Updated: Aug 3, 2021

The Psychological Attack on all Australians

FACT Masks are not legally enforceable. A mandate is not law. Businesses will NOT be fined for allowing entry to nonmask wearers. It is clearly stated on State Government websites that masks do not need to be worn by people with medical exemptions. In some cases, State Governments have deemed that it is up to the individual to decide if they have a medical reason or not. Further, under the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988, customers do not have to divulge their personal medical history to you. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, it is discrimination to refuse entry to someone based on their personal medical history. Check out the NSW Government’s face mask rules on:

Which one am I on face masks? To wear or not?

I am not and will not be enslavened to someones idea of a medically insinuated idea of protectionism, using a form of insulation to protect from a virus that has not been proven to exist and if it did exist? it would still be my profound choice of self preservation TOO choose bloody life over death from fear of something, that may or not! shorten my existence and if chosen by me, I alone am the single identity that has the ultimate choice of my fate. LIVE or DIE. Eventually the end rears it's head any way and I will not let a tyranical government choose that moment when I pertake of my last breath in this world ...

I am the black sheep who jumps the herd to free itself of tyranny and I will not facepalm myself to appease your Fear of the boogy man Government that wishes you dead ASAP...

Face Mask! VAX UP! but leave me alone my choice... so tough luck!

I will Breath oxygen,Oxygen is Pure Energy I'll leave it for you to mask up and breath in Carbon Dioxide and other hazards

JAMA publication that “Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.” We raise this issue of potential harm due to synthetic fibres, chlorine, and chemicals from Covid masks as a public health warning and call on the public to make its own relevant risk-management decisions, weighing the benefits versus the harms (downsides) of such a course of action. Especially with the surgical masks (blue) or similar that quickly get moisture laden with use, fibers tend to get loose and may enter the mouth and nose.

Every act has a consequence, and there is always risk. It is therefore imperative to weigh the consequences before embarking on a specific course of action. These are risk management decisions especially for parents and not because a Dr. Fauci type tells you to do something means that it is accurate or necessary. Just consider the nonsense we heard about double masking where he said use them one day only to then retract on another day.

We just saw the bizarre and troubling change by the CDC that social distancing for kids no longer required 6 feet and now can be 3 feet but not when in the company of teachers. Outrageous is the fact that the 6-feet rule was arbitrary and based on no underpinning science in the first place. It’s as if the virus floats around and makes these distance adjustments.

What about when one day the CDC Director says vaccinated persons do not carry the virus to then reverse the next day? Even Dr. Fauci went against the CDC. So who is telling the nation the truth on any given matter? What are we to believe? We are told you should vaccinate with a vaccine that does not have the requisite safety assessment (another serious matter that is being swept aside), and then you still must wear a mask and socially distance. It makes no sense.


Life Lessons on How to Think for Yourself.

Which one are you?Allegory of the cave -

You DO NOT choose for me, I choose to breath gods gift of life. You do not have a part in our contract of Life Purpose, Destiny & Predestination

Be careful who's Toes you tread upon.

below helpful documents to print

Get educated. Know the facts.

My advise read this fact sheet for small business. here is an example of what you will learn and plenty more see full download

MYTH 1 Businesses have been told that the QR check-in is ‘mandatory’.

FACT Mandatory QR check-ins are NOT a legal mandate.

It is actually illegal to enforce people to check in with a QR code or to refuse service to a person who doesn’t scan the QR code

(Amendment to Section 94H of the Federal Government Privacy Act 1988).

The penalty for enforcing QR scanning or service can be a $66,600 (300 penalty units at $222 per unit) fine or a 5-year jail (PRIVACY ACT 1988 SEC 94 H). s94h.html

MYTH 2. Customer information and data is safe in the hands of the State Government.

FACT “Service NSW”, which is responsible for managing the “COVIDSafe app” and data collection, was the target of one of the largest privacy data breaches ever to hit a NSW government agency. The AuditorGeneral of NSW found in a report that: “Service NSW is not effectively handling personal customer and business information to ensure its privacy.

It continues to use business processes that pose a risk to the privacy of personal information.https://

or read here Media release NSWs handling of personal information
Download PDF • 243KB


Australia's Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme

Service NSW reveals 738GB of customer data was stolen during email breach

Learn The FACTS for Businesses




AS THE BROCHURE STATES - Get educated. Know the facts.

