[Forwarded from Adelaide SA everything]
.
MESSAGE FROM:
SERENE TEFFAHA - COVISION
( previously Advocate . Me )
https://t.me/covisionupdates
The AFIPN provided an excellent summary of the important legal battle unfolding in South Australia:
Covid vaccination mandates under South Australia Judicial Review – Days 1 to 4: https://afipn.com.au/days-1-2-....3-and-4-south-austra
"What an amazing young lady [one of the applicants], Ms Deni Varnhagen, is! A nurse and an AFL player. Wow! Let us acknowledge her bravery and strength."
Vaccine mandate trial led by Crows footballer Deni Varnhagen begins in SA Supreme Court: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100965918
"This is not a merit review ie an examination into the science behind the decision but a judicial review that looks at whether the power was exceeded in decision-making.
Like the Kassam matter, what is being challenged is the proportionality and reasonableness in the exercise of the power. Challenging the basis of the power to extend the emergency declaration and the inconsistent treatment across industries.
Both education and police mandates have been partially reversed but then again unvaccinated police and educators will have to do daily RATs and be masked as contrasted to their vaccinated colleagues. This raises a raft of other issues.
Notwithstanding this, evidence on Friday was heard in relation to the case and the applicant nurses sought to rely on the evidence tendered by Professor Nikolai Petrovsky. No doubt if I was running the case I would be worried about the evidence of a man who fully believes that vaccines save lives and that a vaccine is necessary for alleged Covid and a man who has a vested interest in arguing that his vaccine is more effective than everyone else’s.
Now the arguments were reduced to technicalities that would only be relevant to a merits claim not a judicial review claim.
Petrovsky conceded that whilst the vaccines may reduce severity of symptoms they don’t reduce infection and transmission. This is completely incorrect as Sandy and I have shown repeatedly in our People for Safe Vaccines reports based on real world data that cases, hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths have increased in the vaccinated after vaccines. The problem is that someone like Petrovsky and the legal team are not interested in analysing the actual data.
With no undue disrespect to those spearheading this case, the writing is on the wall with this one. The weight placed on Petrovsky’s statements will be reduced, the judge will find in favour of the State as the Court of Appeal did in NSW for the NSW state against Kassam and the decision will be made that on the question of power, there was sufficient evidence to trigger the exercise of power.
I would not use Petrovsky as a witness when there is a clear conflict of interest with him designing his own vaccines. He is also not going to challenge whether there is even merit having a vaccine for an alleged disease that has a recovery rate of more than 99.7%!
Keep watching our space as we work on bringing together merits based reviews.
Meanwhile, the judge overseeing this case, ironically Judge Judy, also had her own personal bout of COVID in the hospital and I doubt that she would be a sympathiser."
https://t.me/Adelaide_SA_everything
?
Viesha Lewand
Eliminar comentario
¿ Seguro que deseas eliminar esté comentario ?