Big Pharma and medical device companies make
billions of dollars every year.
They’ve also spent billions on fines,
settlements and jury verdicts…
By Dr Luke Ferst
We taxpayers are funding two opposing groups with opposing goals. I have had dealings with both entities, the more in-depth association being with the NPS. (National Prescribing Service) The ‘article’ below: WHY ARE WE TAXPAYERS FUNDING OPPOSING GROUPS?
Question to all MPs. We taxpayers are funding the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which states taxpayers should not have access to information provided by physicians. The government ‘officially’ states we taxpayers are duty bound to check all information regarding our healthcare. We taxpayers fund the NPS to ensure exactly that. WHICH MUST GO? TGA or NPS?
The TGA, according to its own website “Does Not Regulate Healthcare Professionals”. Therefore, it cannot ‘review’ licensed physicians no matter how much it tries to give that impression. See: https://www.tga.gov.au/what-tga-doesnt-do
If the article is accurate, then ‘Houston, we have a problem’.
The TGA receives taxpayer funds yet by attempting in any way to restrict medical information reaching the Australian public, it opposes another taxpayer funded department, risking putting one or both of those entities heads on the chopping block. Craig Kelly might want to know this information.
2.) The Australian Taxpayer funded TGA seeks to prevent experienced medical professionals from sharing their vast healthcare knowledge, yet at the same time taxpayers’ money funds the NPS which is paid to educate the public by “building the health literacy of Australians”.
The focus is on the public learning and researching their own health care. So in 2021 what is the Australian Government doing? Whilst on one hand they are paying taxpayer funds to promote the need for the public to check any medical therapies they accept; on the other they are spending taxpayer funds via the TGA to stop the public’s access to information. These are two policies that are diametrically opposed to one another.
3.) The Nuremburg Code 1947 raises a much more insidious prospect for any individual involved in preventing members of the public from deciding for themselves what medical information to review or reject or administering any therapy.
The Nuremberg Code (1947) specifically addresses any public servant or practitioner who seeks to absolve their individual responsibilities. See Article 6 Sections 1 and 3. ALL who insist on forcing others to do anything based on their own opinion of proper healthcare, (whether based on the $ or not), need to be reminded that they will be charged for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY as were WAR CRIMINALS as The Nuremburg Code, there is NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Those at the TGA might wish to reconsider their positions.
Letter to the Editor:
I have also written many letters to the TGA John Skerritt, and so far he has always answered. Mainly over the banning of HCQ. The last letter I wrote, links the Covid Medical task force, nearly all Monash employed academics and Monash received funding to the tune of $44 million from Gates foundation. I can send you the letter if you like you may find the contents interesting. I also to wrote him to reassess the authorisation of these pseudo-vaccines which Pfizer did’nt conduct human trials because too many animals died of ADE http://tribeqr.com/v/pfizerneedtoknow.
regards John Huntley