I’m guilty of going against The Science: a defence of my condemned, censored ‘dangerous’ speech to parliament

George Christensen

Politicians condemned me. Big Tech censored me. The mainstream media said my views were a danger to public health.

Why? Because I spoke out against The Science^TM in the Federal Parliament.

What exactly is The Science^TM? 

The Science^TM is the prevailing orthodoxy in Australia on how to handle this pandemic and I have to tell you that it is wrong. Very wrong.

I went against The Science^TM when I asked parliament how many freedoms we would lose due to fear of a virus which has a survivability rate of 997 out of 1000.

Where did that figure come from? Certainly not from The Science^TM.

Actually, it came from an official World Health Organisation Bulletin which published a paper by epidemiology expert Dr John Ioannidis entitled “Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data”.

That paper surveyed data across 51 countries and found that the “median infection fatality rate across all 51 locations was 0.27%”. In other words, on average, 99.73 per cent of people who contracted Covid-19 across the 51 countries that Dr Ioannidis surveyed survived the virus.

That is why I spoke against The Science^TM and told parliament that it’s time we stopped spreading fear.

I also said we should acknowledge some of the facts, including the ineffectiveness of masks and lockdowns in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

Hey, what? That’s not keeping in accord with The Science^TM.

And yet, the Commonwealth Department of Health’s Infection Control Expert Group says evidence around the efficacy of cloth masks is “limited, indirect, experimental” which is probably why one of their recommendations is that “when there is absent or localised COVID-19 transmission, the general use of masks in the community is not recommended.”

Most of the research touted about around masks and COVID-19 is based on observational studies and not randomised control trial — RCT — studies that are considered the gold standard in science. I’m not sure where the RCTs fit in the quality control methods deployed by The Science^TM though.

As far as I am aware, no significant RCTs have been done regarding mask efficacy in regards to Covid-19 apart from the Danish study “Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers” which was widely criticised by The Science^TM for downplaying the effectiveness of masks in stopping the spread of COVID-19.

However, there have been many RCT studies over the years that have looked at the effectiveness of masks in controlling other viruses such as influenza. They have produced similar conclusions to the panned Danish study, as you can see from these actual quotes from but five peer-reviewed RCT studies on masks that don’t seem line up with The Science^TMat all:

• “We did not identify any trend in the results suggesting effectiveness of facemasks.”
• “Influenza transmission was not reduced by interventions to promote hand washing and face mask use.”
• “Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.”
• “Laboratory results did not show any difference between the two groups (mask wearing and non-mask wearing).”
• “The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm… the results caution against the use of cloth masks.”

But hey, who cares about all of these peer-reviewed RCT studies? Let’s not question The Science^TM.

Challenging another bit of pandemic orthodoxy and The Science^TM are two studies that show lockdowns don’t work.

The peer-reviewed study “Assessing Mandatory Stay-at-Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID-19” was a survey of the effectiveness of lockdowns – which they called non-pharmaceutical interventions or NPIs – across 10 countries, from which researchers concluded that “we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less restrictive interventions.”

Another study by Dr Ari Joffe of the University of Alberta’s Health Ethics Centre resulted in the paper “COVID-19: Rethinking the Lockdown Groupthink” which carries a title that is downright offensive to The Science^TM.

Dr Joffe concluded that “lockdowns cause severe adverse effects for many millions of people, disproportionately for those already disadvantaged among us. The collateral damage included severe losses to current and future wellbeing from unemployment, poverty, food insecurity, interrupted preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic healthcare, interrupted education, loneliness and deterioration of mental health, and intimate partner violence.”

From the conclusions of these two studies, you could say that lockdowns don’t destroy the virus, but they do destroy people’s livelihoods and people’s lives. In fact, that’s exactly what I told parliament.

The final transgression against The Science^TM in my parliamentary speech was to suggest that Covid-19 is going to be with us forever and that we will have to live with it, not in constant fear of it.

When Labor’s Anthony Albanese rose in parliament to condemn me for my remarks, he responded to that particular part of my speech with a retort that seems well-informed by The Science^TM: “I’m scared and Australians are scared of COVID. There is fear because they’re fearful of something that’s scary.”

The very next day, one of the developers of the AstraZeneca vaccine, Dr Andrew Pollard advised a UK parliamentary committee that “Herd immunity (from the Delta variant of Covid-19) is not a possibility because it still infects vaccinated people.”

The esteemed Oxford University immunology expert also said the approach to Covid-19 needed to “shift from the epidemic to the endemic” or “living with Covid.”

I don’t know where Sir Andrew Pollard, a lowly member of the World Health Organisation Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization, gets off saying such things which go against The Science^TM. I mean, doesn’t he realise that people are scared and in fear because they’re fearful of something that’s scary?

But back to my offending speech… I ended it off by telling the Federal Parliament that we should open society back up, restore freedom and end the madness.

What madness? The Science^TM of course.

Source: Spectator Australia

The Post-Partisan Emporium's Purpose and Standards 

 This site does not have a particular political position. We welcome articles from various points of view, and civil debate when differences arise. 

 Contributions of articles from posters are always welcome. Unless a contribution is really beyond the pale, we do not edit what goes up as topics for discussion. If you would like to contribute an article, let one of the moderators know. Likewise if you would like to become an official contributor so you can put up articles yourself, but for that we need to exchange email addresses and we need a Google email address from you. Contributions can be anything, including fiction, poems, cartoons, or songs. They can be your own writing or someone else’s writing which has yet to be published. 

 We understand that tempers flare during heated conversations, and we're willing to overlook the occasional name-calling in that situation, although we do not encourage it. We also understand that some people enjoy pushing buttons and that cussing them out may be an understandable response, although we do not encourage that either. What we will not tolerate is a pattern of harassment and/or lies about other posters.