Facts About COVID Injectable Drugs Albanese Cannot Deny

With rising adverse effects, unclear long-term safety, and incredibly shaky claims of efficacy, how much longer can Albanese deny the reality behind these vaccines? These drugs are cytotoxic!

As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, the public was bombarded with sweeping narratives, often portraying the injectable drugs as a singular solution to a complex global health crisis. Yet, as we step back and review the facts, a different story emerges—one that raises serious questions about the information we were given. From the origins of the virus itself to the long-term safety of the vaccines, key elements of the official narrative have been called into question by public data, expert admissions, and ongoing investigations. These issues are not rooted in partisan ideology; they are grounded in facts that have been placed into the public record. These are points that Prime Minister Albanese, like any informed leader, cannot ignore or credibly deny without disregarding the overwhelming evidence that challenges the simplistic portrayal of COVID-19 solutions.

Among the most striking revelations are the numerous adverse reactions reported across global monitoring systems like VAERS, the UK's Yellow Card, and , which have recorded an unprecedented spike in cases—ranging from myocarditis to potentially life-threatening conditions like turbo cancer and neurological disorders. Despite this growing body of evidence, we have yet to see a transparent and comprehensive investigation into the long-term implications of these vaccines. Instead, there remains a troubling silence from health authorities and governments, who continue to push booster shots while sidestepping these pressing concerns. The time for political convenience and superficial reassurances has passed. What is now needed is a hard look at the facts, however uncomfortable they may be, to ensure that public health policies genuinely serve the interests of the people, rather than merely sustaining a particular narrative.

I have not seen nor been presented with proof that shows or demonstrates with the preponderance of evidence that:

1.     The COVID Pandemic was not the result of the Gain of Function research conducted in Wuhan on behalf of U.S. government-sponsored agencies.

o   First, there has been no proof that definitively rules out the COVID-19 pandemic as a consequence of gain-of-function research conducted in Wuhan with the involvement of U.S. government-sponsored agencies. This possibility, while contentious, remains unresolved and unrefuted with the preponderance of evidence.

2.     The COVID-19 vaccines did not remain untested for transmission prevention or infection control before the rollout.

o   Second, it is now a matter of public record that the COVID-19 vaccines were not tested for their ability to prevent transmission or infection prior to their global rollout. This fact was in the official documentation but this critical information was also admitted in a European Parliament enquiry in 2022, where officials openly acknowledged this fact, thus eliminating any ambiguity on the matter. Despite this, the public was repeatedly assured that the vaccines were "safe and effective," creating a sense of security that is deeply misleading. Just how could the authorities make such a bold claim without the data to back it up? This was not merely an oversight—it was a distortion of the truth. The promise of safety and efficacy without comprehensive evidence to support these claims has serious implications, raising fundamental questions about public trust and the integrity of global health authorities.

3.     The COVID-19 vaccines do not fail to provide sterilizing immunity.

o   Furthermore, it is clear that the COVID-19 vaccines do not provide sterilizing immunity. This fact—that they do not prevent infection or transmission—has been widely accepted by health authorities and reinforced by ongoing studies as the pandemic evolved.

4.     Long-term safety data for the COVID-19 injectable drugs is not in existence and therefore uncertain and this remains so.

o   Additionally, the uncertainty surrounding the long-term safety of COVID-19 injectable drugs remains a significant concern. No comprehensive long-term safety data exists, as these drugs were developed and rapidly deployed under emergency use authorizations or similar programs worldwide. The lack of such data leaves the long-term implications unclear, and this remains a vital issue in public health discussions.

o   Compounding this uncertainty, adverse reaction monitoring agencies such as VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) in the U.S., along with their counterparts in other nations like the UK's Yellow Card system and EudraVigilance in Europe, have seen reports of vaccine-related adverse events skyrocket. The volume of reports has surged to unprecedented levels, with VAERS recording a spike in reports that has been described as "like a rocket going to the moon." This explosion in reported adverse reactions raises alarms about the potential for unanticipated long-term health effects, further necessitating thorough and transparent investigation into the safety of these vaccines. While causality may be complex to establish, the sheer number of adverse event reports demands serious attention and calls into question the full impact of these novel technologies on global public health.

5.     The early rollout of COVID-19 mRNA injectable drugs developed and authorized under emergency use authorizations does not indicate that these drugs were part of a large-scale public health experiment or trial.

o   The emergency authorizations under which these drugs were rolled out have also led many to conclude that they were part of a large-scale public health experiment. The rapid development and global administration of these mRNA drugs were unprecedented, leading to valid concerns that this may indeed constitute an experimental public health response.

o   In fact, Greg Hunt, Australia's then Health Minister, did indeed acknowledge in a press statement in 2021 that the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines could be seen as a large-scale public health experiment. He referred to it as the "world's largest ever vaccination rollout and, at the same time, effectively, clinical trial." This statement was made during a press conference in February 2021, where he discussed the ongoing nature of the vaccination process.

6.     While there may be debate about whether the COVID-19 injectable drugs qualify as 'gene therapy,' it cannot be denied that these drugs are not 'gene synthetic modification therapy.'

o   On the contentious issue of gene therapy, while debates persist about whether the COVID-19 vaccines meet the technical definition, it is undeniable that they do fall under a boarder category of "gene synthetic modification therapy." This remains an established fact amidst ongoing discussions.

7.     The limited effectiveness of the COVID-19 injectable drugs did not decrease against new variants.

o   Moreover, the limited effectiveness of these injectable drugs against new variants has been documented. As the virus mutated, the vaccines' efficacy in preventing infection diminished, which was openly acknowledged by manufacturers and health agencies alike.

