Grandefex – Internet Investing – My Experiences

This is a major departure from the usual blog themes, yet it still relates to truth and justice.  It’s very personal, of no interest to most followers, but it may be of use to some.

An admittance of a personal failure, certainly no pinnacle of achievement, a failure to do some research and placing trust in the unknown, misplacing trust actually!  Not a proud moment!

Given a great deal more spare time because of the Covid restrictions, I decided to follow up on what has been a mild curiosity in crypto currency investments. After yet another internet promo on “what the banks don’t want you to know” apparently supported by Bill Gates et al on how to make a lot of money very quickly, I made the required response into the cyber world investment arena.

After clicking on a link and even getting a warning response “Stop – You are making a mistake”, which I concluded was some “banking element” diversion, I became connected to an organization “” and blindly entered into their web by identifying myself and depositing the minimum Euro250 using my bank debit card. The bank dutifully requested confirmation of this transaction but made no further comment. So I became the excited investor of a little over $400aud and was allocated an account manager to assist me in the process.

Imagining that I would be advised how to best invest this princely sum into purchasing some recommended crypto currency, I was disappointed to learn that Grandefex, if it all able to do such a simple task, were in the business of themselves carrying out transactions of the nature of “betting on” various selected ‘assets’, in my case their choice of one or more crypto currencies, direction of movement.

No other choice of involvement was mentioned or suggested.  A request to one account manager [AM] for actually purchasing an amount of currency was met with a negative response.

So, moving on, this took place mid April this year (2020) and I had access to my account details and to trading information in the form of a graphic chart, peripheral information and my actual trading activities as controlled by them.

This is an example of a typical screen, unfortunately at the end of trading, where the equity is a dismal minus Euro17.63.  More details to follow.

When trading was in action, this is the type of information provided:

Moving on again. Equity at E250. (Euros).

First AM  (Account Manager)  John, discusses at length very little except how was I set for finances, what resources I had and how much money did I wish to make? Answer – I simply wanted to “dabble”, like as a hobby.

Each week day there was an increase in my equity of the order approaching E2 which, to me was impressive, as it represented about E7 or 8 per week, a return on E250 amounting to a calculated ~E 375 per year, an enormous 150% per annum, ‘somewhat’ better than bank investment rates, as I was repeatedly reminded by all AM’s.

So life and “profits” progressed steadily and satisfyingly EXCEPT for the barrage of phone calls from AM’s and there were many. Phone calls AND AM’s. Initially, attempts were made with John to intersperse emails in order to achieve better understandings, but that failed because Outlook decide to reject “grandefex” emails, even after listing them as “safe”. (Curious?)

Of course, I cannot do justice here to describing the phone calls, but the gist would be: “You must deposit more money if the system is going to provide real returns”. It is hard to describe the pressure being brought to bear to “deposit more money”.

These email extracts sent by me might convey the general situation:

Hello John. First, my Outlook should no longer be blocking you! Apparently something else is! Second , my investment hopes: My miniscule amount is, as I said, for fun. Therefore no opportunity for Grandefex to ”smile” about. However, it is the required minimum. All I ask is for you to recommend an investment ‘fund’, like what you have used for me to date, whose trading code would be given to me and be one of those displayed on the grandefex website. After that  I can keep an eye on it and only bother you if it looks to be a problem. Current action with my money is encouraging – if it does no worse than averaging plus 1 Euro a day I am smiling! 😊 If it compounds, a big bonus 😊 😊 I appreciate your help ‘tonight’, and hope that one more ‘session’ will allow me to be self operating. Password management required.  A little more understanding of the web page.  No buying or selling, no short-term withdrawals. No more deposits. Just 😊 !  Regards, Ken.

So far in  all our phone conversations, little has been achieved.  I have made clear my desires for a little ‘fun’ play on the “market”, now in progress, and that part is just what I want, thank you! I have tried to make clear that no greater investment is of interest to me. Why is it that my very small requests are not all satisfied? Why is it that you do not accept my word for the “no further investment above the Euro250” limit? Is indeed unfortunate that we have been unable to gain an effective connection except for the phone, which must be costing a fortune. The dialogue itself is seemingly ineffective, however. Perhaps we can use the chat/question window? It is your choice to continue phone calls without achieving anything more, but why ???? Regards, Ken Mc

So the scene is set.

It might be worth mentioning that the Grandefex office was operating out of London, or at least that time zone. Their working hours generally started at about 4am, their time, which corresponds to 3pm in my time zone (Aus. EST). Phone conversations generally were about 6 – 9pm but a couple were after 11pm, my time.

17/4   E250  AM John

19/4 E259.97  AM Mia

23/4 E272    AM John  Email sent, Scary introduction to “Anydesk” where I consent to their control over my PC whilst watching and allowing by not moving my cursor.  Not a relaxing event.

24/4 E273   AM John  Email sent

27/4 E274.55;  thru to 18/5 E294.30  AM Michael

19/5 E295.64;  thru to 18/6 E328.32  AM Silvio

Advised that they had no proof of initial deposit, resubmitted ID and Proof documents. Becoming wary about the company!

19/6 E329.85;  22/6 E331.42  AM Jason

Aggressive talk for more money

E331.48 #11pm EST Aus AM Jason  This where the SHTF, in response to my refusal to deposit more money, the result was extraordinary!

23/6  Next morning  equity E217.01, by 13:00 EST, net profit E114.80 (loss)! Remember, previously equity = PLUS E331

Complained   AM Steven – says can fix Jason’s dummy spit reaction to our phone conversation,  IF I deposited more money!!!!

Complained   AM Kenneth (someone with intelligence, [of course]), promised to fix the debacle, and did so!  (Senior Manager).