Remember, mandates and directives from the Government or any other authority are NOT LAW. Our natural rights are actually enshrined within Natural Law and Common Law, which have been used to govern and keep peace in communities since earliest civilisations. Bodily sovereignty is one of these rights. Most of Australia’s media is owned by two corporations. So try and seek out independent sources of information and use alternate search engines, eg: DuckDuckGo and Ecosia. Do your own research. Think critically and without bias. Ultimately, our actions will create the reality we live in


Download PDF • 1.72MB

Biosecurity Act 2015

No. 61, 2015

Biosecurity Act 2015 (

Download PDF • 296KB

Public Notice & Declaration Of The Exercise Of

Rights, Liberties & Freedoms

Declaration of Non Consent To Government Lockdown Legislation & Directions

Following Download for printing

Vaccination & Mask Exemption:

Consent Required

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

(UK) 1900 s51 (xxiiiA), s5, s109

Nuremberg Code Article 1, 6

Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) s95

Judicature Act (Qld) 1876 s5(11), & equivalent

legislation applicable elsewhere universally

The Privacy Act 1988 s 94H (Their offences)

Religious & Medical Grounds

Download DOC • 249KB


Commonwealth of Australia

Statutory Declaration

Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth)

I’m exempt from vaccinations and wearing masks

for lawful and legal reasons as permitted by State

and Federal legislation and Government Covid-19

vaccination and face mask exemption guidelines.

Thank you for your support and understanding.


Notice of Liability

mRNA Gene Therapeutc Injectons (Vaccines) administered to Employees

Download PDF • 49KB

The TGA does not hold any relevant documents relating to points 1 and 2 of your FOI request, to be clear, the TGA does not hold Individual Level Patient Data in relation to this application for provisional registration.

“I am writing to request under the Freedom of Information Act, the following document(s) relating to the TGA's recent approval of the Pfizer vaccine for prevention of disease relating to SARS-Cov-2:

Download PDF • 4.40MB



Download PDF • 1.52MB




FDA reverses itself: rejects COVID antibody test results; insanity reigns

by Jon Rappoport

Even a robot programmed to “follow the science” would throw up his hands in despair while reading the latest FDA COVID pronouncement. After untold numbers of people have been given antibody tests to determine their COVID status, the FDA now states: “Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety communication informing the public that results from SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time, and especially after the person received a COVID-19 vaccination.” Boom. I’m imagining just a small sample of people-- perhaps 5000 -- marching in unison into a hospital, saying, “We tested positive for COVID on an antibody test…and then we had to isolate, and some of us were treated with toxic drugs…and NOW we learn that the antibody test is useless…” The FDA document, dated May 19, 2021, is titled: “FDA In Brief: FDA Advises Against Use of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test Results to Evaluate Immunity or Protection From COVID-19, Including After Vaccination”. Digging a little deeper in the document, we have a statement referring to the COVID vaccine: “The authorized vaccines for prevention of COVID-19 induce antibodies to specific viral protein targets; post-vaccination antibody test results will be negative in individuals without a history of previous natural infection if the test used does not detect the type of antibodies induced by the vaccine.”In other words, the FDA is saying, “Look, the vaccine creates specific antibodies against the spike protein, not the virus. If you take the standard antibody test after vaccination, it’ll be useless, because the test isn’t meant to detect antibodies against the spike protein. It only detects antibodies against the virus.” This raises several serious questions. One of them is: Since developing antibody tests is as easy as pie, why hasn’t the FDA developed one that detects antibodies against the spike protein? And the answer to that question is obvious. If the FDA did develop such a test, then---in terms of conventional vaccine theory---it would be easy to see how well the vaccine is working, or not working. And THAT is not a goal public health officials want to achieve. That is not a risk worth taking. Suppose, after testing 20,000 vaccinated people, it turns out that only 800 have produced antibodies against the spike protein? Another (unanswered) question: Are specific antibodies against the spike protein, conferred by the vaccine, sufficient to neutralize, disable, destroy the actual virus if it drops down out of a cloud and tries to infect a vaccinated person? Of course, as my readers know, I’ve spent a year demonstrating that no one has proved the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. However, I make many forays into the insane world where people believe the virus is real; and I show that even within that world, the experts contradict themselves and compound their egregious fallacies like rabbits spawning babies. This latest foray shows the FDA is both criminal and insane. ~~~ (The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.) (Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport) go to NO MORE FAKE NEWS

Outside the Reality Machine

07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

Level: Laboratory Alert

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page.

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.

Internal Review Right to Information Decision Right to Information No.: RTI20221-005


The information requested:

1. The scientific name for the COVID-19 tests being used by the government and/or its executive. 2. Copy of government and/or executive drafted or endorsed test criteria by which any person is to be diagnosed with COVID-19 contagion.

3. through to 8.

Download PDF • 88KB


Admissions by Dr Mark Veitch, Director of Public Health, and Michael Casey, Senior Consultant Right to Information, at or for Department of Health, Tasmania Re COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2

false or misleading information

PCR 'test' for the alleged COVID-19 cannot be proven

Download PDF • 60KB


NOTHING that has a 99% RECOVERY RATE can EVER be called an eipdemic, let alone a pandemic!!!!