Albanese Formally Noticed: COVID-19 Vaccines Contaminated

Albanese Formally Noticed: COVID-19 Vaccines Contaminated

• 1.    https://drdavidjspeicher.substack.com/cp/149189648 Courageous Truth 11 min read Albanese Formally Noticed: COVID-19 Vaccines Contaminated Albanese faces a grave choice: act on damning evidence of COVID-19 vaccine contamination, or risk public health, political ruin, and catastrophic legal fallout. Will he protect us or fail us? They say if you do something right you should either go big or go home. Well, this morning I woke up to this letter that was sent to Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed by 26 lawyers and health professionals. This puts the Prime Minister into a corner with a decision to make on how to handle the facts of the COVID-19 vaccines. Will the right decision be made? Only time will tell. -

• 2. Federal MP Russell Broadbent, serves a formal notice on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanding immediate government action regarding the contamination of COVID ‘vaccines.’ The letter below, sent to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on September 20, 2024, is no ordinary political correspondence. Signed by multiple doctors, scientists, and legal experts, including federal MP Russell Broadbent, it is a formal notice demanding immediate government action. The letter outlines alarming evidence of synthetic DNA contamination in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines used in Australia, contamination that exceeds safe limits set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) by up to 145 times. This is not a matter of partisan politics or point-scoring. It is a deeply concerning issue that raises grave questions about the duty of care owed to the Australian public by its leaders. It’s a formal notice—a legal and moral challenge to the government’s integrity and its responsibility to protect its citizens. The evidence is compelling, and the implications of ignoring it are potentially catastrophic.

• 3. Relevance of Formal Notices and Presentation of Credible Evidence

• 4. When a formal notice is issued to the head of state, it carries significant legal and ethical weight. This letter is not just a complaint or a petition; it is a documented notice that presents credible evidence. Dr. David Speicher, a Canadian virologist, confirmed in his attached report that the DNA contamination in these vaccines is a global issue, verified in Canada, Germany, and the United States. His findings demonstrate that contamination in vaccine batches includes synthetic DNA at levels grossly above safety limits and the presence of an undisclosed SV40 promoter—an agent known to facilitate DNA integration into human genomes. Vaccine batches containing synthetic DNA and an undisclosed SV40 promoter could trigger cancer and irreversible genetic mutations by integrating foreign DNA into human genomes. This failure to disclose risks is a ticking time bomb. The implications for government accountability are clear: this is a crisis that demands immediate suspension of vaccine use, an independent investigation, and transparent inquiry into why previous warnings from experts were ignored. This notice is a formation notice, a precursor to formal action. The Prime Minister and his government are being held to account. If they do not act, the consequences—legal, ethical, and political—could be staggering. Consequences of inaction by the Prime Minister The first and most profound consequence of inaction is ethical. The government’s duty of care to the Australian people is non-negotiable. Leaders are entrusted with the safety and well-being of citizens, and the contamination in question raises concerns about the longterm health of millions of Australians. If the Prime Minister ignores this evidence, he will have turned his back on the most fundamental responsibility of leadership—protecting human life. Australians are already questioning their trust in government institutions, and this issue threatens to amplify that mistrust exponentially. Should the Prime Minister and the government fail to act, civil unrest could follow. History shows us that when citizens feel betrayed by those they trust to protect them, anger turns into action. Protests, demonstrations, and movements calling for accountability would be inevitable as Australians demand answers. The political fallout could be equally severe. Opposition parties will capitalize on this failure, and the Prime Minister’s credibility—both domestically and internationally—would