30/6 Equity restored E335.75  AM Kenneth. He presumably remained in charge till 24/7 when equity = E353.88,  no one else contacted me until –

27/7 E355.56;  28/7 E357.27 AM Edmond

29/7 E359.04  AM Emily, thru to 3/8 E364.18  Here there was a minor glitch in their records which was rectified quickly.

A request to buy XRP currency was met  with the ridiculous response that I would have to deposit more, even though my equity was E160 greater than my initial investment. SO much bullshit from so many people, I then verbally requested a withdrawal of E100.

4/8  E365.91  AM Simon, advises can withdraw but not buy currency.

No action on withdrawal but equity continued to steadily increase.

17/8  E381.92  AM Natasha advises how I can initiate withdrawal myself. This screen take is taken after the final crash, but it designated at that time, the full equity of E381. It clearly states that I can withdrew up to the full equity amount.

So, on 18/8 an official request for a E100 withdrawal. No response for some time, so another entry was submitted, to be told that there was an existing pending request, so I cancelled the second.

Still no response by 31/8 at which time my equity had risen to E400.30. Reinstated the E100 withdrawal request and urgently complained on their chat line about inaction and a new AM, Frank came on the scene, assuring me that by 15 Sept I could withdraw whatever amount I wanted, and talked me into cancelling the existing documented request.

What a fool I was.

1/9 equity was E402.20

2/9  E329.54;   3/9  E286.68;   4/9  E271.92;   7/9  E277.75;  8/9  E224.42;   at which stage my chat complaints stirred Frank into a phone call at 11:30pm here, saying the “Robot” cannot be stopped until the 15th.

Let me explain a little more about the trading methods as I understand them. Generally, all my trades were manually controlled  by the AM. They would spend a few minutes each week-day creating profits for me as shown above. However they have a computerized system which they switched my account to every working day for the hours they were at work whereby 2 crypto currency accounts were selected for auto trading.  A very small amount of my money was used, displayed on the graphic chart and generally less than E1. When questioned, amongst a great deal of varying rhetoric it seems that a lot more money was being used due to leverage, but still probably only 5 times the displayed amount.

Amazingly, over the preceding period of months, every day this technique produced one of three results – E0.01, 0.00 or 0.01 loss.

No amount of questioning this absurd process resulted in any sensible response nor any change .

However, it seems that, as in that previous crash situation, and now the current one, the automatic, computerized “Robot” was given free reign over my full account amount.

So, the “Robot” that “couldn’t” be stopped till the 15th was in free-fall with my E400 resulting in –   9/9  E195.92;   10/9  E166.19;   11/9  E159.15;  date not recorded, probably the 12th,  E17.83 negative!

My notes strangely became a little disorganized as Frank had the “kindness” to ring and report the need for more money, at which stage I was laughing, probably hysterically. He asked why I was laughing, I think I said “did he think I was stark raving mad to provide more money”.  He, in all seriousness, stated that the account would be closed, to which I agreed seemed appropriate.  (Strangely, to this date, 25/9, the account is still open for access and viewing).

My bank has thankfully cancelled my card account in case of fraudulent attempts to access further funds.

So here we are – that’s off my chest and I have permanent record of this unfortunate, but educational experience. I am considering requesting my bank to action a claim against the organization, but it’s not a heap of money to put them out for.

My heart goes out to any other poor unfortunate person who may well be being fleeced for a lot more.


Posted in Justice, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fight to Protect Australian Bank Deposits from ‘Bail-in’

Australian Citizens Party

Media Release Wednesday, 23 September 2020

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432
Two months to win the fight to protect Australian bank deposits from ‘bail-in’

In a little over two months, on 30 November, the Senate will debate One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts’ Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020. The bill will remove all uncertainty over whether bank regulator APRA could bail in the savings of everyday Australians to prop up a failing bank, the way European authorities confiscated 47.5 per cent of deposits in two banks in Cyprus in 2013. Concerned Australians have two months to convince MPs and Senators to vote for Senator Roberts’ bill and put the security of their bank deposits beyond doubt.

The Citizens Party is this week ramping up its campaign against bail-in for the final two-month push to the 30 November debate. To get as many people involved as possible, we have produced a two-minute social media video advertisement, “Your deposits in the banks are not safe”, which succinctly explains the bail-in threat and urges Australians to sign the bail-in petition and participate in the campaign.

Click here to watch the two-minute video “Your deposits in the banks are not safe”; please forward it to your MP and Senators, and share it widely on social media.

The law is uncertain

The nub of the political fight over bail-in is this: the government insists Senator Roberts’ bill is unnecessary because the law is clear and that bail-ins can’t and won’t happen; however, the Citizens Party, One Nation, and numerous legal, banking and economics experts believe the wording of the law that states certain securities “or any other instrument” can be converted or written off (bailed in) creates uncertainty, which Senator Roberts’ bill will resolve by specifying that “any other instrument” can’t include deposit accounts.

The government’s report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s inquiry into Senator Roberts’ bill re-stated the government’s position that the law is not uncertain (although the complex and misleading legal arguments they relied on demonstrated the opposite—that by definition there is uncertainty). In his dissenting report, however, Senator Roberts made the crucial point that the inquiry identified “no sensible adverse outcome” from passing his bill. “This raises a simple point of logic”, Senator Roberts said. “If the bill does not have any other adverse outcome and seeks simply to reaffirm the meaning of the legislation currently in place, then there is no reason not to pass the bill.”

The objective in the next two months is therefore straightforward. We don’t have to prove to Senators and MPs the law is uncertain; all we need to do is convince them that thousands of Australian bank customers are concerned the law is uncertain, and only Senator Roberts’ bill will reassure the public and start to restore confidence in the banks. The way to do that is to flood all the Senators and MPs with thousands of calls and emails in the next two months.

