Australian Federal Court Being Asked Two Questions: Are Covid-19 drugs properly GMOs; and if so, have Pfizer and Moderna Broken the Law?
Australian Federal Court proceedings brought under the Gene Technology Act 2000
Case File Number: VID510/2023 Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor
Case Summary: It is alleged the Covid-19 vaccines (both the monovalent and bivalent products) produced by the Respondents Pfizer and Moderna satisfy the Australian legal definitions for being deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, pursuant to section 10 of the Gene Technology Act.
The relevant definitions are applied in the context of the products containing 'LNP-modRNA complexes'.
Relevantly, the 'LNP-modRNA complexes' fulfill the definition of Organism, namely:
"organism" means any biological entity that is:
(a) viable; or
(b) capable of reproduction; or
(c) capable of transferring genetic material.
Firstly, the LNP-modRNA complexes fulfill being 'any biological entity'.
Secondly, the LNP-modRNA complexes do and are 'capable of transferring genetic material', insofar that the LNP encapsulating the modRNA bio-distributes throughout the human body, and directly assists to transfer (transfect) the modRNA across cell membranes and into the cytoplasm of cells of all organ types and classes, including the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, testes, ovaries, and unborn children. This encapsulation, transport, and transfection using LNPs involves the physical 'transferring of genetic material' throughout the body of recipients.
Having satisfied the above, it then follows, a:
"gene technology" means any technique for the modification of genes or other genetic material.
Once a product satisfies the above definitions, then a sponsor or manufacturer must first obtain a GMO license for any one or more of the following 'dealings' under Section 10 of the Act:
"deal with", in relation to a GMO, means the following: (a) conductexperimentswiththeGMO;
(b) make, develop, produce or manufacture the GMO; (c) breedtheGMO;
(e) use the GMO in the course of manufacture of a thing that is not the GMO;
(g) import the GMO;
(h) transport the GMO;
(i) dispose of the GMO;
and includes the possession, supply or use of the GMO for the purposes of, or in the course of, a dealing mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (i).
The degree of genetic modifications involved in the creation of the modRNA is beyond question and well settled. The finer details of the genetic modifications involved are a matter of evidence to be presented and explained to the court.
The above definitions are not controversial and can be found under European Union legislation, and similar GMO legislation in place in many other countries.
Both Pfizer and Moderna have long been aware of these legal definitions but chose to ignore them when seeking to introduce their C19 products to the Australian market. Moreover, Australia's Gene Technology Regulator may have 'looked the other way' when Pfizer and Moderna wanted to import and transport their products here.
AstraZeneca on the other hand did not seek to avoid its legal obligations and properly sought a GMO License from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) prior to seeking provisional approval from the Australian TGA: see DIR 180.
'Dealing' with a GMO in Australia (like in most other jurisdictions) is a Serious Criminal Offence: see section 32, section 33, and section 38 of the Gene Technology Act.
Pfizer and Moderna in failing to obtain GMO Licences in Australia prior to seeking provisional approval from the TGA, means both companies continue to commit the Serious Criminal Offences described above. The grant of provisional approval by the TGA never cured these ongoing Serious Criminal Offences.
Indeed the TGA should have first consulted (pursuant to section 30C) with the OGTR about the LNP-modRNA before granting provisional approval. The TGA was instead willfully blind to this issue.
Australia's Gene Technology Regulator Admits the modRNA products are GMOs
Recently and fortunately, the above legal issues have clarified greatly after a critical admission by Australia's Gene Technology Regulator, Dr Raj Bhula.
In February 2023, in evidence to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, the Gene Technology Regulator said:
“The mRNA Covid-19 vaccines did not involve any step of genetic modification."
Ten months later, on 26 October 2023, the Regulator gave evidence that was the complete opposite:
a) The modRNA products do involve gene technology.
b) The gene technology is used to genetically modify the products.
c) Had that manufacturing step taken place in Australia, the products would have needed to be regulated by the OGTR.
