The Right to Dignity, the Right to live a Dignified Life is the quintessential Human Right. Civil societies extend that right to prisoners of war and to all criminals. Therefore, ALL citizens of all nations deserve that right and must claim that right.
Most, perhaps all, Governments pay lip service to Human Rights. Most politicians signal their virtue by claiming that they are devoted to protecting the Human Rights of their citizens. Western politicians, in particular, seem to especially enjoy pointing at other nations and accusing them of “gross human rights abuses”. Sadly, they often do this while waging war on spurious grounds against smaller nations as they claim to be doing so to “defend democracy” …… “against tyranny”.
After World War Two, the people of Germany were accused of horrendous crimes against humanity and abuse of Human Rights. To some degree, this was unfair because many German citizens at the time had no idea of the horrors unleashed by their Government on innocent victims. There was no mass media then. People relied upon word of mouth and regional news sheets. But, nonetheless, they were all implicated in the terrible crimes of the Nazi 3rd Reich Government. They all had to come to terms with what had happened.
That dilemma was resolved in the new German Constitution which was adopted on May 23, 1949. The German constitution is known as the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) and serves as the fundamental legal framework for the Federal Republic of Germany. It emphasizes human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law and that has been in the constitution of the reunified Germany since 1990.
Today, the result of all that WW2 horror can be found in the First Article of the German Constitution.
Article 1 of the German Basic Law establishes that human dignity is inviolable, and all state authority is obligated to respect and protect it. It also declares that the German people recognize inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation for community, peace, and justice in the world, and that these basic rights are directly enforceable law for the legislature, executive, and judiciary.
Section 1: “The dignity of man is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority”.
Section 2: The German people acknowledge that human rights are the basis for all community, peace, and justice in the world.
Section 3: The basic rights in the Basic Law are directly enforceable law and bind the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary.
Then there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to consider. The contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions and legal codes. All 193 member states of the UN have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties influenced by the Declaration, with the vast majority ratifying four or more.
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS — adopted at the General Assembly of the United Nations 10th December 1948
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights consists of the following:
The preamble sets out the historical and social causes that led to the necessity of drafting the Declaration.
Articles 1–2 establish the basic concepts of dignity, liberty, and equality.
Articles 3–5 establish other individual rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery and torture.
Articles 6–11 refer to the fundamental legality of human rights with specific remedies cited for their defence when violated.
Articles 12–17 set forth the rights of the individual towards the community, including freedom of movement and residence within each state, the right of property, the right to a nationality and right to asylum.
Articles 18–21 sanction the so-called “constitutional liberties” and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
Articles 22–27 sanction an individual’s economic, social and cultural rights, including healthcare. It upholds an expansive right to an adequate standard of living, and makes special mention of care given to those in motherhood or childhood.
Articles 28–30 establish the general means of exercising these rights, the areas in which the rights of the individual cannot be applied, the duty of the individual to society, and the prohibition of the use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations Organization.
So — What Happened during Covid?
During the Covid event, beginning in 2020, National governments and State governments ignored individual Human Rights matters and imposed draconian, authoritarian measures upon their population with the claim that it was “all for the Greater Good”, “for Public Health”, “for the Protection of the Elderly” and “for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (often referred to as a PHEIC (?“fake”) emergency.
They all used the exact same language, they generated a “Case-Demic” through the use of PCR Tests which had never been used previously to determine infectivity, they never mentioned the possibility of False Positive PCR Tests, they insisted that there were no treatments for this particular virus, they insisted that it was hugely deadly to all age groups and then they stated that the Covid vaccines, after just a few months of relatively small and very limited clinical trials, were “95 % effective” and that they were “safe and effective” with no qualifying explanations of what was meant by these slogans.
Some governments then coerced their populations to take the Covid vaccines through fear and the threat of reprisal. Others went as far as imposing Covid Vaccine Mandates that did not take into account the particular medical circumstances of each individual. These are arguably criminal actions amounting to assault on each individual and also Crimes Against Humanity.