What you can do

  1. Immediately watch the two-minute video “Your deposits in the banks are not safe” and then email the link to your local federal MP and Senators and share it widely on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. Click here to find contact details for your MP and Senators.
  2. Call the offices of your MP and Senators to ensure they received your email and that they watched the video. Tell them you are concerned about bail-in and they should be too, and the only way they can reassure the public their deposits are secure is by voting for Senator Roberts’ Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020.
  3. If you have not yet signed the Citizens Party’s bail-in petition, below, please click here to sign the petition, and also share to widely on social media.


Hands off our bank deposits—stop ‘bail-in’!


This petition of concerned citizens draws to the attention of the House that:

Australia and the world are facing a new financial crisis, with panicked financial authorities slashing interest rates and trying to stimulate the housing market to save the banks, which are in grave danger from their excessive mortgage lending and reckless and fraudulent lending standards;

Global financial authorities expect Australia to prop up failing banks through “bail-in”—converting bonds and deposits into shares or writing them off—which will enormously damage individual savers, businesses, charities, superannuation funds and all other enterprises which lose their funds;

Legal analysis of the crisis resolution powers legislated secretively for APRA in February 2018 has confirmed they could be used to bail in bank deposits;

The government denies deposits can be bailed in, but admits the law is from the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which applies bail-in to bank depositors;

The FSB and International Monetary Fund are directing Australia to implement stronger bail-in laws like those in New Zealand, the EU and the USA, which all apply to deposits;

To stop this planned theft, we therefore ask the House to:

  • amend the 2018 law to explicitly exclude deposits [which Senator Roberts’ bill will do];
  • block the stronger bail-in legislation the government is planning;
  • rescind APRA’s crisis resolution powers and pass instead the Separation of Banks Bill 2019 to protect deposits from speculation.

Click here to sign the petition.

Copy this link to share the petition on email, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all other social media:

Click here to join the Citizens Party as a member.

Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Party.

Authorised: Robert Barwick‚ 595 Sydney Rd‚ Coburg‚ Vic 3058

Australian Citizens Party ABN: 96 864 903 379
595 Sydney Road Coburg VIC 3058 AUSTRALIA Ph: 03 9354 0544

Posted in AUSTRALIA, Financial Crisis, Politics | Tagged | 6 Comments

Corona Virus Bill tabled in Jan 2019 – A Year Before the “Virus” was Publicly Known

Please “click” link to activate.

A comment from the original posting:

LA2020LA 3 hours ago

World Bank website had countries trading in Covid 19 test kits in 2017 and 2018. it was recently changed to Medical test kits. “

Another proof of prior planning, and deliberate release:

Need more information to reveal the New World Government is activating a global control agenda?

Posted in AGENDA 2030, New World Order, United Nations, WHO | 2 Comments

Covid-19 – Simply a Means to an End? A Catastrophic End??

This proffered explanation makes a great deal of sense.

Initially it’s easy to argue that a new virus does exist and therefore the conclusions are unsound. A new virus strain does exist,  that’s true, BUT, then concentrate on all the information to gain a full understanding of the total picture.

Posted in Covid-19, HEALTH, New World Order, World Issues | 13 Comments

The Fear Campaign Has No Scientific Basis

What is Covid-19, SARS-2. How is it Tested? How is It Measured? The Fear Campaign Has No Scientific Basis

Closing down the Global Economy as a means to combating the Virus. That’s what they want us to believe. If the public had been informed that Covid-19 is “similar to Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat…

The data and concepts have been manipulated with a view to sustaining the fear campaign.

The estimates are meaningless. The figures have been hyped to justify the lockdown and the closure of the national economy, with devastating economic and social consequences. The Virus is held responsible for poverty and mass unemployment. 

Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Covid-19 is a public health concern but it is NOT a dangerous virus.

The COVID-19 crisis is marked by a public health “emergency” under WHO auspices which is being used as a pretext and a  justification to trigger a Worldwide process of economic, social and political restructuring. Social engineering is being applied. Governments are pressured into extending the lockdown, despite its devastating economic and social consequences.

There is no scientific basis for implementing the closing down of the global economy as a means to resolving a public health crisis. 

Both the media and the governments are involved in spreading disinformation.

The fear campaign has no scientific basis. 

Our objective is to reassure people Worldwide. Your governments are LYING.  In fact they are lying to themselves. 

We start by defining the virus and the tests which are being used to “identify the virus”. 

1  What is Covid-19, SARS-COV-2.

Below is the official WHO definition of Covid-19:

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans.  In humans, several coronaviruses are known to cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The most recently discovered coronavirus causes coronavirus disease COVID-19.

The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness. … These symptoms are usually mild and begin gradually. Some people become infected but only have very mild symptoms. Most people (about 80%) recover from the disease without needing hospital treatment. Around 1 out of every 5 people who gets COVID-19 becomes seriously ill and develops difficulty breathing.

“COVID-19 is similar to SARS-1″: According to  Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, pneumonia is “regularly caused or accompanied by corona viruses”. Immunologists broadly confirm the CDC definition. COVID-19 has similar features to a seasonal influenza coupled with pneumonia.

According to Anthony Fauci (Head of NIAID), H. Clifford Lane and Robert R. Redfield (Head of CDC) in the New England Journal of Medicine 

…the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.

Dr. Anthony Fauci  is lying to himself. In his public statements he says that Covid is “Ten Times Worse than Seasonal Flu”.

He refutes his peer reviewed report quoted above. From the outset, Fauci has been instrumental in waging the fear and panic campaign across America:



Screenshot The Hill, March 19, 2020

Covid-19 versus Influenza (Flu) Virus A and Virus B (and subtypes)

Rarely mentioned by the media or the governments, The CDC confirms that Covid-19 is similar to Influenza:

“Influenza (Flu) and COVID-19 are both contagious respiratory illnesses, but they are caused by different viruses. COVID-19 is caused by infection with a new coronavirus (called SARS-CoV-2) and flu is caused by infection with influenza viruses. Because some of the symptoms of flu and COVID-19 are similar, it may be hard to tell the difference between them based on symptoms alone, and testing may be needed to help confirm a diagnosis. Flu and COVID-19 share many characteristics, but there are some key differences between the two.”

If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is “similar to Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat.

The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.

2. The Test for Covid-19 “Confirmed Cases”

The standard Covid test  is the Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR):

“The COVID-19 RT-PCR test is a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) test for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 in upper and lower respiratory specimens … collected from individuals suspected of COVID 19 … [as well as] from individuals without symptoms or other reasons to suspect COVID-19 infection. …

This test is also for use with individual nasal swab specimens that are self-collected using the Pixel by LabCorp COVID-19 test home collection kit … The COVID-19 RT-PCR test is also for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the SARS-CoV-2 in pooled samples, using a matrix pooling strategy (FDA, LabCorp Laboratory Test Number: 139900)

First, it should be understood that the Covid-19  RT-PCR Test is similar to that used in relation to Influenza. This test is based on upper and lower respiratory specimens.

 The criteria and guidelines confirmed by the CDC  pertaining to “The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Diagnostic Panel” are as follows (Read carefully):

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

What this suggests is that a positive infection could be the result of other viruses as well as other corona viruses. (i.e. related to seasonal influenza or pneumonia).

And, according to the CDC it  “does not rule out “bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” (CDC)

The following diagram summarizes the process of identifying positive and negative cases: All that is required is the presence of “viral genetic material” for it to be categorized as “positive”. The procedure does not identity or isolate Covid-19. What appears in the tests are fragments of the virus

A positive test does not mean that you have the virus and/or that you could transmit the virus.
A negative test does not mean that you do not have it.
What the governments want is to inflate the number of positive cases. 

While SARS-CoV-2 –namely the the virus which is said to cause COVID-19 (erroneously categorized as a disease rather than a virus), was isolated in a laboratory test in January 2020, the RT-PCR test does not identify/detect the Covid-19 virus. What it detects are fragments of the virus. According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

Bear in mind: Because the RT-PCR test is similar to the test used in the case of  influenza (flu) (i.e. coronavirus A,B, C, D), a positive test does not mean that you test positive for Covid-19.

The Question is Positive for What?? The PCR does not detect the identity of the virus, According to Dr. Pascal Sacré,

these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.

In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination

Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability]

The media frighten everyone with new positive PCR tests, without any nuance or context, wrongly assimilating this information with a second wave of COVID-19.

Presumptive vs. Confirmed Cases

In the US, the CDC data include both “confirmed” and “presumptive” positive cases of COVID-19 reported to CDC or tested at CDC since January 21, 2020″.

The presumptive positive data does not confirm coronavirus infection: Presumptive testing involves “chemical analysis of a sample that establishes the possibility that a substance is present“ (emphasis added). The presumptive test must then be sent for confirmation to an accredited government health lab. (For further details see: Michel Chossudovsky, Spinning Fear and Panic Across America. Analysis of COVID-19 DataMarch 20, 2020)

Similarly in Canada, “A point-of-care test” is a “rapid test done at the time and place of care, such as a hospital or doctor’s office”. It consists in collecting “samples from the nose or throat using swabs”, which are then tested on site, with almost immediate results (in 30 to 60 minutes). But it does not confirm the presence of COVID-19.

Serological testing or Antibody Tests for COVID-19  

According to the CDC, Serological tests do not detect the virus itself, “they detect the antibodies produced in response to an infection. Serological tests are not used for “early diagnosis of COVID-19.” 

How is the COVID-19 Data Tabulated?

Below is a screen shot of the CDC form entitled Human Infection with 2019 Novel Coronavirus Case Report Form to be filled in by authorized medical/ health personnel

Note the categorization of probable cases, bearing in mind that the lab confirmed case is misleading. No way to identify the covi-19 virus in a PCR lab test

In the US, the probable (PC) and the lab confirmed cases (CC) are lumped together. And the total number (PC + CC ) constitutes the basis for establishing the data for COVID-19 infection. It’s like adding apples and oranges.

The total figure (PC+CC) categorized as “Total cases” is meaningless. It does not measure positive COVID-19 Infection.

Most of the presumptive tests are undertaken by private clinics or commercial clinics.

In the UK, according to a Daily Telegraph May 21 report: “samples taken from the same patient are being recorded as two separate tests in the Government’s official figures”.

This is only one example of data manipulation. In the US, clinics are paid ($$$) to hike up the number of Covid-19 admissions. A probable case does not require a lab exam: “Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory lab testing” (see form above)

COVID-19 Recovery Rates

The CDC Data tabulates  both “confirmed” and “presumptive” positive cases since January 21, 2020. Yet what it fails to make public is that among the confirmed and presumptive cases, a large number of Americans have recovered. But nobody talks about recovery. It does not make the headlines.

Falsification of Death Certificates

At the outset of the pandemic, the CDC had been instructed to change the methodology regarding Death Certificates with a view to artificially inflating the numbers of “Covid deaths”.  According to H. Ealy, M. McEvoy et al 

“The 2003 guidelines for establishing death certificates had been cancelled. “Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower  than it currently is.” (Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School? By H. EalyM. McEvoy, and et al., August 09, 2020


CDC Deaths Attributed to COVI-19. Comorbidities 

The latest CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities”,(i.e. deaths dues other causes).