To be absolutely clear, Dr Bhula, Australia's Gene Technology Regulator stated (at page 127):
If, indeed, the mRNA was being manufactured here—and it's correct that gene technology was used in the modification of the mRNA—then, under the Gene Technology Act, an approval would have been required for that manufacturing step.
In respect of - 'an approval would have been required' - under the Gene Technology Act there is ONLY ONE approval Dr Bhula is speaking about, namely, the approval of a GMO license.
To be clear, the Gene Technology Act and the OGTR regulate and approve ONLY ONE thing: GMOs
As a consequence, the answer provided above is an implicit admission that Dr Bhula and the Committee (she is referring to her advisors on the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee), have always understood and deemed the modRNA products to be GMOs.
Consequently, and in respect of the post-manufacture-steps of Importation and Transportation of GMOs into and around Australia ('dealings' per Section 10 above), both Pfizer and Moderna were always required to apply for GMO licenses from the OGTR, as Importation and Transportation are a further form of 'dealing' - that the products were manufactured overseas is irrelevant to these subsequent forms of dealing of Importation and Transportation - they are dealings that require GMO licenses.
The position in respect of overseas manufacturing placed forward by Dr Bhula is untenable at law, being conduct that is further aggravated by the Gene Technology Regulator and OGTR continuing to ignore the science that has been provided to the OGTR by an Australian law firm seeking to inform the OGTR and its advisory body, the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee (GTTAC), showing specifically the LNP-modRNA complexes are involved in:
Nuclear localisation (entry into the nucleus): Sattar et al 2022.
Once within the nucleus, reverse-transcription: Alden et al 2022.
Reverse-transcription involving genomic integration and inheritance in offspring: Qin et al 2022.
The above papers demonstrate modes of action consistent with the worst possible threats to genomic (natural) DNA that GMO legislation is meant to protect the public from being exposed to.
Both Pfizer and Moderna due to their declared expertise, at law, are understood to have known all of the above.
In the event either company seeks to now assert that it was an oversight, is no excuse. At criminal law both companies have also been 'reckless' and/or 'negligent' about properly investigating and verifying the above legal definitions, and the subsequent peer reviewed papers confirming the the destructive effects of their products on the human genome. Where recklessness and/or negligence is shown in experts in a field, those experts are deemed to have always possessed 'knowledge' of their conduct.
In short, Pfizer and Moderna always knew their C19 products are or contain Genetically Modified Organisms.
Pfizer and Moderna's C19 products are Grossly Contaminated with another GMO
Compounding the above is the recent discovery by genomics expert Kevinn McKernan of dangerously excessive DNA cell-substrate contamination. This discovery has now been independently verified by other internationally recognised laboratories using different vials, evidencing gross, pre-existing, and continuing global supply contamination by Pfizer and Moderna. Recently Canada also confirmed mass DNA contamination in 27 vials.
The synthetic DNA (modDNA) contamination is anywhere between 188-509 times above legal limits.
However this contamination is much worse than contemplated by outdated regulations, as the modDNA is also encapsulated in LNPs, thus ensuring bio-distribution throughout human bodies, and transfection into cells of all major types of organs, including the brain, heart, ovaries, testes, liver, spleen, eyes, and unborn children.
For the purposes of the Gene Technology Act this excessive contamination also fulfills the legal definitions for being correctly deemed Genetically Modified Organisms, and perhaps the worst type of GMO, as genomic integration with chromosomal DNA does not require reverse-transcription, and some of this modDNA (by Pfizer) has the opportunity of becoming 'replication competent' (self replicating) in certain persons known to be infected with SV40 related viruses.
Perversely, and as a strict matter of law, both Pfizer and Moderna were/are required to possess GMO Licenses to 'deal' with their LNP-modDNA contamination in Australia, though any organisation responsible for such licensure (the OGTR in this instance) would never allow any product into their country that contains this form of GMO contamination. This form of GMO contamination alters the course of humanity, and what it means to be human.
