Misplaced Faith in the TGA: The Legal Peril for Councillors Who Don’t Question

As new evidence exposes potential DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines, Australia's leaders must reconsider their duty of care. Is blind trust in health authorities a shield or a liability?

The ongoing discourse surrounding the safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has taken a new turn in Australia. In response to public concerns about synthetic DNA contamination in these vaccines, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) released a statement on October 18, 2024, dismissing these concerns as "misinformation." The TGA claimed that the contamination findings lacked scientific rigor and reliability. However, recent investigations have challenged this assertion. Independent analyses, including studies cited by Rebekah Barnett and co-authored by scientists such as Dr. David Speicher, revealed contamination levels far exceeding regulatory limits—up to 145 times higher in some batches. Furthermore, local councils, such as Port Hedland, have raised their own alarms, voting to support calls for an immediate suspension of the vaccines until further investigations can confirm their safety. These concerns are not just theoretical; they touch upon potential risks of genomic instability, cancers, and adverse hereditary effects. This raises a critical question: are Australian councils and other governing bodies legally justified in continuing to rely on TGA assurances when independent evidence suggests otherwise?

The broader implications of this issue extend far beyond local councils. Leaders in health agencies, state and federal governments, emergency services, and law enforcement are all tasked with ensuring public safety. Yet, if these leaders continue to rely uncritically on assurances from central authorities like the TGA—especially when evidence questions the validity of those assurances—they may find themselves in a precarious legal position. When does the reliance on "official" information become a liability? As evidence mounts, blind faith in a compromised source of authority may transform from a reasonable precaution to an act of negligence. These questions of accountability and due diligence are more urgent than ever. It is crucial to examine how this misplaced trust in official guidance could affect the ability of councils and other public leaders to fulfil their Duty of Care.

---

While I’m not a legal professional, I’ve done my due diligence to understand the responsibilities and legal implications at play here. To be certain, I consulted a legal expert, who affirmed that my interpretation was “right over the target of legal truth.”

Many leaders—across local councils, health agencies, fire departments, police forces, and at all levels of government—seem to share a misconception: that relying on advice or endorsements from authorities like the TGA provides a full shield from litigation or negligence charges, particularly concerning breaches of Duty of Care. But this is a dangerous miscalculation. When evidence mounts against the reliability of these “authorities,” reliance on their advice does not merely fall short—it becomes a legal liability.

For local councils specifically, the implications of relying on the TGA’s endorsements regarding public health, especially where new evidence has exposed their inaccuracies, are profound. We now know that the TGA’s statement from October 18, 2024, dismissing DNA contamination concerns in mRNA vaccines was misleading. The investigative report by Rebekah Barnett and her colleagues has laid bare the discrepancies, showing that contamination risks were more significant than the TGA disclosed. Now, if councils claim “The TGA assured us it was safe” as their defense, it rings hollow.

What is the cost of this misplaced trust? For local councils and their councillors, an unthinking reliance on such assurances from a central agency is not only ethically questionable but legally unsound. When facts emerge that cast doubt on the TGA’s accuracy, councils can no longer assert that they acted “reasonably” by relying on TGA statements. And this extends far beyond councils—how can any agency, leader, or governing body absolve itself by saying, “We were simply following TGA guidance”?

Let’s broaden this critical lens: every public leader, from health officials to state and federal politicians, firefighters, police, and agency heads, carries an inherent Duty of Care to those they serve. What happens when these leaders, entrusted to protect public welfare, turn a blind eye and place all responsibility on an authority like the TGA? Can they truly claim “reasonable reliance” when that reliance now proves flawed? What is their responsibility when the public’s health and safety are threatened, and they have the power to act but choose not to?

Think about health agencies. When people’s lives depend on the transparency of information and the strength of protective measures, does not the leadership of these agencies bear the weight of verifying the reliability of the sources they cite? And firefighters and emergency response agencies, who face increasing environmental hazards and health risks on the job—what happens when they depend on flawed health data from central authorities to make decisions that directly impact their teams and communities? Can they justify inaction when independent evidence reveals failures in the data they trusted?

Consider also the police, who often enforce mandates or respond to health-related incidents based on the information provided by health agencies and government authorities. What if the foundation of that information is compromised? If their trust in these bodies leads to actions—or in actions—that put the public at risk, can they truly say they did their due diligence? And at what point does a passive reliance on authority cease to serve the public and start putting them in harm’s way?

The duty to safeguard public health doesn’t end with a single source of information. It demands critical assessment, independent verification, and the courage to act in the public’s best interest—even when that means questioning the reliability of a respected authority. When new evidence shows that the TGA’s assurances were wrong, the responsibility shifts. Leaders can no longer hide behind outdated, inaccurate information; they must actively work to mitigate potential harms.

What about state and federal politicians and bureaucrats? Elected by the public to serve and protect, they, too, are answerable when they rely on unverified authority statements that ultimately prove untrue. The integrity of government hinges on transparency and accountability. Can they, in good conscience, fall back on “official” but now-disproven assurances to justify inaction, particularly when lives and health are at risk?

At the heart of this issue is a fundamental question: when does “following official information” become willful negligence? The evidence exposing the TGA’s misstatements is not hidden; it’s in the public eye. Every leader who continues to cling to TGA guidance, despite mounting proof of its inaccuracies, places themselves in a legally precarious and morally questionable position. Their Duty of Care extends to mitigating potential risks, not waiting for further damage to occur.

The duty to protect our communities—our families, friends, and neighbors—demands more than passive trust in authority. It requires proactive, critical action. Now, more than ever, leaders must ask themselves: can we truly rely on the TGA’s assurances? And if not, how far are we willing to go to protect our people when established authorities fail?

In local councils, protecting the health and safety of the community is more than a legal obligation—it’s a duty of honor. The residents, the mothers and fathers, and the children in these communities depend on their leaders to make informed decisions, especially when it comes to public health. The moment calls for courage and independent judgment, not blind deference. For those who still believe that referencing the TGA offers legal protection, the time to reevaluate is now. The responsibility has shifted, and ignoring it could cost more than legal penalties; it could cost public trust, lives, and the very principles upon which their duty to the public was founded.

The call to action is clear. Will our leaders step up, question flawed guidance, and prioritize public safety? Or will they cling to convenience, hoping that authority will shield them from responsibility, even as the facts betray that hope? For those truly committed to public service, the answer should be obvious.