For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

On March 21, 2020 the following specific guidelines were introduced by the CDC regarding Death Certificates (and their tabulation in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)

A New ICD code was introduced by the CDC for COVID-19 cause of deaths

Will  COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death?  This concept is fundamental. The underlying cause of death is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death”.  

What the CDC is recommending with regards to statistical coding and categorization is that COVID-19 is expected to  be the underlying cause of death “more often than not.” 

(see below):

Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death? 

The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID- 19 being the underlying cause more often than not.

What happens if certifiers report terms other than the suggested terms?

If a death certificate reports coronavirus without identifying a specific strain or explicitly specifying that it is not COVID-19, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify whether or not the coronavirus was COVID-19.

As long as the phrase used indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, NCHS expects to assign the new code. However, it is preferable and more straightforward for certifiers to use the standard terminology (COVID-19).

What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?

If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases.

If  “pending COVID-19 testing” is reported on the death certificate, this would be considered a pending record. In this scenario, NCHS would expect to receive an updated record, since the code will likely result in R99. In this case, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify if test results confirmed that the decedent had COVID- 19.

… COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.

These specific guidelines have indelibly contributed to increasing Covid-19 as the recorded “cause of death”.

And this despite the fact that the relevant lab texts (i.e. RT PCR) provide misleading results. Bear in mind that a Covid-19 cause of death does not require a lab exam.


  • Covi-19 is Similar to Influenza 
  • The whole exercise of PCR testing and establishing data of Covid-19 infection is flawed.  
  • The figures are fabricated and so are the death certificates.
  • Confirmed Cases” are not confirmed.
  • The RT-PCR Test Does not isolate the Covid-19 virus. 

These inflated Covid positive “estimates” (from the PCR test) are then used to sustain the fear campaign. The hype in Covid-19 deaths is based on flawed and biased criteria.

Governments are currently involved in increasing the number of PCR tests with a view to inflating the number of so-called Covid-19 positive cases.

The RT- PCR tests do not prove anything:

“Today, as authorities test more people, there are bound to be more positive RT-PCR tests. This does not mean that COVID-19 is coming back, or that the epidemic is moving in waves. There are more people being tested, that’s all.”

This procedure of massive data collection is there to provide supportive (fake) “estimates” to justify the so-called Second Wave.

The Endgame is to maintain the economic lockdown, enforce the compulsory wearing of the face mask, social distancing including the closure of schools, colleges and universities.

The tendency is towards a police state. It is all based on a Big Lie.

We need a mass movement, nationally and internationally to reverse the tide.

Mass demonstrations barely reported by the corporate media have taken place in major European capitals including London, Dublin and Berlin.

Corrupt politicians in high office must be (peacefully) removed.

Revealing the lies and deceptions is the first priority. Dismantling the fear campaign. Reveal the media disinformation campaign.

National economies must be reopened… 

Posted in AGENDA 2030, HEALTH, New World Order, Viruses | Tagged | 4 Comments

RSM In Conversation Live with Lord Jonathan Sumption

This is a fascinating conversation, taking some 100 minutes, dealing primarily with the pros and cons of lock-downs. That is why I selected it for a post. It might be of little interest to readers, so it is not necessarily highly recommended viewing unless one wants to be transported into the realms of high intelligence and high commonsense, if there is actually any such thing.

So, if only for posterity, and a bit of self-indulgence, it is offered as an example of the existence of a pinnacle of intelligence and personal human achievement. In my estimation, becoming increasingly rare.

Posted in Civil Liberties, Covid-19, Justice, Philosophy | 1 Comment

Guarded Secrets and Blatant Deceits

International best-selling author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, shows precisely how mortality figures have been fiddled to make the covid-19 deaths seem frightening. He explains how deaths from flu, pneumonia, dementia and respiratory disease have been listed as covid-19 deaths. He reports on the fact that a third of women with breast cancer have been denied treatment, and how Imperial College has found that the lockdowns which their exaggerated figures triggered, will lead to 1.4 million extra TB deaths. Vernon Coleman’s best-selling book, ‘Coming Apocalypse’ is available as a paperback and an ebook on Amazon.
For more unbiased information about other important matters, please visit
Thank you for all your encouragement and support.

Please feel free to share this video.

So much wisdom and experience!

So  much truth and revelation!


Posted in AGENDA 2030, Civil Liberties, Covid-19, HEALTH, New World Order, World Issues | 5 Comments

History of Anti-vaccination Movements

Vaccination is fast becoming a major global topic and concern for the public.

The mass media keep well away from any controversy on this topic, not because it is not worthy of discussion, but because it is held, by them, as beyond criticism. Of course also because the mass media is demonstrably controlled by Big Pharma and its higher echelon group.

The public can remain in ignorance of the controversial facts or they can choose to research and ponder the deeper truths. An authoritative source!

The College of Physicians of Philadelphia

French Caricature of Vaccination

Health and medical scholars have described vaccination as one of the top ten achievements of public health in the 20th century.[1] Yet, opposition to vaccination has existed as long as vaccination itself[2] (indeed, the pre-vaccination practice of variolation came under criticism as well: see our timeline for details). Critics of   vaccination have taken a variety of positions, including opposition to the smallpox vaccine in England and the United States in the mid to late 1800s, and the resulting anti-vaccination leagues; as well as more recent vaccination controversies such as those surrounding the safety and efficacy of the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP) immunization, the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the use of a mercury-containing preservative called thimerosal.

Smallpox and the Anti-vaccination Leagues in England

Widespread smallpox vaccination began in the early 1800s, following Edward Jenner’s cowpox experiments, in which he showed that he could protect a child from smallpox if he infected him or her with lymph from a cowpox blister. Jenner’s ideas were novel for his time, however, and they were met with immediate public criticism. The rationale for this criticism varied, and included sanitary, religious, scientific, and political objections.