By these proceedings the Applicant (Dr Julian Fidge) together with the legal team who discovered and created the proceedings (Julian Gillespie and Katie Ashby-Koppens), now seek to present the above facts to the court.
In the event the court follows and accepts the evidence of the Respondent's products containing GMOs, and both being seen to be committing ongoing Serious Criminal Offences by dealing with GMOs in Australia without a license, the court should find itself compelled to issue an Injunction under Section 147 preventing Pfizer and Moderna from any further dealings in Australia, which outcome would also require the halt of any further use of the Pfizer and Moderna C19 products in Australia.
The below documents begin to further detail the above facts:
Letter to the Registrar, Federal Court of Australia, Re Urgency (sealed)
Originating Application (sealed - to be amended to correct paragraph 4(c) and (d) to reference instead 4.a.i. - iii. And 4.b.i. - ii NOT 5.a.i. - iii. And 5.b.i. - ii)
Letter of Demand, Pfizer - served 4 July 2023 (response - reject GMO allegations - failed to address modDNA contamination)
Letter of Demand, Moderna - served 4 July 2023 (no response/reply)
Letter of Demand, TGA - delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply)
Letter of Demand, OGTR - delivered 4 July 2023 (no response/reply)
Criminal Brief of Information & Evidence
As described above the conduct of Pfizer and Moderna involves the commission of ongoing serious criminal offences.
The same team of Katie Ashby-Koppens, Julian Gillespie, together with lawyer Peter Fam, also prepared a criminal Brief of Information & Evidence in respect of the criminal conduct of Pfizer and Moderna, which Brief was presented to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and under letter by Senator Gerard Rennick was also presented to the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus.
Without proper explanation the AFP suddenly terminated any further action on the Brief.
To date the Attorney-General has not replied to Senator Rennick.
In light of the clear admissions by the Gene Technology Regulator above that the Pfizer and Moderna products are GMOs, the AFP and Attorney-General now have little choice but to refer the criminal Brief to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, for bringing criminal charges against Pfizer and Moderna.
More information on the criminal Brief can be found HERE.
Katie Ashby-Koppens of PJ O’Brien & Associates, instructing solicitor: email@example.com
Julian Gillespie, former barrister and legal advisor: firstname.lastname@example.org
Club Grubbery interviewed AMPS President Associate Professor Chris Neil, Dr Julie Sladden, and lawyers Katie Ashby-Koppens and Julian Gillespie.
Good Morning Children's Health Defense (CHD.TV) interviewed Katie Ashby-Koppens and Julian Gillespie on the GMO case and synthetic DNA contamination
The Epoch Times interviewed Kevin McKernan who first discovered the DNA contamination.
South Carolina Senate hearing received testimony from Professor Phillip Buckhaults confirming the DNA contamination: 14 September 2023.
South Carolina Senate hearing received testimony from Janci Lindsay PhD discussing the danger from the DNA contamination: 14 September 2023.
Jessica Rose PhD article discussing testimony of Dr Buckhaults.
World Council for Health Urgent Expert Panel discussing the DNA contamination, 10 October 2023.
German Dr Kirchner presents synthetic DNA contamination findings to Bundestag, 18 September 2023.
German magazine Cicero interviewed Professor Brigitte Konig on the synthetic DNA contamination findings she provided to Dr Kirchner.
What happens when DNA enters the cell nucleus? (in German)
German article on global DNA contamination findings:
Dystopian Down Under: independent journalist Rebekah Barnett on the Australian GMO legal proceedings.
The Brownstone Institute has published two articles co-authored by Dr Julie Sladden & Julian Gillespie:
Spectator Australia article, 25 September 2023 by Rebekah Barnett:
The Conservative Woman article, 29 September 2023 by Professor Angus Dalgleish:
The Epoch Times reproduces the article by by Professor Angus Dalgleish:
The Canaries in the Human DNA Mine is a peer reviewed paper by Julian Gillespie showing the European Union as well as Australian authorities appear to have knowingly ignored these GMOs and failed to inform citizens.
Chart summarising synthetic DNA contamination to 30 September 2023: