This was a rushed submission. I noticed the public invitation two days before the submission was due. There was too much that could be said - in the end I began writing 60 minutes before the deadline. I led with the bigger problem that I’ve observed over a couple of decades with the absence of definition of “Science” in our legislation, and finished with some hard data on the injuries caused by government misinformation and disinformation.
It was badly written. I’ve corrected some typos and the worst grammar. I’ve presented much of this information before, on substack and in other places…
Public Submission on the “New ACMA powers to combat misinformation and disinformation”
Submitter Details:
Madeleine Love (affiliation, address and phone number)
Submission:
We have a problem with Science in Australian legislation. There is no legal definition of the word “Science”. As such, advocacy material supplied on behalf of genetic inventions by the world’s least ethical companies, with long records of fraud, is being called “Best available science”.
To bring a practical example, our Regulators should not be deciding on the safety of cigarettes, on the sole basis of a dossier of advocacy material from, for example, Phillip Morris.
They should not be deciding on the safety of a Genetically Engineered food crop on the sole basis of a dossier of advocacy material from, for example, Monsanto.
I search for examples on recent submissions of novel genetic inventions for direct injection from pharmaceutical companies with long records of fraud.
When the Auditor General reviewed the practices of our Health Regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSZANZ) in their assessment of GE crops they found many faults and failings in process. However, they stopped their review where the science began. This is not because they judged that FSANZ, though at fault in many other aspects, would suddenly be perfect on the Science. They stopped because they were not empowered to assess the science.
There is in fact no body that can review scientific decisions, even when it is blatantly clear that scientific fraud is taking place within government.
We have no Science Ombudsman in Australia to whom to take an appeal.
As such, there is no scientific process of review for when government itself is the spreader of misinformation or disinformation. Further, there is no scientific process of review when the government falsely claims that a scientific statement made by a Scholar on the subject represents misinformation or disinformation.
Thus, this Bill for creating new powers must be abandoned.
There is no capacity in our legislation that provides for government to make strong scientific judgments, and there is no body to whom to take an appeal, should such judgment be in error.
Regarding Schedule 9, Part 1, Section2, Harm Definitions
(c) harm to the integrity of […] government institutions;
It isn’t possible to ‘harm’ the integrity of a government institution. It either has integrity, or it doesn’t.
It is only possible to shed light on failures in integrity.
Having published in peer reviewed literature on many failures of integrity in various Health regulators regarding their approvals of genetic inventions [1] I have to wonder what is intended by this definition.
What is the authors intent? Did the author mean to say that a perception of government integrity shouldn’t be harmed? If so, I strongly condemn such an intention. The public of a Democracy must always be able to point out serious failings in government integrity, for the protection of fellow citizens.
I think ACMA needs to see the devastation that the Australian government has been inflicting through misinformation and disinformation directed at its citizens…
There are many forms of statistical release in Australia, and the earliest public signal of vaccine tragedy came from the Hospital Separations Principal Diagnosis databases at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, up to 30 June 2021 [2]. [This link has been changed by AIHW. See the reference below.]
In the pre-covid-vaccine years of 2018/19 and 2019/20, there were 128 and 129 Separations due to the code T88.1 Other Complications Following Immunisation.
Roughly 50% of these hospitalisations were for babies under one year of age, another 15% were young children, and the rest are smattered through the older age groups, probably from flu shots and other recommended or mandated vaccines.
However, to June 30 2021, only 4 months after the release of the covid vaccines (~10% of the total administered) there had been 1,482 admissions where the gagged health workers had acknowledged the principal diagnosis, the main reason the people were in hospital, was vaccine injury. Here is a visual representation of this data:
You might wonder, like me, if numbers had increased simply because there was a large-scale vaccine rollout - that there might be more people going to hospital just because more people had been vaccinated. With ~8.3 million annual flu shots [2], and only 7.6 million covid vaccines to this time, we might've expected only double the number of injured people, whereas in fact the hospitalisation rates were 40 times higher in the adult age groups. There is a reason why ambulances around Australia were ramping at hospitals over this time.
And in the latest hospital data to 30 June 2022, just released last month, the vaccine carnage is clear to see across all adult age groups.
Consider how many Australians a malfeasant Australian government could injure and kill with its misinformation and disinformation in the future, if ACMA attempts to further censor and silence Science.
I'm not saying you should not have submitted anything, I'll say that in advance, and a great job you did! I'm just exploring a view I have on "feedback" or "have your say" or "submissions" in our current pathocracy, and how it (doesn't) relate(s) to democracy. I'd value your and any other "feedback" on my view below!
OK, here goes! So, we know we don't live in a real democracy. That is, we don't have power, here, meaning we don't hold Authority. Therefore, by definition we live in a dictatorship: dictatorship of those who do have authority (power) ie political mis-representatives, and those they work for and own them (bankers, nefarious group, parasitic elite). This is why all we can do is give "feedback", "vent our say" or "submit" to them. In any case, it may make us feel like we had "our say" and will or may or hope to be "listened to". It will for them, give a pressure valve to try to prevent the cooker from exploding. It gives a "semblance" of democracy. There is no obligation for them to heed anything, in fact, they already decided the outcome. But, most dangerously of all perhaps, it gives them more information about what the real thinking of those who oppose them, or their current objective, is. And, who those people are. All good for the data, and to this time or next time, fine tune to allay those fears, of course, without an iota of good intention.
If there WAS an iota of good intention, then they'd be advocating democracy, i mean, participatory democracy, and thus would not oppose grass-roots democracy. In fact this is the only way democracy can work, from the BOTTOM UP. Not from the top down. If they had ANY such good intentions they'd have introduced studies on Democracy, REAL democracy, into the schools and universities, they'd have "The Green Book Part One The Solution To The Problem of Democracy" on the curriculum and in the libraries, not encouraged its burning as they did in Libya.
Not far from Libya, centuries prior, they burned all the books in the University of Timbuktu, and put their horses in the University buildings using them as stables. These were the dirty Europeans who invaded Mali back then and did not wash not only their private parts with water, but not even under their arm pits. Bath came about in England later, but that'a another story: they were invaders, of a superior culture (measured by any realistic metric of knowledge, literacy and true science), just as they continue to do today and wherever they go the first thing they do is burn the history books and cultural books which are anathema to them.
Now, if we did have that real democracy we'd not have to give any submissions to the usurped authority, nor would we have to give any "feedback". Nor would we need to "have our say". Instead, the very legislation itself would have been the culmination of grass roots drafts and resolutions from People's Conferences across the nation, and the end result wouldn't be anything requiring anything other than execution, but the appropriate People's Committee for Communications, The People's Committee for Justice and every member of the self-governing society would be happy, since they participated in formulating any law that affects them.
Contrast this again to the reality of living in a Pathocracy: whatever laws exist, INCLUDING the Australien Electoral Commission, the Traffic Acts, you name it, since we had ZERO participation in formulating any of those laws, therefore those laws have NOTHING to do with us and we're not obliged to follow them, other than by compulsion, force, threat of jail, penalty, and the sword, bullet.
I would recommend that we strengthen our confidence in the above stated positions, and work instead of helping them, as I have also been so guilty of doing, of trying to fix THEIR system, we work on building OURS. It is not an small journey but every big journey starts with a small step. We can start by a reading of The Green Book then forming Study Circles to discuss it and how it applies today, and then in forming the required educational movement and then in forming the Conferences.
Fantastic submission! I wish I could write so well in 60 mins...Thank you for fighting the good fight!