For some parents, the smallpox vaccination itself induced fear and protest. It included scoring the flesh on a child’s arm, and inserting lymph from the blister of a person who had been vaccinated about a week earlier. Some objectors, including the local clergy, believed that the vaccine was “unchristian” because it came from an animal.[3] For other anti-vaccinators, their discontent with the smallpox vaccine reflected their general distrust in medicine and in Jenner’s ideas about disease spread. Suspicious of the vaccine’s efficacy, some skeptics alleged that smallpox resulted from decaying matter in the atmosphere.[4] Lastly, many people objected to vaccination because they believed it violated their personal liberty, a tension that worsened as the government developed mandatory vaccine policies.[3]

The Vaccination Act of 1853 ordered mandatory vaccination for infants up to 3 months old, and the Act of 1867 extended this age requirement to 14 years, adding penalties for vaccine refusal. The laws were met with immediate resistance from citizens who demanded the right to control their bodies and those of their children.[3]The Anti Vaccination League and the Anti-Compulsory Vaccination League formed in response to the mandatory laws, and numerous anti-vaccination journals sprang up.[2]

The town of Leicester was a particular hotbed of anti vaccine activity and the site of many anti-vaccine rallies. The local paper described the details of a rally: “An escort was formed, preceded by a banner, to escort a young mother and two men, all of whom had resolved to give themselves up to the police and undergo imprisonment in preference to having their children vaccinated…The three were attended by a numerous crowd…three hearty cheers were given for them, which were renewed with increased vigor as they entered the doors of the police cells.”[5] The Leicester Demonstration March of 1885 was one of the most notorious anti-vaccination demonstrations. There, 80,000-100,000 anti-vaccinators led an elaborate march, complete with banners, a child’s coffin, and an effigy of Jenner.[3]

Such demonstrations and general vaccine opposition lead to the development of a commission designed to study vaccination. In 1896 the commission ruled that vaccination protected against smallpox, but suggested removing penalties for failure to vaccinate. The Vaccination Act of 1898 removed penalties and included a “conscientious objector” clause, so that parents who did not believe in vaccination’s safety or efficacy could obtain an exemption certificate.[2]

Smallpox and the Anti-vaccination Leagues in the United States

Toward the end of the 19th century, smallpox outbreaks in the United States led to vaccine campaigns and related anti-vaccine activity. The Anti Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879, following a visit to America by leading British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb. Two other leagues, the New England Anti Compulsory Vaccination League (1882) and the Anti-vaccination League of New York City (1885) followed. The American anti-vaccinationists waged court battles to repeal vaccination laws in several states including California, Illinois, and Wisconsin.[2]

In 1902, following a smallpox outbreak, the board of health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, mandated all city residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. City resident Henning Jacobson refused vaccination on the grounds that the law violated his right to care for his own body how he knew best. In turn, the city filed criminal charges against him. After losing his court battle locally, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1905 the Court found in the state’s favor, ruling that the state could enact compulsory laws to protect the public in the event of a communicable disease. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the power of states in public health law. [6],[7]

The Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTP) Vaccine Controversy

Anti-vaccination positions and vaccination controversies are not limited to the past. In the mid 1970s, an international controversy over the safety of the DTP immunization erupted in Europe, Asia, Australia, and North America. In the United Kingdom (UK), opposition resulted in response to a report from the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children in London, alleging that 36 children suffered neurological conditions following DTP immunization.[8] Television documentaries and newspaper reports drew public attention to the controversy. An advocacy group, The Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children (APVDC), also piqued public interest in the potential risks and consequences of DTP.

In response to decreased vaccination rates and three major epidemics of whooping cough (pertussis), the Joint Commission on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), an independent expert advisory committee in the UK, confirmed the safety of the immunization. Nonetheless, public confusion continued, in part because of diverse opinions within the medical profession. For example, surveys of medical providers in the UK in the late 1970s found that they were reluctant to recommend the immunization to all patients.[9] Additionally, an outspoken physician and vaccine opponent, Gordon Stewart, published a series of case reports linking neurological disorders to DTP, sparking additional debate. In response, the JCVI launched the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES). The study identified every child between 2 and 36 months hospitalized in the UK for neurological illness, and assessed whether or not the immunization was associated with increased risk. NCES results indicated that the risk was very low, and this data lent support to a national pro-immunization campaign.[10] Members of the APVDC continued to argue in court for recognition and compensation, but were denied both due to the lack of evidence linking the DTP immunization with harm.

The U.S. controversy began with media attention on the alleged risks of DTP. A 1982 documentary, DPT: Vaccination Roulette, described alleged adverse reactions to the immunization and minimized the benefits.[11]Similarly, a 1991 book titled A Shot in the Dark outlined potential risks.[12] As in the UK, concerned and angry parents formed victim advocacy groups, but the counter response from medical organizations, like the Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was stronger in the United States.[9] Although the media storm instigated several lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, increased vaccine prices, and caused some companies to stop making DTP,[13] the overall controversy affected immunization rates less than in the UK.

The Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Controversy

Nearly 25 years after the DTP controversy, England was again the site of anti-vaccination activity, this time regarding the MMR vaccine.