Major Australian Covid Vaccine Mandate and Human Rights Case - Give Send Go - Your Help is Requested in Funding Young Courageous Legal Professional
Go to his Give Send Go funding page at https://www.givesendgo.com/G6H11 and give what you can. $25, $50, $100, $ 1,000, $ 10,000……whatever you can. This is important.
Please READ below (important context) -
“MOST SIGNIFICANT VACCINE MANDATE AND HUMAN RIGHTS CASE IN THE HISTORY OF BRITISH AND AUSTRALIAN LAW – YOUR URGENT ACTION NEEDED BY 19th NOVEMBER
8th November 2025
Background
We now know the gene-based and experimental Covid vaccines were neither safe nor effective. Millions of people worldwide have either died or have suffered (or continue to suffer) serious and/or disabling adverse effects linked directly to these injections. The science is now clear on these facts. There must be accountability and governments must not be allowed to sweep away our human rights and repeat this unprincipled and reckless behaviour.
The Queensland State government imposed Covid vaccine mandates upon the people of Queensland for 4 months in 2021 - 2022 that significantly restricted the civil liberties of any non-vaccinated person. You may not be aware that a remarkable, young, talented and highly motivated legal professional, Jayden Beale, has been tirelessly litigating this case at QCAT (the Qld Civil and Administrative Tribunal) at his own cost for more than 3 years to bring the Queensland Government to justice regarding the unconscionable, unethical and illegal implementation of those Covid vaccine mandates.
Court documents appear to show that the Queensland Chief Health Officer at the time did not give the mandates for any proper public health purpose. In particular, the State Government has refused to provide any evidence that the Covid vaccines prevented transmission of the virus. The Chief Health Officer has since resigned. It is now understood that the legal team at Queensland Health is under internal investigation for “suspected corrupt conduct and/or Public Interest disclosure”.
Your Urgent Action Needed
After continuous and persistent legal action within the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) and under the weight of hundreds of pages of Expert Report submissions written by more than a dozen of some of the most highly qualified clinicians and scientists in Australia (including Emeritus Prof. Robert Clancy and Dr. Phillip Altman), the Queensland Government is refusing to provide any evidence in the matter, despite a Court order to do so by 27th October. Instead, the Qld Government has applied to have the case dismissed in what appears to be a last minute, desperate strategy to avoid having to go to trial. The Applicant (Jayden Beale) is on the verge of an historic and monumental human rights victory and the case is due to be considered o n 21 November at a Directions Hearing.
A Judgement in this case will create legal precedent in human rights and anti-discrimination law and may have an international impact on broader human rights law across the world.
An important part of this case is the recognition of the constitutional right to religious belief including the right to religious exemption from authoritarian Government orders. The Queensland Government is also trying to argue that Christianity, in itself, is not a religion and that a Christian cannot rely on the Bible as the basis for their belief. A Christian, and possibly all other religious people, will therefore be unable to practice their religious beliefs.
The stakes are high and the case is now at a critical point. We need to be as certain as we can of victory. Jayden has decided he needs to appoint a leading Australian King’s Counsel barrister (who is already passionate in Covid-19 matters) to finally and comprehensively win this case for all Australians. The costs we now seek are estimated to be $40,000.
Jayden needs your URGENT HELP.
Go to his Give Send Go funding page at https://www.givesendgo.com/G6H11 and give what you can. $25, $50, $100, $ 1,000, $ 10,000……whatever you can. This is important.
===============================================================
The CMNnews Archive — Searchable — https://cmnnews.substack.com/archive
================================================================
Disclaimer: All content is presented for educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Under no circumstances should it be mistaken for professional advice, nor is it at all intended to be taken as such. The contents simply reflect current newsworthy items on Covid that are freely available. It is subject to error and change without notice. The presence of a link to a website does not indicate approval or endorsement of that web site or any services, products, or opinions that may be offered by them.