8.     The COVID-19 injectable drugs did not significantly increase the risk of myocarditis in young males.

o   Moreover, the limited effectiveness of these injectable drugs against new variants has been documented. As the virus mutated, the vaccines' efficacy in preventing infection diminished, which was openly acknowledged by manufacturers and health agencies alike.

9.     The limited immunity provided by the COVID-19 injectable drugs did not significantly wane over time.

o   Let's be clear: COVID-19 vaccines were never designed, nor were they tested, to provide full sterilizing immunity—meaning complete prevention of infection or transmission. This fact has been admitted by health officials, with companies like Pfizer explicitly acknowledging that preventing transmission was not part of their original vaccine trials. The focus was on reducing the severity of illness, hospitalizations, and death. The idea that these vaccines would provide some form of immunity was largely a misunderstanding or oversimplification of their actual intended purpose.

o   Despite early promises, it's now evident that immunity from these vaccines wanes significantly over time, often within a matter of months, which is why governments have pushed for booster shots to prop up what little immunity remains. Yet, even with boosters, fully vaccinated individuals continue to contract and spread COVID-19, sometimes repeatedly. This reality dismantles the narrative that vaccination alone would stop the spread or provide lasting protection.

o   It's time to call this what it is: the initial claims surrounding COVID-19 vaccines gave a false sense of security about their ability to prevent infection and transmission. This has led to widespread disillusionment as vaccinated people continue to catch the virus. Governments and public health bodies need to be more transparent and honest about what these vaccines can and cannot do—primarily, that they were never a shield against contracting the virus in the first place.

10.  Countries with lower vaccination rates did not report fewer excess deaths compared to highly vaccinated countries and this does not indicate a failure of the claim the COVID injectable drugs reducing server COVID-19 illness.

o   In a striking contradiction to the mainstream narrative, numerous reports indicate that countries with lower vaccination rates have experienced fewer excess deaths compared to their highly vaccinated counterparts. This is not a minor anomaly but a significant observation that challenges the very foundation of current public health policy. While the assumption has been that higher vaccination rates would automatically lead to better health outcomes, the data emerging from some countries is otherwise.

o   Countries with far lower vaccine uptake have, at times, demonstrated more favourable health outcomes in terms of excess mortality and overall public health stability. For instance, some nations in Africa and parts of Eastern Europe, despite having less access to vaccines, did not see the massive death tolls that were predicted. This phenomenon cannot be ignored, as it raises fundamental questions about the efficacy of widespread vaccination campaigns in preventing severe outcomes on a population-wide scale.

o   The evidence suggests that higher vaccination rates do not always equate to better public health outcomes. Highly vaccinated nations have continued to experience waves of infection, hospitalizations, and even deaths, which were supposed to be mitigated by widespread inoculation. Furthermore, the aggressive push for boosters in these same nations underscores the fragility of the vaccine-induced immunity and one must question; why are they sustaining this approach.

o   The reality that lower vaccination rates in some countries have coincided with fewer excess deaths forces us to reconsider the unquestioned belief that more shots in arms necessarily lead to better health results. It demands a reassessment of the strategies deployed globally and a deeper investigation into the multifaceted nature of public health, which cannot be reduced to vaccination rates alone. It’s time for a broader and more nuanced dialogue that considers all variables, rather than rigidly adhering to a one-dimensional approach.

In sum, these ten facts are not merely conjecture or partisan talking points—they are matters of public record, supported by data, admissions from officials, and ongoing investigations. Prime Minister Albanese, like any other informed leader, cannot credibly deny these truths without disregarding the preponderance of evidence that is now firmly in the public domain.

The gravity of these facts lies in the undeniable trend they expose. The narrative that has driven public policy, media coverage, and societal behaviour during the pandemic is increasingly being questioned by evidence that contradicts the simplistic notion of absolute safety and efficacy. From the origins of the virus to the incomplete safety data surrounding the vaccines, these facts paint a more complex picture than the one often presented. This is not a matter of political debate; it is a matter of factual integrity and scientific accountability.

The rise in myocarditis, the spike in reports to adverse reaction monitoring systems, and the lack of clear, long-term safety data should raise alarm bells in any functioning democracy that values transparency and public health. Public health strategies must be grounded in truth, not in the maintenance of a particular narrative. When governments and public officials ignore or downplay these facts, they are not just disregarding evidence—they are failing in their duty to protect the very citizens they serve. And we haven't even touched on the growing concerns surrounding turbo cancer, neurological disorders, and a host of other serious side effects that are now being reported with increasing frequency. These emerging complications demand urgent attention, yet the continued silence on these issues reveals a disturbing prioritization of political convenience over comprehensive public safety. If leaders fail to confront these troubling trends, they will not only erode public trust but also jeopardize the health and well-being of countless individuals.

What we are witnessing is the beginning of a necessary reckoning. These facts force a re-evaluation of the strategies employed in managing the pandemic. It calls into question the blind adherence to vaccine mandates and lockdowns without proper consideration of their broader societal impact, both on public health and individual freedoms. Leaders like Prime Minister Albanese cannot continue to sidestep these realities without risking public trust and, more importantly, public health. To dismiss these facts is to prioritize ideology over science, control over accountability, and convenience over the pursuit of truth. The time for superficial reassurances is over—what is needed now is a commitment to facing these truths head-on, however uncomfortable they may be.