In 1998, British doctor Andrew Wakefield recommended further investigation of a possible relationship between bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine.[14] A few years later, Wakefield alleged the vaccine was not properly tested before being put into use.[15] The media seized these stories, igniting public fear and confusion over the safety of the vaccine.[16] The Lancet, the journal that originally published Wakefield’s work, stated in 2004 that it should not have published the paper.[17] The General Medical Council, an independent regulator for doctors in the UK, found that Wakefield had a “fatal conflict of interest.” He had been paid by a law board to find out if there was evidence to support a litigation case by parents who believed that the vaccine had harmed their children. In 2010, the Lancet formally retracted the paper after the British General Medical Council ruled against Wakefield in several areas. Wakefield was struck from the medical register in Great Britain and may no longer practice medicine there. In January 2011, the BMJ published a series of reports by journalist Brian Deer outlining evidence that Wakefield had committed scientific fraud by falsifying data and also that Wakefield hoped to financially profit from his investigations in several ways.[18]

A large number of research studies have been conducted to assess the safety of the MMR vaccine, and none of them has found a link between the vaccine and autism.[19]

“Green Our Vaccines”

Thimerosal, a mercury containing compound used as a preservative in vaccines,[20]has also been the center of a vaccination and autism controversy.  Although there is no clear scientific evidence that small amounts of thimerosal in vaccines cause harm, in July 1999, leading U.S. public health and medical organizations and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated from vaccines as a precautionary measure.[20] In 2001, The Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee issued a report concluding that there was not enough evidence to prove or disprove claims that thimerosal in childhood vaccines causes autism, attention deficit hypersensitivity disorder, or speech or language delay.[21] A more recent report by the committee “favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”[22] Even with this finding, some researchers continue to study the possible links between thimerosal and autism.[23] Today, thimerosal is no longer used in most childhood vaccines, though some forms of influenza vaccine available in multi-dose vials may contain the preservative.[24]

Despite scientific evidence, concerns over thimerosal have led to a public “Green Our Vaccines” campaign, a movement to remove “toxins” from vaccines, for fear that these substances lead to autism. Celebrity Jenny McCarthy, her advocacy group Generation Rescue, and the organization Talk about Curing Autism (TACA) have spearheaded these efforts.[25]

In Conclusion

Although the time periods have changed, the emotions and deep-rooted beliefs—whether philosophical, political, or spiritual—that underlie vaccine opposition have remained relatively consistent since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination.

Last update 10 January 2018


  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ten great public health achievements — United States, 1900-1999. MMWR. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 1999;48 (12):241-243. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  2. Wolfe, R.M., Sharpe, L.K. Anti-vaccinationists past and present. BMJ. 2002d;325:430-432.

  3. Durbach, N. They might as well brand us: Working class resistance to compulsory vaccination in Victorian England. The Society for the Social History of Medicine. 2000;13:45-62.

  4. Porter, D., Porter, R. The politics of prevention: Anti-vaccination and public health in 19th century England. (2.8 MB). Medical History. 1988;32:231-252. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  5. Williamson, S. Anti-vaccination leagues. (288K) Archives of Diseases in Childhood. 1984;59:1195-1196. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  6. Gostin, L. Jacobson vs. Massachusetts at 100 years: Police powers and civil liberties in tension. AJPH. 2005;95:576-581. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  7. Albert, M., Ostheimer, K.G., Breman, J.G. The last smallpox epidemic in Boston and the vaccination controversy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  8. Kulenkampff, M., Schwartzman, J.S., Wilson, J. Neurological complications of pertussis inoculation. (559K) Arch Dis Child. 1974;49:46-49. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  9. Baker, J. The pertussis vaccine controversy in Great Britain, 1974-1986. Vaccine. 2003;21:4003-4011.

  10.  Miller, D.L., Ross, E.M. National childhood encephalopathy study: An interim report. (469K). Br Med J. 1978;2:992–993. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  11. WRC-TV, (Washington, D.C.). DPT : Vaccine Roulette. [Film]; 1982.

  12. Coulter, H., Fisher, B.L. A Shot in the Dark. New York: Penguin Group; 1991

  13. Gangarosa, E.J., Galazka, A.M., Wolfe, C.R., Phillips, L. M., Gangarosa, R. E., Miller, E., Chen, R.T. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: The untold story. The Lancet. 1998;351:356-361.

  14. Wakefield, A. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: Through a dark glass, darkly. Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews. 2001;19:265-283. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  15. Wakefield, A., Murch, S.A., Linnell, J., Casson, D., Malik, M. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet. 1998;351:637-641.

  16. Hackett, A.J. Risk, its perception and the media: The MMR controversy. Community Practitioner. 2008;81:22-25

  17. BBC News. Lead researcher defends MMR study. BBC News. Sunday, 22 February, 2004. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  18. Deer, B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011;342:c5347. Accessed 01/10/2018. Deer B. How the vaccine was meant to make money. BMJ. 2011;342:c5258. Accessed 01/10/2018. Godlee, F., Smith, J., Marcovitch, H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  19. Stratton, K., Gable, A., Shetty, P., McCormick, M. Immunization safety review: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press; 2001. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Information about Thimerosal. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  21. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Immunization safety review: Thimerosal – containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  22. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Immunization safety review: Vaccines and autism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) Project Priority Studies. Accessed 01/10/2018.

  24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Frequently Asked Questions about Thimerosal (Ethyl Mercury). Accessed 01/10/2018.

  25. Kluger, J. Jenny McCarthy on autism and vaccines. Time Magazine. 2009. Accessed 01/10/2018.

Timeline Entry: 1926

Opposition to Vaccination Grows

Despite vaccination’s successes against smallpox, opposition to vaccination continued through the 1920s, particularly against compulsory vaccination. In 1926, a group of health officers visited Georgetown, Delaware, to vaccinate the townspeople. A retired Army lieutenant and a city councilman led an armed mob to force them out, successfully preventing the vaccination attempt.

Posted in AGENDA 2030, AUSTRALIA, HEALTH, New World Order, United Nations, Vaccination Dangers, vaccines, WHO | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Issues

Some expert information that all parents could learn from.


Press Release – World Health Organization Questions Vaccine Safety

Posted in drugs & medication, HEALTH, Public Health, Vaccination Dangers, vaccines | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Upon Whose Side is our Government?

