine and treat patients by banning the use of TGA approved ivermectin as an off-label prescription. It says that the TGA in its statement said it aimed to ‘protect public health’ but instead has damaged public health by increasing mortality.
The Advisory Group states that off-label prescriptions comprise more than 25% of prescriptions in Australia. This allows doctors to customise their treatment of care to patients for a vast range of chronic and life-threatening conditions.
"People are being sent home with a positive COVID-19 test and told to call a doctor or an ambulance if their condition deteriorates. Without the off-label ivermectin triple therapy as an treatment more people will die at home or end up in Emergency and ICU."
In their press release, they give the example of Patient Katia Dandan, who they say was severely ill with Covid and is now 100% healed, saying:
“I am alive today because of the courage of a doctor who was willing to prescribe ivermectin triple protocol. I do not want the people of Australia to be deprived of a medication that works. I do not want people to be allowed to die because TGA has some other agenda for banning this drug. It is a criminal act to ban a medication that saves lives.”[Candobetter Editor comment: Patient testimony is not valid scientific argument.]
The COVID-19 Antiviral Advisory Group states,
"This is an unprecedented attack on the medical profession and the Australian people who trust us for their health. The TGA should not be telling doctors how to treat patients and practice medicine without proper and open consultation."
As a group we have given more than 450 patients Ivermectin Triple Therapy prescriptions which are saving lives and keeping people out of the emergency hospital system. On top of this, there have been hundreds of preventative prescriptions of this protocol to protect frontline health workers from infection. These treatments are extremely safe and effective and all patients we have treated have been healed within a matter of days.
The Group sees this is an unprecedented move by the TGA to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship without proper and open consultation. It says,
"The TGA is effectively stopping us from practicing medicine. Indeed, Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt recently wrote to one of the doctors in Australia who prescribes ivermectin confirming that he was aware that some physicians are prescribing ivermectin off-label for Covid and that they were quite within their rights as:
“…the practice of prescribing registered medicines outside of their approved indications is not regulated or controlled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), it is at the discretion of the prescribing physician”.
The Doctors in the COVID-19 Antiviral Advisory Group call for the TGA to:
· Immediately remove the Sept 10 Amendment in the next 48 hours because people will die.
· Provide complete transparency around the data and reasoning that has informed the TGA’s ban.
· Immediately provide Ivermectin Triple Therapy access to the 14,000 Australians in NSW currently in quarantine (and other States as needed), with a working party of frontline doctors overseeing distribution, management, and data collection processes.
The Group's press release concludes:
This TGA draconian overreach will drive patients out of doctors’ offices where they get safe, trusted medical advice and prescriptions, to self-treat using veterinary products. Ivermectin has proven to be safe and effective with 33 countries using it currently as part of COVID-19 therapy.
This Nobel Prize award-winning medicine was discovered 30 years ago. It has been safely prescribed more than 3.2 billion times to humans and has saved millions of lives. Ivermectin alone or in combinations has been used for long-term treatment of parasites which only require low doses. Slightly higher doses have been used safely for the aggressive Delta strain but using doses within published safe range. No increase in adverse side effects have been seen. Ivermectin toxicity is not a known condition.
“Ivermectin is generally very well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose of 200 μg/kg.” See study in American College of Clinical Pharmacology published in the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
The Group concludes its statement:
Do we want to see more patients die in their homes and further stress our hospital system because they have been denied treatments by the TGA otherwise available overseas? To ban a TGA approved therapy when there are limited at home treatment alternatives for people diagnosed with COVID-19 will mean that patients will die.”
The claim that Australia has low supply of ivermectin is quite incorrect as there is an adequate supply for all in Australia through compounding chemists.
The Triple Therapy includes human prescription only Ivermectin, combined with prescription only Doxycycline and over the counter zinc. All doctors confirm that this is an early, safe and effective treatment for Covid but shouldn’t replace the need for patients to discuss vaccination with their doctors."
Short film interviewing Dr Tess Lawrie, leading UK researcher on Ivermectin early treatment protocols: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2EEDJuQNrI
Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) has welcomed the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that show population growth has fallen to near zero (0.1 per cent) despite an apparent baby boom. Yesterday, the ABS released figures for the year ending March 31. Australia’s population grew by 35,700 or 0.14 per cent. Annual natural increase was 131,000 and net overseas migration (NOM) was -95,300. This news came not long after NSW Health announced more than 19,000 babies were born in NSW hospitals from April to June this year, a nine per cent increase on the same period last year.
Victoria is also experiencing a baby boom with the maternity system stretched to “breaking point”, according to the Victorian health minister, Martin Foley.
“News that our overall population growth has dropped to almost zero is very welcome,” the president of SPA Ms Jenny Goldie says. “In the initial period of border closures, the large number of people leaving the country compared to those entering meant NOM was negative, though not quite enough to offset natural increase of 131,000. In the current year, growth will be higher since most of those that would leave Australia have done so already.
“Now is the perfect time to dispense with the Big Australia goal of perpetual population growth promoted by big business. Instead let’s aim for a stable and sustainable population. These new figures prove that it can be done.
“The annual growth figures from pre-Covid years, which sometimes exceeded 400,000, were simply not sustainable in environmental, social or economic terms.
“Environmentally, population growth causes loss of natural habitat through urban expansion and water diversion, and increases pollution, not least carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
“Socially, infrastructure never kept pace with the needs of a rapidly expanding population, and led to undue crowding in schools, congestion and longer hospital waiting times.
“Economically, workers suffered wage stagnation and capital was diverted from wealth- producing enterprises to speculating on rising land values, creating Australia’s housing unaffordability crisis.
“This is the time when we must review honestly the costs and benefits of the non-humanitarian parts of our migration program. We should never return to the days of immigration-fuelled high population growth,” says Ms Goldie.
This series of video quotes came out in February 2021, but it is still a useful item for helping people who only watch mainstream newsmedia to understand Assange's plight.
Recent comments