NSW Supreme Crt's Beech-Jones J's application of a subjective test to objective evidence in vaccine mandate case has allowed NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard to escape scrutiny of his failed vaccine policy, against evidence from even BioNTech & Pfizer
by Ganesh Sahathevan
In the recent vaccine mandate case of Kassam v Hazzard Beech-Jones J of the NSW Supreme Court held that NSW Minister for Health Brad Hazard had every right to be an "advocate for vaccination" for the Minister can be expected to be a "policy advocate".
Since that decision was handed down in October 2021 93.6% of NSW's 16 and over population have been double or fully vaccinated. Herd immunity should have been achieved, but it has not. COVID infection in NSW has reached a record of over 20,000 per day, a record that is more than 15 times the previous high.
The COVID vaccines have clearly failed in what they were meant to do, for they are meant to prevent infection. A BioNTech/Pfizer funded study published on 31 December 2020 found that two shots of the Pfizer COVID vaccine, which is the vaccine most often used in Australia, is 95% effective in preventing INFECTION.
The study published in the New England Journal Of Medicine defines "EFFICACY " as "INFECTION" not "severe effects", "hospitalisation" or "death". This definition is at odds with the claims made by politicians, including Hazzard, and their civil servants who since mid 2020 changed tune, claiming that they never said the vaccines would prevent infection, but the more severe symptoms of infection, and the consequences such as hospitalisation, and death.
Despite that obvious failure in policy, Hazzard continues to prosecute his policy of vaccination, of late demanding that anyone who questions his policy face "reality". In Hazzard's word:
"I want to say this. We are still hearing that people are declining to get vaccinated, they know better, they are watching social media, stop, forget it. Get off the social media.........Just stop listening to social media and make sure you are not the one lying in the ICU on a ventilator because you may be the one who die....".
This deceptive "vaccine advocacy" could have been prevented had Beech-Jones J considered the evidence before him in Kassam objectively. He applied instead a subjective assessment of the evidence which led him, among other things, to not properly consider the evidence before him of waning immunity:
173. In Section G of his report, Professor Bhattacharya identified three reasons not to adopt vaccine mandates. The first is the short duration of the protection against infection. He states that “after 5 months, the vaccines no longer provide protection against infection”.
In paragraphs 174-179 that follow Beech-Jones provides reasons for giving Professor Bhattacharya's evidence "little weight", none of which concerned the Professor's methods and reasoning in reaching his conclusions about waning immunity.
Beech-Jones subjective assessment of the scientific evidence presented by the plaintiff is also evident in this sentence in paragraph 181:
In the case of (witness for the defendant) Professor Macartney, her level of qualifications and impression as a witness has given me a high degree of confidence in the process she undertook. In the case of (witness for the plaintiff) Dr Parks, her level of qualifications has not given me that level of confidence.
It should be obvious that scientific evidence needs to be considered objectively by an assessment of the reports presented and the underlying data, and not by the judge's "level of confidence" in the author of the report.
Meanwhile, waning immunity as identified by Professor Bhattacharya is obviously the reason for Mr Hazzard's more recent "Booster Club" advocacy. He advocates the policy without explaining why a third shot is needed. This deception would not have been possible had he not been given license to be an "advocate for vaccination" by Beech-Jones J in Kassam.
END
Comments
Post a Comment