For Aussies, an unusual departure from the Covid Pandemonium!

Craig Isherwood‚ National Secretary
PO Box 376‚ COBURG‚ VIC 3058
Phone: 1800 636 432

Fact: Morrison opposes legislation to absolutely protect deposits

The Morrison government had an opportunity to settle the growing community concern over the security of bank deposits from a “bail-in”. It has failed. The government’s report of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s inquiry into Senator Malcolm Roberts’ Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 is full of worthless legal platitudes that cannot disguise the fact that it does not want to give Australians absolute certainty that deposits cannot be bailed in.

If you are concerned about bail-in, do not let your local MP and Senators be fooled by this report. They are the target of the government’s false assurances. Just as the government in 2018 was able to sneak the crisis resolution powers law through the Senate with only eight Senators present and no formal vote, because most MPs and Senators weren’t paying attention, the government has crafted this report to dupe MPs and Senators into thinking Senator Roberts’ bill isn’t necessary.

Call and email your MP and all 12 Senators in your state to tell them this report is a failure, and demand they vote for Senator Robert’s Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 when it comes before the Senate.

Always remember, Senator Roberts’ amendment, to ensure the conversion and write-off provisions of the 2018 law can’t apply to bank deposits, should have been considered and debated by the Senate back in 2018. It wasn’t, because after One Nation gave the government notice that it intended to move the amendment, the government offered to get their lawyers to check over the amendment, but while One Nation waited to hear back, the government rushed the bill through the Senate when the One Nation Senators weren’t in the chamber. This dirty act by the government proved its determination to block any moves to explicitly protect deposits from its 2018 law, and it has just demonstrated that determination again in this report.

No hearing

The biggest failing of the Senate inquiry into Senator Roberts’ bill was its lack of a public hearing to test the claims made in the submissions. Not holding a public hearing allowed the committee chair, Senator Slade Brockman, to sign off on a report that accepted the claims of Treasury and APRA without question. A public hearing would have allowed experts to show those claims were badly flawed. Outspoken independent economist and former Liberal Party economics advisor John Adams, a key leader of the campaign to clarify the law, said: “This process was a complete whitewash—it would appear that the committee had already formed an established position irrespective of the evidence.” In his dissenting report, Senator Roberts said: “The committee has failed to get to the truth of the matter.”

The report sticks to the government’s position that amending the law to clarify the protection for deposits is unnecessary because there is already “legislative certainty”. It repeats APRA’s and Treasury’s assertions that deposits are protected by APRA’s mandate, depositor preference, and the $250,000 Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) deposit guarantee. But these assertions have been shown to be false, which a public hearing would have revealed.

One of the most telling lines in the report is its concession that the $250,000 FCS deposit guarantee is not perpetually in force, but must first be activated in relation to a specific bank and the government has discretion not to activate it, which the government has never broadcast. The report states: “While it is a decision of the Treasurer to activate the scheme, it is not clear why the Treasurer would choose not to activate the scheme.” That’s the whole point: such unclarity over what the government touts as the primary protection against deposit bail-in is an important reason to amend the law.

The report asserts interpretations of existing laws and regulations that most MPs would take on faith, but on closer inspection the interpretations are false. An egregious example is this sentence about APRA’s prudential standards supposedly protecting investors in so-called hybrid securities, a.k.a. bail-in bonds, which do have conversion and write-off provisions: “The Prudential Standard ensures ADI [bank] customers do not unknowingly purchase a financial instrument to which the conversion and write-off provisions apply.” This is footnoted to a reference to a Prudential Standard APRA issued in 2015. The problem is, this ignores the fact that in 2017, the outgoing boss of securities regulator ASIC, Greg Medcraft, launched a broadside at APRA precisely for allowing retail investors, mums and dads, to buy these securities without understanding their risks of being bailed in. The UK bans retail investors from buying hybrids because they wouldn’t understand the risks.

Medcraft said in Senate testimony on 26 October 2017: “There are two reasons we believe a lot of the retail investors buy these securities. One is they don’t understand the risks that are in over 100-page prospectuses and, secondly—and this is probably for a lot of investors—they do not believe that the government would allow APRA to exercise the option to wipe them out in the event that APRA did choose to wipe them out.” (Emphasis added.) He added: “Yes, they’ll be bailed in. … I do think this is, frankly, a ticking time bomb.”

For the government’s report to blithely assert APRA’s prudential standard provides protections that in the real world it provably does not, is a demonstration of the committee’s extremely poor and shallow analysis.

Do not accept baseless assurances as guarantees! This report is not the final word on the bail-in amendment; the Senators who will vote on it in November have the final word. Call them and your local MP to demand they support the bill. As Senator Roberts wrote: “If the bill does not have any other adverse outcome and seeks simply to reaffirm the meaning of the legislation currently in place, then there is no reason not to pass the bill.”

Call and email the Committee and Senators!

The bottom line is the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 will put the issue beyond all doubt. If it is passed, there can be no bail-in of deposits! Concerned Australians should flood politicians with phone calls and emails demanding they pass Senator Malcolm Roberts’ bill.

Click here for the contact details of your local MP and state’s Senators.

Click here to sign the petition: Hands off our bank deposits—stop ‘bail-in’!

Click here to join the Citizens Party as a member.

Click here to refer others to receive regular email updates from the Citizens Party.

Follow the CEC on Facebook Follow @cecaustralia on Twitter

We hope you found this message useful. As a registered political party‚ the Citizens Party receives email addresses from various sources‚ which it does not pass on to any other organisation. If you would prefer not to receive further emails of this nature at your email address Click here to unsubscribe

Authorised: Robert Barwick‚ 595 Sydney Rd‚ Coburg‚ Vic 3058

Posted in AUSTRALIA, Corruption, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment