Flat White

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

19 August 2021

4:00 AM

19 August 2021

4:00 AM

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 ScienceTM in the Federal Parliament.

What exactly is The ScienceTM

The ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM.

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 ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM.

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 ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM 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 ScienceTMat 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 ScienceTM.

Challenging another bit of pandemic orthodoxy and The ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM.

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 ScienceTM 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 ScienceTM: “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 ScienceTM. 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 ScienceTM of course.

George Christensen is the LNP Member for Dawson.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.


Show comments
Close