• 5. be shattered. Russell Broadbent's letter is a clarion call for immediate action. If the government drags its feet, the narrative will shift from leadership to negligence, from governance to a dangerous dereliction of duty. Australia does not exist in a vacuum. The failure to act on this formal notice would not only tarnish the government’s standing in international health and regulatory bodies but would also risk diplomatic relationships with other countries that are taking the contamination issue seriously. Australia could face global condemnation for ignoring credible health risks, isolating itself on the world stage. And then, there is the law. Negligence, dereliction of duty, and potential class action lawsuits loom large if the Prime Minister and the government do nothing. The legal consequences of ignoring this notice are profound, and as we shall see, they are anchored in both common law and statutory obligations: Negligence and Duty of Care The most immediate legal consequence is negligence. The Prime Minister has a duty of care to act on credible evidence of harm, particularly when that harm threatens the health and safety of the population. If Australians continue to suffer vaccine-related injuries due to the documented DNA contamination, and it is shown that the government had knowledge of these risks but chose not to act, the case for negligence becomes strong. Negligence requires the presence of a duty, a breach of that duty, foreseeable harm, and causation. All four elements are potentially satisfied here. Constitutional Responsibilities and Breach of Executive Duty Under Section 61 of the Australian Constitution, the executive government is vested with the responsibility of maintaining the peace, welfare, and good governance of the Commonwealth. Failing to act on a biosecurity threat of this magnitude could be seen as a breach of constitutional duty. The Prime Minister has the responsibility to ensure that laws like the Biosecurity Act 2015 are enforced to protect Australians from health risks. Ignoring credible warnings undermines this duty and could have profound legal consequences. 

• 6. Human Rights Implications Furthermore, as a signatory to international human rights treaties, Australia has an obligation to protect the right to health. Failing to act on credible scientific evidence that suggests public health is at risk could result in human rights violations being raised both domestically and internationally. Statutory Responsibilities and Breach of Legal Obligations The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 mandates that all medical products must meet specific safety standards. By continuing to allow the use of contaminated vaccines that exceed TGA safety limits, the Prime Minister and his administration could be found in breach of statutory obligations, leading to class action lawsuits from those harmed by the vaccines. If the government’s negligence results in widespread harm, legal actions could overwhelm the courts, with potentially billions of dollars in damages at stake. The Biosecurity Act 2015 is one of the key pieces of legislation governing public health in Australia. Its purpose is to manage biosecurity risks that can cause harm to human health. A biosecurity risk includes anything that could lead to the introduction, emergence, or spread of disease or a biological threat. Contaminated vaccines, particularly those containing synthetic DNA with unknown long-term effects, clearly fall within the scope of this Act. If the contamination poses a risk of disease or long-term health complications, as the evidence suggests, it qualifies as a biosecurity risk under the Act. The contamination may increase the risk of cancers, genomic disorders, and other severe health outcomes. As such, the government has a legal obligation to address this threat immediately. The Biosecurity Act places clear duties on public servants, including the Prime Minister, to manage and mitigate biosecurity risks. These include investigating potential risks, issuing public health orders, and restricting the use of harmful substances (in this case, contaminated vaccines). Ignoring these obligations constitutes a breach of statutory duty.

• 7. The Call to Action — This Is Not Optional! The letter from Russell Broadbent and the attached scientific report are not mere warnings —they are formal notices that demand immediate, transparent action. The evidence is clear, and the stakes couldn't be higher. If the Prime Minister and the Australian government fail to act, they are knowingly placing millions at risk, opening the door to catastrophic legal and moral fallout. This is no time for political games, excuses, or bureaucratic red tape. The people of Australia deserve leadership, not evasion, and any further delay is a blatant act of negligence that will not go unchallenged. Failure to act on this notice would be a gross and wilful negligence of the highest order. Australians deserve answers, and they deserve leadership that prioritizes their health and safety above all else. We, as citizens, must demand transparency and accountability. Share this information. Contact your state and federal members of parliament. The future health of our nation may depend on it. Download Russell Broadbent’s Letter Download Dr. David Speicher's Scientific Report Please SHARE the post. For the sake of our children and grandchildren! ShareThe Prime Minister is not exempt from the obligations of the Act. As the head of the executive government, he is responsible for ensuring that biosecurity measures are implemented to protect Australians. His failure to act could be seen as a dereliction of duty and could expose him to legal and political consequences. If the Prime Minister does not act, the consequences will be severe. Class action lawsuits, public outcry, and international condemnation are just the beginning. The government’s inaction could lead to judicial reviews and accusations of misfeasance in public office, with potentially catastrophic legal outcomes.

• 8. Leave a comment Generated with Reader Mode