Neither CMNnews nor any of its principals or contributors are under any obligation to update or keep current the information contained herein.
Although the information contained is derived from sources which are believed to be reliable, they cannot be guaranteed.
Disclosure: We accept no advertising or compensation, and have no material connection to any products, brands, topics or companies mentioned anywhere on the site.
Fair Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of social significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Thanks for reading CMNNews -- The CREDIBLE Medical News Network Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. RECOMMEND US TO YOUR FRIENDS.
Thanks for reading CMNNews -- The Credible Medical News Network! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
It may possibly be useful for Jayden to be aware that, in September, 2021, I launched a legal challenge against the NT Chief Medical Officer, exploiting the Legal Aid Commission, pointing to how the mRNA mandate violated C S 51, The Privacy Act (1988), and the Nuremberg Code. I may have also mentioned that police repression of subsequent protests would be in violation of the Police Offences Act (1914). I added the bluff that the only legal consequence of breach of Nuremberg was execution.
The CMO, Hugh Crosby Heggie, on anecdotal report, had a mental breakdown and took leave for several months. A stand-in had more audacity and prosecuted the mandate, gleefully enforced by then Chief Minister Michael Gunner. With many Territorians being less conditioned by civil niceities, it was made clear to him that he was responsible for murder and destroyed lives and would be punished accordingly. Evidenty, some punishments were both severe and creative. Eventually, Gunner was reduced to making incoherent and nonsensiscal threats on NT ABC TV (of which his wife was a presenter), and he abruptly resigned.
His replacment was humiliated by a pie in the face; the wielder still facing disproportionate legal repucussions. Popular public sentiment reflects enthusiastic support for pies of more deterrant substance. Many citizens engaged in diligent research and proved the new Chief Ninister to be corrupt, forcing her resignation.
Heggie was rewarded with appointment as Administrator of the NT.
In the coming weeks, i will be returning to my home in Arnhem Land wherein my whereabouts are known only to local Aboriginal clans. Then being beyond practical harrassment, I will commence a campaign of approbrium against Heggie and Gunner.
I am also a member of the CLP, which will one day become an awkward impasse when it comes to prosecuting me. Meanwhile, a clique of business people used the courts with the same intent, to no avail.
I hope the context is of strategic and morale purposes value. As an age pensioner, i cannot assist with $.
This was published today: Unveiling hidden biases that inflated COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety
How misclassification of early post-vaccination deaths distorts mortality rates and public health assessments
Panagis Polykretis
Nov 9
Today, together with Dr. Marco Alessandria, Dr. Giovanni Trambusti, Dr. Giovanni M. Malatesta, and Dr. Alberto Donzelli, we published an crucial peer-reviewed scientific study titled “Classification bias and impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality: the case of the Italian Region Emilia-Romagna” [1]. In this study, we provide the first peer-reviewed evidence, based on real-world data, demonstrating how certain statistical methods have led to an overestimation of the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. This paper will shock the world, because it proves that all scientific studies conducted so far that are affected by this bias should be reassessed.
We addressed a critical bias that can substantially distort real-world evaluations of vaccine effectiveness and safety, known as the “case-counting window bias”. This bias, theorized by Fung et al. [2], occurs because individuals are classified as “unvaccinated” during the first 14 days after receiving the vaccine (the period believed necessary for the immune response to develop fully). As a result, any adverse events, including deaths during this time, are incorrectly attributed to the unvaccinated group, artificially inflating its mortality rate, while simultaneously underestimating mortality among vaccinated individuals.
By analyzing detailed daily data on all-cause mortality and vaccine administration in the Emilia-Romagna region (Italy), obtained through a FOIA request by lawyer Lorenzo Melacarne (in accordance with the art. 5, comma 2 of the Italian Legislative Decree No. 33/2013), we found a clear temporal coincidence between vaccination campaigns and spikes in deaths among those incorrectly classified as unvaccinated during this critical window (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The chart illustrates the daily mortality rate per 100,000 individuals (age group 70-79), comparing those vaccinated (represented by the solid red line) with those unvaccinated (shown by the solid green line). Additionally, it shows the cumulative number of vaccinations administered with at least one dose (indicated by the red dotted line) [taken from Alessandria et al., 2025].
Our statistical analysis demonstrated significant differences in mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, during the critical 14-day post-vaccination window when misclassification occurs. Importantly, these mortality differences cannot be explained solely by COVID-19 deaths, which accounted for only about 9% of all deaths in Italy in 2021. Even after excluding COVID-19-related deaths, the disparity between groups remained significant, indicating systematic misclassification rather than true vaccine benefit. We also observed that the difference diminished with age, likely reflecting the increased comorbidity burden in older individuals that influences overall mortality risk (for more detailed information, please see the article, which is published in open access format and freely available to everyone).
Our findings suggest a harvesting effect, whereby vulnerable individuals succumb shortly after vaccination, but their deaths are wrongly counted among the unvaccinated. This misclassification masks potential serious vaccine-related adverse events occurring shortly post-vaccination, such as severe allergic reactions, cardiovascular events, or autoimmune responses.
Moreover, the use of similar classification practices by many countries, including the United Kingdom, suggests that this bias is widespread internationally. For example, UK public health guidelines classify individuals as unvaccinated for 14 to 21 days following vaccination, which leads to the misattribution of early adverse events.
It is crucial to recognize that the case-counting window bias is related to another well-established phenomenon in observational research known as the immortal time bias. Prof. Norman Fenton and Prof. Martin Neil were among the first to identify how these biases shift cases and deaths in a manner that exaggerates the apparent efficacy and safety of vaccines by creating misleading temporal categorizations. Prof. Fenton himself has referred to such manipulations as a “cheap trick” — a statistical illusion that artificially enhances perceived vaccine effectiveness [3]. Moreover, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD had already identified and highlighted this significant statistical inconsistency affecting vaccine efficacy data as early as October 2021, underscoring the need for critical scrutiny of how vaccination status and case counting windows distort perceived vaccine performance [4].
Our findings have important implications: failing to account for these biases can lead to substantial overestimation of vaccine benefits and safety, resulting in misguided public health policies. Therefore, the scientific community must recognize and adjust for these biases to produce more accurate and transparent assessments of vaccine risks and benefits.
In conclusion, our study shows that the case-counting window bias inflates mortality rates wrongly attributed to the unvaccinated, while simultaneously underestimating adverse reactions occurring shortly after vaccination. To ensure reliable interpretation of observational vaccine studies and informed public health decisions, it is crucial to correct this bias alongside the immortal time bias. Furthermore, all existing vaccine effectiveness studies should be reassessed for these biases. A key part of this process is having accurate and timely data on individuals’ vaccination status, which allows proper classification of cases and deaths and supports a more reliable evaluation of vaccine safety and effectiveness in real-world settings.
References
[1] M. Alessandria, G. Trambusti, G.M. Malatesta, P. Polykretis, A. Donzelli, Classification bias and impact of COVID-19 vaccination on all-cause mortality: the case of the Italian region Emilia-Romagna, Autoimmunity 58 (2025) 2562972. https://doi.org/10.1080/08916934.2025.2562972.
[2] K. Fung, M. Jones, P. Doshi, Sources of bias in observational studies of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness, J Eval Clin Pract 30 (2024) 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13839.
[3] N. Fenton, M. Neil, Vaccine efficacy “cheap trick” by exclusion, Where Are the Numbers? By Norman Fenton and Martin Neil (2023). https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/vaccine-efficacy-cheap-trick-by-exclusion.
[4] J.L.-W. PhD, How The Definition of “Fully Vaccinated” Misleads People on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety & Efficacy: An Explanation For CNN’s Drew Griffin, Popular Rationalism (2021). https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/how-the-definition-of-fully-vaccinated.